There seems to be quite a number of shows that feature celebrities going overseas to help out in charity work. Be in being involved in building new facilities for schools or hospices, highlighting the plight of those in need.
I feel that it is actually quite redundant, or rather, the good they bring is only short term.
Why do I say so?
1) They are not directly involved in the charity work. That is to say that do not plan, they are not involved from the scratch, do not partake in decision making. They are just attached personnels, doing the same amount or even lesser work than an average volunteer.
2) You may say that the biggest benefit is raising the public's awareness, hence, more funds may pour into these charity organisation and the less fortunate benefits. And may I ask how many of those sitting in front of the television watching the programme actually feel so compelled that they make the effort to pledge money, time or both?
3) You cannot deny that only things that are entertainment worthy make it onto television. So one motive of such programme is inevitably to draw more viewers. It sorts of creates a "feel good" factor among audiences towards the broadcasting station and fosters loyalty towards the broadcasting station in the long run.
4) The less fortunate have absolutely zero idea who these celebrities are at all. Let alone own a television set. Unless you look like Guan Yin Ma or Jesus. So it does not really matter to them who does the interview. All I can say is that these shows bring a novelty to their otherwise full of hardship life.
5) Wouldnt the money used for flying the artists, equipment, lodging, transport and logistics used be put to better use if it was directly donated to the charity organisation responsible for the less fortunate?!? These celebs go over to these rural areas and bemoan the pitiful plight of the less fortunate, astonished by the lack of basic hygiene, lack of proper cover and almost always end up teary eyed. How, may I ask is this helping those less fortunate in the long run? They do not need pitying, what they need is solid concrete help, not blinding spot lights emphasizing the lack of portable water and microphones that pick up sounds.
6)I think the only good is spreading awareness. How we are "so fortunate as compared" to other people residing in other parts of the world. But even this, I feel is overplayed. It is mentioned so causally, like remarking how the weather is, or asking if one has eaten dinner. People just dish it out as and when they like it, however they feel appropriate. They do not really "feel" the emotion behind these string of words. Especially youths. I think we are too used to our elders ranting the above mentioned phrase, we just take it for granted. I think the only way to truly understand is to live they way these unfortunate people have.
7) Why the hell are you so concerned about people abroad when they are fellow countrymen dying of hunger in your country??!! Shouldnt we reach out to help our fellow countrymen? I see trips being made out to around the region, but never to local hospices/hospitals etc. Are they not worthy of our time, money or both?
8) How many people actually bother remembering these shows and make the effort to call the broadcasting centres to enquire how they might help to alleviate the dire situation faced? And the effects of such shows? Do the benefits go into the long run or short? With or without your shows, these people still have to battle impossible odds daily.
9) And many of us simply watch, feel for these less fortunate, make a mental note to help the less fortunate and forgot moments later. That thought pushed to almost last priority taken up by other material wants. Yes, I am one of them.
Perhaps the main motive is to diversify the broadcasting centre's variety, or a sort of a community outreach programme, I do not know. But what I do know is that if I were to pledge my time and money, I make sure I do something which is deemed useful. Not show, tell and forget.