United Way and You

My conversation with our United Way rep.

Him: Why haven't you contributed?

Me: Because I donate directly to (the charity of my choice)

Him: But (the charity of my choice) is on the United Way list. You can say who you want your money to go to.

Me: Because I want my money going directly to (the charity of my choice) and not to the six-figure salary of the United Way chairman.

Him: (silence)

 

The point is, and was, that being so cozy with this organization had made my former newspaper biased to the point it wouldn't print negative stories about it, even true ones. That's a real danger. What do you not understand?

And back to the investigation, Mr. Lum: how long have you been sexually repressed?

 

And my point is, and was, that there are a lot more evil organizations than the United Way. You then went off on a tangent about how that wasn't what you meant, when in fact it was. And is.

What do you not understand?

 

So if money were to come up missing at the local United Way I should wait until I've finished my investigation of Al Qaeda?

 

You never said it came up missing, though. You don't want to donate, so you claim the organization is bad.

 

I read it as the reverse: He doesn't donate because he thinks the organization's bad

 

And it's bad because he doesn't want to donate.

 

There have been plenty of posts on this thread illustrating why people are reluctant to donate to the United Way, using solid evidence. Not one said "it's bad because write-brained didn't donate."

 

I don't think a newspaper should get in bed with with any organization, no matter its credentials or purpose. That's why I don't give to United Way.

I think the relationship is improper and I think its inappropriate to strongly encourage reporters to give to an organization that they should have an arm's length relationship with. There may come a day when we will need to scrutinize and report on that organization's dealings. It will only make the newspaper look bad if United Way looks bad, which may encourage some newspapers not to write anything bad about United Way ...

Simply put: It's a conflict of interest.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

I can't believe I've never heard of this. The only charity we get harangued about at my shop is NIE, which, of course, isn't really a charity in any legitimate sense of the word.

 

This reminds me of the Dilbert show (yes, I'm of the 27 people who watched its TV incarnation) where the reward for contributing to the United Way-style program in the office was a T-shirt that said "I get to keep my job." one
--
There are charities I support -- ones that I have a relationship with and ones that I know share my personal values. None of them are connected to the United Way. So, I always threw the UW stuff out as quickly as I got it (of course, making sure to keep the NFL master schedule that came along with it before pitching the rest).

When the new EIC's wife became the local United Way director, I thought it might get a bit uncomfortable around campaign time, but no pressure was ever put on me (or anyone else in the newsroom, AFAIK) to contribute at my old shop.

 

I don't like donating to any organization that makes an industry of raising donations, because I'm uneasy about how much of the money reaches the cause. When I get an unsolicited phone call for a contribution to whatever cause, I always ask them to send me the prospectus and contribution forms in writing. Invariably, they say they're not set up that way, and I tell them I regret that I can't help them.

I prefer to donate my money directly, because those of us in journalism don't have big discretionary bucks. For example, I donate to Susan G. Komen, the Jimmy V Fund, scholarship programs at two universities and a private high school I attended, among others (charities, not schools). I feel I get a bigger bang for my buck donating directly. Plus some of us work for companies that will match contributions to educational institutions.