The British media

Philanthropy UK asked five leading journalists for their views on the role of the media in promoting a culture of giving in Britain, and are delighted to publish their responses below. They argue that media coverage of philanthropy is changing for the better, but say that, in an environment where human interest stories are what sells, the best way to increase coverage of giving is for more philanthropists to come forward, to "stand up and be counted".

The panel:

• Matthew d'Ancona is Editor of The Spectator
• Alison Benjamin is Deputy Editor, Society Guardian
• Stephen Cook is Editor of Third Sector
• Alastair McCall is Editor of The Sunday Times Giving List
• John Prideaux is The Economist's political correspondent

British philanthropy has changed considerably over the past five years. What do you see as the main trends?

Matthew d'Ancona: The main trends are a growing consensus that Government cannot do everything, but a growing belief that the argument doesn't stop there. Global awareness has been transformed by the Web and the proliferation of television channels. The rise of 'ethical consumerism' and CSR shows that people want to feel good about the goods they buy and the companies they work for or invest in. So the context has changed radically.

John Prideaux: One good development has been the application of more a more business-like approach to philanthropy, exemplified by organisations like New Philanthropy Capital. On the negative side, I do not think we have seen an increase in the amount of philanthropy that is commensurate with the amount of wealth that has been created in Britain during the past fifteen years.

Alison Benjamin: People are becoming philanthropists much younger because younger people are making huge fortunes in the City or are selling their successful businesses for huge sums: mostly men in their 40s who don't want to wait until they have retired to give away money to charity and who want a more hands-on role in philanthropy. They also take a more business-like approach to philanthropy, viewing it as an investment, leading to the rise in venture philanthropists who often want a stake in the organisations they are funding. Even inheritors of wealth - such as Sigrid Rausing and younger members of the Sainsbury family - want a more hands-on role in giving away their fortunes. Still, the rise in philanthropy represents the age of colossal wealth rather than the age of charity.

Stephen Cook: A lot of relatively young people have become very rich in Britain in the last decade, and many of them have the kind of social conscience that makes them want to give something back to society. They don't always want to give through established charities, and often want to do things their own way. This makes for a lot of new initiatives and ideas, and a sense of turbulence as well. One example which illustrates this syndrome is the Private Equity Foundation and the negative publicity it has attracted. Other trends are the growth in support and advice organisations for philanthropists.

Alastair McCall: The main trend is towards 'venture philanthropy' - the ring-fencing of money to be spent charitably within the business of the person donating it. Not only does this allow the funds to grow as the philanthropist's business grows, but also it gives them a greater sense of 'ownership' of the charitable funds. Increasingly, today's philanthropist does not want to hand over large sums of money for others to invest on their behalf. They want direct involvement in the process of giving and often want to put the giving itself on more of a business footing. Another means by which they can have more control over how their giving is directed is by setting up their own charitable trust. All of which presents a challenge to established charities seeking to attract large-scale donations.

There is a widely held perception that giving by the wealthy is generally portrayed negatively by the media. Do you think that this is the case? Why or why not?

JP: I don't think that this is true any more. The negative portrayals of philanthropy were really a reflection of attitudes to wealth in Britain. If you had lots of money, then you were supposed to keep quiet about it. But that is changing. There is more conspicuous consumption now. And people are more used to the idea that those who are very good at what they do will earn lots of money.

AM: No, I think that we are moving away from the knee-jerk media response to large-scale giving that is summarised best by "it must be some kind of tax dodge". The media is keen to play its part in championing the global issues that face us today, whether it be AIDS, global warming or the nagging problems across much of the Third World. The Sunday Times has placed the Giving List on the opening pages of the Rich List for the past two years (and conducted the survey for six years in all) as an indication of how important we believe it is for us as a newspaper to give a lead in encouraging philanthropy - not just among the wealthiest, but across society in general.

Md'A: I certainly hope that is not the case. Giving by the wealthy is obviously, on principle, a very good thing. What may be true is that - as trust in political behaviour has plummeted - so exploration of motive has become more central to journalism. We are more inclined to ask: why did s/he do that, say that, give that? But I do not think that most journalists regard philanthropy as suspect. Quite the opposite.

AB: Giving by the wealthy may be perceived as generally portrayed negatively by the media because journalists like myself put the giving in context. For instance, studies by the Charities Advisory Fund and the Institute of Fiscal Studies show that the richest 10% give less than 1% of their income to charity, compared to the poorest 10% handing over 3%. So the super-wealthy are also the super-tight. We also ask whether charities should be dependent for funding on the whims, vanities and values of the super rich. However, an interview I conducted with Sigrid Rausing a few years ago about her foundation was very positive about its interesting and important work, and shows that, at its best, philanthropy can fund risk-taking or unfashionable projects that democratically elected governments or corporates may be wary of supporting.

SC: There is a sense that rich givers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they seek or agree to publicity, then they run the risk of being portrayed by the media as vain and egotistical. If they keep quiet about what they do, they can be portrayed as shadowy and secretive. Also, rich people may have good reasons for not wanting to attract attention to the fact that they are rich. It's a cultural question which plays differently in different countries. Perhaps things are changing a bit here, to become more like the US. The awards run by the Beacon Fellowship may be making it easier for givers to 'come out' more safely. Sir Tom Hunter has managed to do publicity without being damaged by it.

Philanthropy UK promotes charitable giving as a positive act of civic participation. What role can or should the media play in supporting a welcoming environment for givers of all wealth levels?

AM: The media needs human interest stories and charities need the oxygen of publicity. Charities and the media, therefore, can help each other. I read countless stories in the local and regional media of people from all walks of life raising money for good causes, whether it be through completion of fun runs, abseils and other sporting endeavours, or by using their ingenuity to raise cash for a cause. By highlighting their efforts, the media helps stimulate giving to the charities concerned. Many media outlets also champion their own chosen charity at Christmas, with newspapers regularly raising in excess of £1m or match-funding the charity of their readers.

AB: The media could be receptive to running positive stories about giving - but only if the stories have a strong human interest, are innovative and allow the media to examine the giving in context. The media's role is not to boost the ego of wealthy givers by running public relations-style puff pieces.

Md'A: I think that the media has to be cheerleader and watchdog. It is entitled and has a duty to keep an eye on charities and how they spend their money. At the same time, titles which are philosophically supportive of charitable giving can also do a lot to raise awareness. It's a balance. The Spectator, for instance, has run articles that are cautious about particular charities. But - to take an example - I conducted a long interview with Jeffrey Sachs earlier this year which was very positive about his work and menu of proposals both for individual givers and government donors.

JP: The media isn't very good at supporting. Journalists don't generally see it as their role to prop things up. That said, there are plenty of wealthy people who would like to be seen in glossy magazines. In America, one way to do this is to give generously. Perhaps charities should be think more about getting coverage in Grazia than in the broadsheets.

What would encourage the British media to increase its coverage of philanthropy?

SC: Various media will approach the subject in their way, according to their own lights and the perceived interests of their readers. I wouldn't see it as the job of the media to either support or not support a welcoming environment for givers. Increased coverage of philanthropy would result from helping the various media to find the kind of philanthropy stories which fit with their approach and readership - horses for courses, from the FT to OK magazine.

Md'A: The media operate in an environment that is competitive in a way that would have seemed impossible only five years ago. We all jostle for attention in a very noisy marketplace! So journalists are always looking for stories that make impact. Where philanthropy is concerned, association with celebrities, though often treated with scepticism, always attracts attention: never forget that most media now work, first and foremost, visually. Pop stars are more trusted as brands than are politicians. Seasonal appeals remain very popular as the Daily and Sunday Telegraph show year after year. Ultimately, however, what makes the difference is always human interest, something that puts flesh on the bones of a moral argument and brings it to life. Statistical stories will make a page lead in a broadsheet, but it is the narrative of an individual affected by charitable giving that sticks in the mind.

AB: If more philanthropists with interesting stories who are giving away their money in innovative ways were willing to be interviewed, it would encourage more coverage. In my experience they are very wary of coming forward because they don't want to have to answer any questions that examine/probe/challenge/raise issues about philanthropy. A journalist's job is to challenge and to raise the questions the reader wants answered. It's not enough that a wealthy person is giving away a few million pounds. That in itself is not of interest. The human interest is the motivation, their background, how they are giving it away and to whom.

AM: Traditionally, the sort of coverage I have described in response to question 3 above falls down when it comes to philanthropy among the wealthiest in society, which is often due to the reticence of many of those involved to go public. Charities need to persuade some of their big givers that their civic duty extends beyond the act of giving, to encouraging others to do likewise - at all levels of society - through talking about it and identifying themselves with the causes they support. In a media world that is often personality-driven, the more people in the public eye who are willing to stand up and be counted for their charitable activities, the more publicity their actions will generate. Anonymous giving prompts anonymous coverage.

JP: Better data would be a huge help. Journalists like new trends, and it is hard to have a new trend without any decent numbers. At the moment it is sometimes impossible to know what is actually going on out there.

Back to top>>