Philanthropy's Next Controversy, Coming to A TV Near You

by Nathaniel Whittemore

categories: Dissent, Media, philanthropy

Published August 25, 2009 @ 07:02PM PT

Michael Valmont-Selkirk, the new face of philanthropy?

If you thought the NBC series The Philanthropist made some waves, you ain't seen nothing yet.

This fall, the Canadian cable channel Showcase will debut "The Foundation," an extremely unfriendly skewering of a fictional philanthropist who runs the foundation begun by his death-bedridden tycoon father with all the cynical, corrupt aplomb you would expect from a TV anti-hero.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy's Give and Take blog wrote about the show this afternoon and it's already begun to make waves around the philanthropy Twittersphere, with Tactical Philanthropy's Sean Stannard-Stockton saying "OMG. If South Park re-did The Philanthropist. Appalling." and "Philanthrocapitalism" author Matthew Bishop writes "This may be a work of genius..."

So far, all we have is the trailer, which as you can see for yourself, isn't super kind in it's stereotyping of the field:

So what will brew up? Here are some of my predictions.

1. The people who are more inclined to like it or at least give it a pass will argue that it's the corrupt lead character, not the field of nonprofit work in general that is the subject of lampoon. They will say that while this guy is clearly a jerk, he's less and less the face of philanthropy. And at the end of the day, this is just a work of fiction.

2. People who inclined to be either offended or frustrated by the show will be less forgiving of a parody of a stereotype that they have been working to shift. They will recognize the power that media has to shape general cultural attitudes, and worry that a general tone in the conversation about philanthropy being in the shape of characters on The Philanthropist and The Foundation threatens to re-institutionalize a view of neo-colonial philanthropy.

3. There will be a lot of people who actually think that the character in the show strikes pretty close to home, and that the philanthropic pursuits of the ultra-wealthy who would use a last minute show of generosity as a salve for a questionable life is worthy of being ridiculed. They would point out the deep, rich undercurrent of critique that is essential to the health of philanthropy. Or they would just laugh, believing that charity is an out-dated, out-modded approach to changing the world.

So what do I think? A few things. First, it will only matter if it's funny and captivating. It has to be a good show before anyone in the general public will really pay attention. Second, it will only matter if enough people watch it (so far, the YouTube video below has a staggering ~330 views). Third, it will only matter if it becomes evidence of a larger meta-narrative that defines philanthropy in this sort of harsh light.

And that's the real rub of it. The general public's interaction with philanthropy tends tends to come in the form of the media that philanthropic organizations create about themselves, and the opportunities they provide people to get involved. There's something immensely rewarding about making a difference, which is why people like giving experiences (whether it's time or money) where they feel a part of something bigger than themselves.

So at the end of the day, the thing that will impact the general perception of philanthropy is it's efficacy and engagement. Does it solve problems? Does it demonstrate that the world is better for it being there? Does it use resources efficiently? Does it provide opportunities for it's staff to contribute their best talents and their volunteers and supporters to contribute their full range of assets? Is it honest and authentic? Is it actually making a dent?

More than any television show, this is what it's about. Brand matters, but the best way to be seen as good is to actually be good.