American Idol and Poverty

My wife and I don't watch or follow American Idol. Actually, with an active toddler at home, we don't watch much TV other than Blues Clues and the Wiggles. So I certainly did not think that I would blog about American Idol (although it will be interesting to see my page view numbers once I do!).

This morning, however, I read E.J. Dionne Jr.'s column about the decision of the producers of American Idol to use the program to increase awareness of poverty:


Is there something worse than a multimillion-dollar televised entertainment operation patting itself on the back for weeks on end in celebration of its brilliantly inventive and groundbreaking approach to philanthropy?

Actually, there is something worse: a total indifference to human suffering. If pampered stars and their corporate patrons have a hankering for public approval or -- could it be? -- a sense of authentic obligation, perhaps that behavior should be encouraged.


Those among the 30 million or so regular watchers of Fox's "American Idol" (yes, I confess I'm one) will know I'm referring to the "Idol Gives Back" spectacular that airs tonight and tomorrow to raise money for poor children in the United States and Africa.

. . .

What marks a genuine cultural change is "Idol's" interest in poverty itself. The extravaganza is not just about collecting money for some good causes (America's Second Harvest; Save the Children; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and UNICEF, among others). The program will, in effect, be a sustained, two-night argument to "Idol" viewers that they might have an obligation to do something about injustice and the pain of others. This is subversive.


Read it all. I agree with E.J.--the producers are taking a risk with this emphasis on poverty. This is not a "safe" cause like disease or disaster relief, but instead focuses on scandal of extreme poverty throughout the world and devastating poverty in the United States. Let's hope it works.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Giles Fraser on Gay Marriage

Image
The Rev. Gileas Fraser offers thoughtful piece on gay marriage on BBC Radio this morning: Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Book of Common Prayer was being put together, marriage was said to be for three purposes: First, It was ordained for the procreation of children … Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication .. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. How do these three concerns relate to the prospect of gay marriage? The third priority insists that marriage is designed to bring human beings into loving and supportive relationships. Surely no one can deny that homosexual men and women are in as much need of loving and supportive relationships as anybody else. And equally deserving of them too. This one seems pretty clear. The second priority relates to the encouragement of monogamy. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rig...
Read more

Religious Map of United States

Image
This map shows which of eight major Christian denominations has a plurality in the United States, county by county. the map obviously does not capture the full story given the rich diversity of Christian denominations in the United States, but it does show much of the regionalization of the major denominations. The map and analysis can be found here . Hat Tip to my friend Jim .
Read more

Faith, Reason and Science, Part X: Some Humor and Serious Ponderings By A Thoughtful Atheist

Update : Welcome Digg visitors. For more of my posts on Science (including my Science and Faith series), go here .Interested in my take on atheism? Then try here . For my comments about the experience of being dugg, so here . Original Post : Eric Michael Johnson is a primatologist and endocrinologist completing a PhD at Duke University, and he blogs at the Primate Diaries . He has two recent posts that are worth reading. First, some provocative humor: Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns. "Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5. "Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended. "Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles...
Read more