A commentary article in The Guardian reviewed Binky’s case and provided some in-depth
discussions over the nature of charity work in today’s consumerism environment. Leo Benedictus gave a retrospective analysis on charity paying celebrities to front their campaigns and provided an alternative perspective for Binky’s case: it is OK to take money from charity as long as it is well-justified.
According to a series of interviews and talks with charity officials and workers, Benedictus (2015) told us that it is true that payment issue causes some obstacles for charity because they cannot guarantee the appearance or the behaviour of celebrities when they do not have financial ties. Indeed, charity works involve many procedures which do have expenses, and taking business decisions sometimes could be a reasonable justification for smoother corporation between celebrities and charities. Brockington(2014) also suggested
that it is important for charity organisations to have clear guidance about how things need to be done. He identified a risk of free endorsement that it would “deprive public figures”.
In addition, Benedictus revealed the framing of news coverage in Binky’s case: “The charity declared an income of £285.8m last year and decided to spend £3,000 on her. That’s like someone with the average British salary of £26,500 splurging 28p.” This analogy makes the payment not so unacceptable for readers but there is no media giving this information.
Word count: 241