I did not see this coming at all. Obviously, neither did Oprah Winfrey.
On August 31, Winfrey and Dwayne Johnson united on their Instagram and TikTok accounts to promote their People’s Fund of Maui, which they had co-launched with a combined $10 million donation. The fund would support the victims of the Maui wildfires, and O joined with The Rock to call on the public for more contributions. The following accompanied their joint video, shot in Hawaii, naturally:
The reaction on social media was swift, angry and nasty. Oprah has a net worth at $2.5 billion (Johnson is a relative pauper with just $270 million), and critics were enraged to see the world’s richest woman asking the little people for money.
The posters complained they were already living “paycheck-to-paycheck” while the two celebrities, O especially, could address the problem without much sacrifice at all “I would but I’m broke…you two got this though!” one commenter wrote “Billionaire asking for money from the poor, what a joke,” another said.
Is this a sea change in the public attitude toward celebrities? I’ve never thought of celebrity appeals on behalf of charities this way. Who ever attacked Jerry Lewis for not giving more of his money to his “kids” instead of hosting a telethon once a year? But I have to say, it’s a valid point, especially when the celebrity making an appeal is as rich as Oprah.
Yet Oprah didn’t get it. She was so disoriented that her reaction was to see herself as a victim, saying in interviews that she was “terrorized and vilified” online and now had more empathy for teenagers bullied on social media. Her defense did not go down well. “Did Oprah just double down and gaslight us??” one viewer wrote of Oprah’s comments. “She still not getting it,” another said. TV personality Nick Cannon piled on, commenting on his “Daily Cannon” podcast, “It’s in poor taste for a billionaire to ask anyone for money. I don’t care what the situation is.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is Oprah being unfairly criticized?
________________
Ethics Alarms 
Yes, I think she was. The whole idea behind such a plea is to allow people to believe they are helping. If she had footed the entire bill, nobody else could have gotten that good feeling.
I concur wit DD. It is not appropriate to hold one person to cover all costs because they have the money. At least she is doing something and ponied up a sizable chunk of change first. I don’t see Jeff Bezos or anyone from the Heinz family putting anything up. This attitude is no different than demanding the 1% to pay more taxes so the masses get more stuff.
She’s not being unfairly criticized for her reaction to the criticism. She is being unfairly criticized for not donating more of her money to the cause.
Oprah, like anyone else, rich or poor, has the right to do with her money what she wishes. She can donate $1, $1 million, $10 million or $1 billion, if she wishes. Or nothing at all.
But Oprah cannot fund every good cause herself. Even her money will eventually run out. It’s not wrong to encourage others to donate to those undergoing hardship. Didn’t schoolchildren send their pennies in to build the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty? What about sending dimes in for the March of Dimes?
Many Americans are struggling right now. But, and I’m going to through this out here, most Americans are not poor. They are broke.
Most Americans live in at least one room with a real roof, four walls and a real floor, with indoor plumbing, hot and cold running water, electricity, more than one suit of clothing and a daily job to go to for which they receive a consistent salary and are able to buy food that gives them a diverse diet.
The people complaining to Oprah have internet access. Why not donate the amount of money they would have spent on overpriced Starbucks drinks? Or Netflix? Or uber rides?
This all goes back to my Deep Pockets Rationalization from May. Society now expects that people who have more money should pay for everything regardless of fault. Oprah didn’t cause the fires. The Rock didn’t cause them. But because they are offering the ability to fund a relief effort that will go straight to fire victims, they are now targets for Deep Pockets extortion attempts – You have more money than I do, so you must pay.
It’s no way for a society to operate.
I completely agree. Criticism of The Rock and Oprah is unwarranted. The idea behind the attacks on The Rock and Oprah is that they have more than enough money so they should simply write checks to the people affected/effected by these disasters. The underlying assumption is that society is entitled to their wealth. Rush’s “Anthem” contains this lyric:
“Live for yourself, there’s no one else more worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more”
Therein lies the rub.
jvb
Actually, they should write checks to the people bitching about them John. That’s the message.
Yep. I could use a check or two. “Hey, Oprah! I need help!” “Hey, Rock, send some cash my way!”
jvb
I agree with your general principles here. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see Oprah as the poster child for those principles. $2.5 billion is a figure that most people cannot get their heads around in terms of personal wealth; that and Oprah’s politics make it difficult for many to take her admonitions seriously.
It’s how communism works. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.
I have numerous thoughts running through my head…
a. Virtue-signaling comes in all sizes, and when you’re a billionaire, the size can be very large. The $10m from Winfrey and Johnson is unlikely to be matched by any single donation, it’s a very small percentage of either’s net worth, and it’s being done in a very public way.
b. I wonder if most affected residents have insurance that is covering their losses. Is this fund for those without insurance or for gaps in coverage? Just thinking out loud here…
c. Some people are looking for ways to help those on Maui, so this might be a good avenue for it. That’s especially true if all – or nearly all – the donations really go directly to residents. How much Winfrey and Johnson gave shouldn’t matter if there’s something I want to donate, whether is $5 or $50,000.
d. As you wrote, it’s not the first time celebrities have pimped a cause and put some seed money in. What are we to say of Marlo Thomas, Jennifer Aniston, and others who encourage us to give to St. Jude, while having sums of money far beyond what nearly all of us could claim? How much have they donated to the Hospital? Are they paid by the Hospital to solicit our money? Are we angered by those appeals for money?
e. There is a lot of animosity – thanks in large part to those on Oprah’s ideological side of the fence – towards wealthy people, especially those who are seen to somehow be flaunting it. Some would (and obviously do) see this fund as Oprah (and Dwayne) parading their money in front of them, yet not really “giving enough to the meet the need they seem so concerned about.”
Having written all that, my answer is “yes, but no.” The backlash is unwarranted. The pair are donating a LOT of money to a cause and those people getting irate about it are – to a degree – just hating on the rich…and wishing they weren’t rich. On the other side, they should have seen that potential and just donated their money privately without any recognition. It’s possible their desire to be seen and applauded by everyone came back to bite them.
I think there is more to the vitriol aimed at Oprah than simply money complaints. There are theories all over the interwebs that the less affluent areas of Lahaina were burned down on purpose to force people off the land because rich people wanted it.
The population of Lahaina and Kula is 20000 combined. For $12,000 a year for everyone would be $240 million.
Neither the Rock nor Oprah could sustainably support this initiative. Oprah would have to sell of her entire media empire within just a few years. Dwayne would have to sell everything after a single year.
Then the billionaires who bought up her assets (which would be worthless without Oprah’s name on them, mind you), would be criticized for investing their money rather than supporting Hawaii directly. As AM Golden pointed out, this is no way for a society to operate.
Oprah (and most million/billionaires)’s fortunes mostly exist on paper. Value is shuffled from one investment portfolio to another, with cash only intermittently used as an intermediary.
No one person has a billion dollars in CASH sitting around. Even if one did, dumping CASH at a problem just causes inflation, because cash must be proportional to available resources. If resources are scarce, excess cash just drives up the prices.
Billionaires are billionaires because they buy things that are valuable to other billionaires. This doesn’t mean they disproportionately control resources that would benefit us at the bottom if their wealth were redistributed. Only a billionaire would buy a billion dollars of stock in another company. If nobody were willing to pay a billion dollars for that stock, the stock would be worthless, and the purported billionaire holding that stock would not be one for much longer.
If Oprah split her fortune evenly, across the world, each person would get 30 cents. Among just Americans, each citizen would get $7 stock. She is hoarding one extra happy meal from every American (and only if a buyer could be found for her stock)!
Oprah is not just being unfairly criticized for sponsoring this fundraiser, but hysterically so.
“No one person has a billion dollars in CASH sitting around.” Au contraire, Rich. Just ask AOC. The federal government does. No problemo.
I considered adding a line to that effect; billions in COVID relief dumped while resources were limited (supply chain!). Now boom, everything at the Dollar Store now costs $1.25….
This is an interesting case. Yes, Oprah will still be ridiculously wealthy after a multi-million dollar donation to the cause. And yes, it’s a little arrogant and perhaps narcissistic to bypass the myriad experienced and reputable charities already at work on Maui to set up an independent operation. Oprah and the Rock are certainly looking to be recognized as the good guys in this endeavor without feeling a lot of financial pain. So there’s at least a scintilla of legitimacy to the criticism.
But I did a little math. Let’s assume Oprah contributed half of that opening $10 million. Her net worth is greater than mine by more than a couple of digits, and I’m guessing that’s true of virtually if not literally everyone who reads Jack’s blog. But $5 mil is a healthy chunk of change. I did a little math: if I were to make a contribution that matched hers as a function of net worth, it would be about ten times greater than any cash contribution I’ve ever given to a single organization in a single year. And I don’t consider myself particularly stingy.
This is completely apart from the apt observations of previous commenters here that Oprah, the Rock, or anybody else can do with their legally obtained money whatever the hell they want. Give it all to the Moonies (do they still exist?), use a couple of Benjamins to light the grill… or just sit on it à la Scrooge McDuck. Would I make other choices? Sure. I’d also make different choices than those of my best friends. So what?
If Oprah wants to start a new charity, so be it, provided only that it does what it says it will do and funnels the money into the hands of the people who need it rather than into administrative costs. And if she wants to encourage others to be part of the process, that’s fine, too… or even admirable. Dragin_dragon’s point about having people feel like they’re part of the solution is well taken.
The problem, it would seem, is mentioning the amount of the seed money: a reminder that these two people can make individual contributions that far exceed the net worth of most Americans. They’re not like us, and seem to want to remind us of that fact, even as they seek our assistance. Moreover, neither of the people at the center of this brouhaha are exactly famous for their humility, so there’s some confirmation bias at work, too. (Is it worth noting here that over a dozen A-list actors have donated $1 million or more apiece to support striking SAG/AFTRA members? I don’t see a lot of criticism of them.)
I think there’s enough in the behavior of the principals to make a cynical observer (moi) raise an eyebrow, but the answer to the closing question, “Is Oprah being unfairly criticized?”, is in the affirmative.
Appearances. They are both in an industry that values appearance. What appearance were they attempting to associate themselves with? Were they merely attempting to associate they’re good image to fund raising so that people would like the personal act of giving away money like buying a box of Wheatties? Or, were they ingratiating themselves to boost they’re image?
If they had partnered and said that they were initiating a dollar for dollar matching fund raiser, they’re appearance would have accomplished both goals.
I think that’s how celeb fundraisers normally work. They offer to match your donation, which sends the message “YOU decide how much to squeeze us for!”
As others have stated, it’s their money and they’re free to do (or not do) with it as they please. The backlash is completely unwarranted. Having said that, I bet Winfrey and Johnson now realize they should have just donated their money privately without any announcement. It’s possible their desire to be seen and applauded by everyone came back to bite them.
I think as “influencers” (and they more are less are – more than less, I’d say) I believe they thought they’d just use that notoriety to try and get a few more people donating, not a bad thing.
And, look, see, I’m also donating, not just “giving voice” to a cause, I am participating. Join me!
A couple things are at work: They were criticized for it because in the midst of Bidenomicsuicide and The Great Stupid anybody with three nickels to rub together is getting killed by gas prices, inflation, being attacked for believing in basic biology and family structure, accused of being racist, all concepts that the Hollywood elite, of which Winfrey and Johnson are (a prominent) two, preach at us ad nauseam. So what I believe is a genuine appeal to the basic moral concept of love thy neighbor as thyself feels disingenuous given all the other causes Winfrey and Johnson support. People with or without two nickels to rub together are not far away from needing donations themselves, so the two wealthy ones saying “help our brothers and sisters” has them asking “who’s going to help me get out from under the crap policies of the government that you encouraged millions to vote for?”
The other thing is the change in societal norms, where most people now have the idea that the wealthy should pay more simply because they have the resources, which used to exist only on the far left. Now that the “middle” is left, only conservatives think that what you make, you keep and do what you want with, nor should you pay a higher tax rate just because you made more; I hope to join you in that wealth bracket one day.
It is unethical to criticize their efforts, but until Jack’s blog becomes required reading in our educational institutions, lots of people don’t realize it. How will they know unless they’re taught? (and, if I’m at odds with what Jack thinks, well, then, I need to keep reading here until I figure it out!)
I do think they’re being unfairly criticized, for a couple of reasons.
The finances part: Yes, $10M is not a really big portion of Oprah’s net wealth. However, if 5000 people qualified for this program, $6M per month likely _is_ a significant portion of her income. People will see that she is worth billions — but they ignore the fact that her income is not billions, but a much smaller number. If she earned 4% of her net worth, that would be roughly $100 million per year — less than $10M per month. Yes, it is vastly more money than any of us peons likely make in a lifetime, but it’s not infinite. Oprah _cannot_ fund this sort of program by herself.
I think that another component of this outrage is social — Oprah has been preaching to many of us for years about what horrid, rotten people we are. Now she asks us for money? That outrage is perhaps not ethical but is certainly human and understandable.
I thought I had more, but it’s not coming to me right now.
I’ve never been a fan of complaining about how someone has spent their own money (unless it was to further something harmful). That’s typically a virtue-signaling game the left plays as part of their “demonize the rich” shtick. In this case, the closest I might come would be to tell Oprah to get the money from those in the party which supported the incompetent leftists at the root of this disaster. That would still leave her free to donate.
I’ll focus on Oprah, but my comment apply equally to The Rock.
All of this criticism would be fair IF Oprah had not made any donation at all and instead was donating “her celebrity status” to assist in the fundraising efforts (which, let’s be honest, would be way WAY less than if she’d done nothing).
But she did indeed “put her money where her mouth is” and so the criticism really just devolves into “it wasn’t enough” because maybe she could have done more.
…to which I say: Grow Up.
It’s her money, acquired legitimately, and it’s her choice how much to give.
Either way, it’s 10 million dollars more than the fire victims would have access to if she’d done nothing, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CRITICS ARE INDIRECTLY ENCOURAGING HER TO DO NEXT TIME.
Grow Up. This is why we can’t have nice things.
–Dwayne
* “…way WAY less if she’d done nothing.”