I have been wanting to write about the Kony campaign for quite some time. But I kept getting caught up in all the responses. First the criticism, then the response by Invisible Children to all the criticism, then the criticism of the response of the first round of criticisms.
First things first. If you haven't seen the Kony 2012 video, see it here. It is a 30 minute video on Youtube created by a charity called Invisible Children calling for the capture of Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army in Central and Eastern Africa.
Now, I know I am a little late talking about this and most people have already made up their mind as to whether or not they think the Kony campaign is a positive, effective way to stop Kony, or just another "slack-tivist" way to make people feel good about themselves and their motives. I for one, have known of Invisible children for quite some time. And I think that they are a fantastic group of young people willing to do anything to help the victims in Africa. So in this blog I would like to defend some of the big criticisms I have seen online and in the news about the Kony 2012 campaign and Invisible Children. You can also click here to hear the CEO of Invisible Children talk about some of the questions that have been posed since the new video was released.
One criticism I've noticed is that people say Invisible Children (IC) does not care about individuals and simply wants popularity. The critics ask how IC can simply refer to the women as "The Raped" and the children as "The Abducted." My simple-minded answer: when you are talking about numbers in the hundreds of thousands, and have already made many films documenting some of the individuals the founders of IC have met, befriended, and helped, what else are you supposed to say?
Some people have accused IC as being a "slack-tivist" campaign. Saying, "Advocacy, however, does not end at trendy t-shirts and cool graphics." I don't think anyone expects advocacy to end with those things. One of IC's top priorities is to promote the knowledge that the crimes Kony is committing exist, pose a real danger to the people (especially children) of Africa, and to tell the world that he needs to be stopped. In order to tell the world about Kony and his atrocities, people have to be willing to post it to Facebook, wear a shirt or bracelet, and tell their friends about IC when they have a chance. And yes, IC is taking advantage of social media and the power it holds. They would be stupid not to.
Another huge question people are asking is about their finances. Why do only 32% of their profits go directly to Africa? As their website explains, IC has a three-fold mission.
1)Make the world aware of the LRA. This includes making documentary films and touring them around the world so that they are seen by millions of people.
2)Channel energy from viewers of IC films into large-scale advocacy campaigns to stop the LRA and protect civilians.
3) Operate programs on the ground in LRA-affected areas that provide protection, rehabilitation, and development assistance.
Last year the organization spent a combined total of 80.46% on the above objectives.
I have also seen criticism of how much money they spend on their movies. Again, another top priority to IC is making quality media to inform the people of the world. Be honest with yourself, in today's 3D, Hi-Def, Hi-Res world do you think a low-budget film with bad editing and cheap graphics would attract the amount of attention they want and need? No.
Overall I think the criticism is bogus. People raised good questions about a company they hadn't heard of before. And that company promptly responded on their website.
One last thing, when a critic starts asking questions and bringing up all these points against a decent charity, and says," I'm worried that the real reason I went to seek out the downsides of the Kony 2012 phenomenon was simply because I'm a snob who enjoys bursting people's bubbles. . ." (Alex Miller, Vice.com) I don't really want to hear anything he has to say.
