So about this ‘Kony 2012’ thing that’s suddenly sweeping social media

Thinking and reacting to propaganda from a gut level is pretty common among humans.  We’re sort of engineered to respond to sloganeering and follow leaders blindly.  So when I suddenly saw this stuff all over my Dash today, knowing nothing about the organization behind it, I was perplexed by how the issue seemed to be suddenly catching fire everywhere.  The business about the LRA in Uganda is really old news, so why is Joseph Kony suddenly everywhere?

I think that people are reacting mostly to the slick production values of the film.  And hey, going after a bad guy who forcibly recruited thousands of child soldiers sounds like a good social cause, eh?  But no one really digs into the details.  Here’s what I found out.

1. The organization sponsoring this is called “Invisible Children Inc.”  An incorporated entity is a specific legal thing.  Sure, many charities are incorporated entities.  Organizations typically incorporate to safeguard personal assets against the claims of creditors and lawsuits.  Also, in the U.S., corporations are generally taxed at a lower rate than individuals.  

But there’s more.

2. The problem they’re addressing may already be past tense, other than going after a figurehead.  Wikipedia: “Invisible Children launched a major marketing campaign in 2012 targeting Joseph Kony (leader of the LRA) despite the fact that the LRA has not been active in Northern Uganda since 2006.”

3. From Charity Navigator, an independent, non-profit organization that evaluates American charities: 

Compensation of Leaders (FYE 06/2011)

Compensation, % of Expenses:

$88,241 (0.99%) (Ben Keesey, Chief Executive Officer)

$89,669 (1.00%) (Jason Russell, Co-Founder, Filmmaker)

$84,377 (0.94%) (Laren Poole, Co-Founder, Filmmaker)

The filmmakers stand to gain quite handsomely as a result of increased donations, in turn due to the viral nature of their film.  Again, Wikipedia: “Invisible Children’s financial reports reveal that the organization’s three filmmakers and co-founders receive a combined pay of $223,922. This comprises 2.77% of IC’s expenses.” (citing Charity Navigator)  The “invisible children” these people claim to be helping are ultimately enriching those same people by a significant amount.

4. The organization declined the Better Business Bureau’s request for financial information.  ”Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests in the past year, this organization either has not responded to Alliance requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to the Alliance’s Standards for Charity Accountability.  While participation in the Alliance’s charity review efforts is voluntary, the Alliance believes that failure to participate may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency. Without the requested information, the Alliance cannot determine if this charity adheres to the Standards for Charity Accountability.”

5. A November 2011 article in Foreign Affairs took the organization to task for “…manipulat[ing] facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasizing the LRA’s use of innocent children as soldiers, and portraying Kony — a brutal man, to be sure — as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil.”

6. Lastly, what could an attempted apprehension of Joseph Kony mean for the locals?  Chris Blattman, Assistant Professor of Political Science & Economics at Yale: ”Any unsuccessful attempt to capture Kony will mean, as before, the retaliatory slaughter of civilians and more displacement and kidnapping… My general attitude: even when the US can do little to solve a problem, I usually endorse symbolic gestures  of support. Except, of course, when those gestures lead to symbolic gestures in return, like the pillaging and slaughter of villages. The fact that these risks aren’t being acknowledged is not tragic. It is irresponsible, short-sighted, and wrong.”

Superficially, this whole incident seems like mostly the result of a publicity exercise on the part of a film production company, one that’s working spectacularly well.  Why is the organization so opaque about its finances and activities?  Who stands to gain what as a result of those activities?  No one really knows, other than those in the organization.  

It would be nice if other people asked these same questions before blindly reblogging stuff of this nature.