Comments on: Sting’s Rainforest Charity Rated One Of New York’s City’s Worst

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:40:41 +0000

Okay, I read the FOX piece, and in no way does it prove they are “squeaky clean”. It simply praises them lavishly, repeats the exact number of what they distributed, quotes Sting and Trudy’s lame statement about needing to keep money in reserve, says they have a very small staff, and that the staff doesn’t get paid a lot. So what? None of that counters what the Post is saying, really. And none of it addressed the point, which is that they’re hoarding way too much money and are refusing to explain why. I don’t feel better about them. Do you?

By: Sting Gets Attacked By Environmental Groups For Private Plane Antics // Archives // ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:50:32 +0000

[...] reported that Sting’s charity, the Rainforest Foundation had been under attack when the New York Post reported that it was rated one of the worst charities in New York City. Later it was revealed that Isabel [...]

By: As Rainforest Foundation Prepares To Rock, New Info Arises On Criticism // Archives // ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip

Thu, 08 May 2008 13:15:40 +0000

[...] — and in a time of fast-paced news and instant reporting — it can very easily go off. Yesterday’s piece I wrote on Sting’s Rainforest Foundation being less than giving came from the NY Post; which [...]

By: michael

michael — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:40:03 +0000

I’m shocked FOX News reported that as well!

Ok, so we have a clearer picture — but I still have questions on the tax returns.

Writing up a rebuttal…

By: erin

erin — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:59:57 +0000

Sorry Michael but let me set the record straight for Frank (and mainly Sting’s) sake.

NY Post’s poorly written article got it wrong. And funny you mention Fox news because those right wing nut jobs actually are the ones who came to Sting’s DEFENSE explaining the Post piece was nothing more than an inaccurate SMEAR campaign. Read about it here!

(never thought I’d be linking a Fox News article but here you go to the piece “Sting’s Charity is Squeaky Clean!”)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354116,00.html

By: Jean

Jean — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:50:46 +0000

I agree that one can’t dismiss the Charity Navigator ranking easily, but I’m bit confused as to where the Post got it numbers. If you look at the Rainforest Foundation’s page at charity navigator you see that it is true it hasn’t been given any stars, but it shows nothing about 5 million being held in reserve. Nor can I find a list there of NY’s worst charities. They do have a list of the 10 charities that are stock piling money. The Rainforest Foundation isn’t on it.

link to page – http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7663

By: Jennae Petersen

Jennae Petersen — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:35:26 +0000

I definitely appreciate the fact that Sting does try to do a lot for the environment, but damn! 41%? This is the kind of thing that make my husband and I wary of giving to charities. We always have to wonder how much of the money we donate will actually end up going toward the cause. I don’t know what happened to to rest of it, and I don’t necessarily think any less of Sting because of this, but somebody in that organization needs to account for the rest of the funds: where they went, why they weren’t used on the programs they were supposed to be used on, etc. It’s called accountability…plain and simple.

Visit http://www.greenyourdecor.com for eco-friendly home decor products and tips!

By: michael

michael — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:46:04 +0000

Sorry Frank, but we’re going to tell both sides of the story. True, Sting has done some great work for the environment — we’ve covered that. But news of this nature also deserves to be discussed. If you’re not used to such a fair and balanced view, you’ve obviously been watching too much FOX News.

I agree with you on the NY Post comment, but are you disregarding the information as reported by Charity Navigator? The Post didn’t just make this up — they’re relying on information as provided by the Watchdog.

It’s great that Sting has a foundation — but if people are donating their cash to a cause, shouldn’t they be aware of how quickly — or what percentage of that donation will go to the actual initiative they’re supporting?

By: Frank Keenan

Frank Keenan — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:23:08 +0000

Oh let’s go and piss off one of the few rich people that actually gives a shit about the environment? That’s real smart, coming from an “environmentally friendly” gossip blog.

Hey, what’s next are you going to bust Bono’s balls for trying to help poor people in Africa?

Should Leonoard DiCaprio not take any more movie roles and focus solely on solving global warming?

Give me a break!

Sting is one of the biggest advocates for rainforest preservation that this world has. He has done more to save the rainforest than anyone in the music industry.

At least he has a charity organization set up to help the rainforest. That is more than I can say for a lot of uber rich entertainment posers.

My main problem with this post is that it cites the NY Post, hardly the most eco-friendly newspaper. If it were the NY Times I would be more willing to believe the story.

Now, if you don’t mind, I have to go now. I have a 3:00 appointment to euthenise some injured race horses. It’s a hobby of mine.