by Michael dEstries
Categories: People
Tags: .

The funny thing about gossip is that it can sometimes be just that. The information we receive is like a loaded gun — 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 supplemented their reporting with stats and comments by a “donations watchdog” named Charity Navigator.

Now, of all the news organizations in the world, FOX is calling that story BS, saying the writer’s (Isabel Vincent) intentions were nothing but a smear campaign. From the article,

“The gist of the Post story — which was designed to embarrass Sting and Styler on the eve of the biannual Rainforest concert and fundraising dinner — was that the $2.7 million in gross receipts collected by the U.S. fund from the last concert and dinner should have gone directly to distribution. This doesn’t even make sense. It would kill any long term objectives of the foundation. The concerts, Styler points out, are not like ‘Live Aid,’ a one-time event, or the 9/11 Concert for New York. In those instances, the money is collected and immediately distributed.”

The Post aside, I still have questions over the information reported by Charity Navigator. Most pertinent, the $10 million in assets, $5 million in cash reported to the IRS by the Rainforest Foundation. I’ll admit to being completely clueless on how such a worldwide foundation operates, but as someone from the outside looking in, those numbers seem incredibly high.

Please read the entire FOX News article here (Who knows the next time I’ll actually say that again?)

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • Candace

    Hmm…although I don’t know exactly how global charity organizations function, I’m pretty sure most of them donate more than 41% of profits. I’m also pretty skeptical about FOX News’s “rebuttal”. They only argument of the Post article that they refuted was the statement that the entire staff had been at a film festival. Objective and throrough as always, FOX News.

  • erin

    Dear Michael,

    I cannot believe I did not get any credit in the newly revised piece you just wrote (it’s nice isn’t that you’re not writing in print so you can just change the earlier piece you wrote to suit what you want to say? I don’t know how to contact you so I’m just going to write it here for the world to see. *I* am the one who commented last night and included the Fox piece. I ALSO said who knows when the next time is I’d include a Fox News link to an article because I too am not a big fan. I believe someone else had written a comment to your earlier revised piece and your rebuttal included something about they might as well read Fox. When I posted my reply I said it’s funny you mention Fox since they’re the ones who stuck up for Sting. I explained that the Post article was inaccurate at best…

    So now you give me NO credit for bringing this article to your attention? USE my line about Fox and erase my ACCURATE post from before? At least issue me some cred since thankfully I did a screen shot of your old article, along with the comments (including yours)

    Thank you

    Erin Eco activist and owner of MY blog for eight years.

  • michael


    I appreciate your comment, but I think you’re confused on a few points. First of all, this is an entirely new piece — there’s nothing about this that is revised. It is an update to the post that I wrote yesterday which you can find here.

    We never modify stories to reflect new truths — always keeping the information as is. If anything, we add updates to the bottom of posts if new developments occur.

    Your comment exists exactly where you left it. Not sure why you felt it had been erased.

    With regards to the posting of credit for new information, we give credit where due , but not always consistently. To be fair, I discovered this story last night on my own and saw your comment this morning. In the spirit of community, however, I can definitely add a shout out to your site in the recent update.

    And sorry, but your reaction to actually finding something of value over at FOX news is not special. Believe me, there were probably many others that slapped themselves in the forehead as well.

    Hope that explains some things!

  • erin


    Strangely now I can see the old piece just fine. My apologies. I tried to click earlier and admittedly my cable has been acting up so it looked as if it were gone..

    I knew there had to be some explanation because as I’ve said before I love Ecorazzi and wouldn’t think a fine blogger like yourself would erase the old post ;)

    So please ignore my reply, note AND message ;) and I see now you did leave the old piece intact….

    Glad you saw the Fox piece finally (you probably didn’t see it initially because, like most of us, you don’t read Fox!) It came out five days ago yet still most news outlets are referring to the NY post piece (which, by the way is another place whose news I wouldn’t trust ;)

    Peace and keep up the good work.


  • Pingback: Sting Gets Attacked By Environmental Groups For Private Plane Antics // Archives // :: the latest in green gossip