Don’t donate money to Japan

By Felix Salmon
March 14, 2011
Individuals are doing it, banks are doing it -- faced with the horrific news and pictures from Japan, everybody wants to do something, and the obvious thing to do is to donate money to some relief fund or other.

Please don't.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Individuals are doing it, banks are doing it — faced with the horrific news and pictures from Japan, everybody wants to do something, and the obvious thing to do is to donate money to some relief fund or other.

Please don’t.

We went through this after the Haiti earthquake, and all of the arguments which applied there apply to Japan as well. Earmarking funds is a really good way of hobbling relief organizations and ensuring that they have to leave large piles of money unspent in one place while facing urgent needs in other places. And as Matthew Bishop and Michael Green said last year, we are all better at responding to human suffering caused by dramatic, telegenic emergencies than to the much greater loss of life from ongoing hunger, disease and conflict. That often results in a mess of uncoordinated NGOs parachuting in to emergency areas with lots of good intentions, where a strategic official sector response would be much more effective. Meanwhile, the smaller and less visible emergencies where NGOs can do the most good are left unfunded.

In the specific case of Japan, there’s all the more reason not to donate money. Japan is a wealthy country which is responding to the disaster, among other things, by printing hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of new money. Money is not the bottleneck here: if money is needed, Japan can raise it. On top of that, it’s still extremely unclear how or where organizations like globalgiving intend on spending the money that they’re currently raising for Japan — so far we’re just told that the money “will help survivors and victims get necessary services,” which is basically code for “we have no idea what we’re going to do with the money, but we’ll probably think of something.”

Globalgiving, it’s worth pointing out, was created to support “projects in the developing world,” where lack of money is much more of a problem than it is in Japan. I’m not at all convinced that the globalgiving model can or should be applied directly to Japan, without much if any thought about whether it’s the best way to address the issues there.

That said, it’s entirely possible that organizations like the Red Cross or Save the Children will find themselves with important and useful roles to play in Japan. It’s also certain that they have important and useful roles to play elsewhere. So do give money to them — and give generously! And give money to other NGOs, too, like Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which don’t jump on natural disasters and use them as opportunistic marketing devices. Just make sure it’s unrestricted. The official MSF position is exactly right:

The ability of MSF teams to provide rapid and targeted medical care to those most in need in more than 60 countries around the world – whether in the media spotlight or not – depends on the generous general contributions of our donors worldwide. For this reason, MSF does not issue appeals for support for specific emergencies and this is why we do not include an area to specify a donation purpose on our on-line donation form. MSF would not have been able to act so swiftly in response to the emergency in Haiti, as an example, if not for the ongoing general support from our donors. So we always ask our supporters to consider making an unrestricted contribution.

I’ve just donated $400 in unrestricted funds to MSF. Some of it might go to Japan; all of it will go to areas where it’s sorely needed. I’d urge you to do the same, rather than try to target money at whichever disaster might be in the news today.

Update: Some bright spark has set up a “Socks for Japan” drive. I’m not making this up. I trust that none of my readers are silly enough to send socks to Japan, but this is a great indication of how wasteful a lot of well-intentioned giving can be.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

And yes, I have worked with them, and I know first hand how they operate.

Posted by sirfish | Report as abusive

I registered for an account SOLELY to tell you what a pompous douche nozzel you are. No one is jumping up to self promote… except you. A biblical level disaster has happened in Japan and people SHOULD GIVE MONEY and whatever else they can. What the hell is wrong with you?

Posted by Maralily | Report as abusive

A slice of lame in the soda.

Posted by CPA1976 | Report as abusive

greenacres, your comment is well-received and i def agree..just one thing tho – “Japs” is a fairly (very) derogatory way to label the Japanese..unless that was your intention you might want to edit in the future

Posted by justhinking | Report as abusive

Liberals. The “compassionate” ones!

Posted by here2do | Report as abusive

@justhinking – If greenacres knows that much about Chinese and Japanese conflict, then he/she knows that “Jap” is a derogatory term. It was intentional, IMO.

Posted by here2do | Report as abusive

I found Felix’s argument quite sensible. Tyler Cowen, who linked to it, has an odd criticism: that the people who read Felix are (or were, before they read his argument) moved to donate to relief of Japan, but can’t be moved to donate to more mundane, everyday relief of suffering in poorer countries; so the effect of Felix’s making his argument will be to reducing charitable giving overall. This strikes me as disrespectful of Felix’s readers. (On the other hand, judging by the comments above, maybe Tyler is onto something!)

Posted by Philon | Report as abusive

I like many others have only registered to comment on this. I stumbled across this page and after reading this, I am utterly disgusted .

Whilst I agree that people need to take care when donating to these charities to ensure that the money is well spent, attempting to discourage people to donate to help Japan is atrocious.

I completely agree with greenacres. Japan committed gruesome genocide during war, (in particular the Nanking massacre in the late 30s). Many of the survivors are still alive, yet dispute the inhumane actions that were committed, the Chinese have generously donated money to help out.If the Chinese are willing to help out dispute history, surely you can get past the fact that Japan is a ‘wealthy country’ and sympathise with what has happened.

You may not believe in the efforts, but you should not be discouraging people’s efforts even if it is ‘Socks for Japan’.

The states is the richest country in the world, and when Katrina struck the Japanese donated money.

Posted by kathc | Report as abusive

@Philon completely agree about felix’s argument about the lack of efforts in the everyday relief, and the care people need to put in about selecting charities, but headline of ‘don’t donate money to Japan’ and one of the reasoning being wealthy is just wrong.

Posted by kathc | Report as abusive

Just like Gilbert Gottfried and his hateful Twitter rant, this is another not-talent hack trying to cause some noise while people lay in the street dying.

Posted by Drumlaw80 | Report as abusive

Hey, do us all a favor and go out and witness for yourself what you are writing about. Then if your opinion still stands, write about it, so we can use you as example and show others how much of an idiot you are.

Posted by JaeinChung | Report as abusive

…And I just registered to make this comment despite all the other retards who can’t even read beyond the headline.

This is an excellent article, which doesn’t suggest to people NOT to give, but encourages them to GIVE to responsible, sustainable and long-term established, recognised charities, such as MSF or the Red Cross, rather than new NGOs which mushroom after a particular disaster. And NO – the point is not just to give, whatever and whenever (even to scammers!), but give GENEROUSLY to the needy what they need at the right time.

People should be generally more aware of what the charities or NGOs they sponsor spend the money on, so well done, Felix!

Posted by IanGood | Report as abusive

Sometimes love is all there is. I am sure that people of Japan and Haiti will be thrilled to take to heart your expression of global understanding and compassion. You sir are a arrogant Western overindulgent douche-bag

Posted by tresfun | Report as abusive

Felix, your sensational headline ruined your very good point about charity. Japan does not need charitable donations, it is very wealthy and will be just fine. How many of the people writing hateful comments directed towards you donated to Pakistan during the floods last summer? Those Pak/Afgan families probably *still* have no homes. Those people suffered, but, it wasn’t so sensationalized, and “those Arabs are all terrorists anyway”. Ha. People are giving to Japan because they identify with their Toyotas, because old Japanese people are cute, because they liked Lost in Translation so much, and because the Japanese are “like us” in so many ways. All you reflexive Japan givers/Felix haters, look around at the whole world (read Felix’s whole article too), and think about where your dollar can really help the most. You might discover something about the world far away or you could discover that you own local battered women’s shelter could use a few extra cots. Or maybe you’ll discover something about yourselves.

Posted by skamerika | Report as abusive

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, impossibly ignorant piece were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this page is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Posted by iblamesociety | Report as abusive

Seriously? C’mon Reuters…you can do better than this. Use some responsible editorial oversight and at least put something more thought-provoking or original than this. The nerve of this blowhard to say the farmers, fisherman and elderly from one of the poorest parts of Japan who have also lost everything don’t need socks, food or any help from others. Historically, the Japanese have been one of the most generous donors to those in need around the world. I have faith in people that we will return the favor in their time of need.

Posted by edksiez | Report as abusive

I think what is wrong with this article is ONLY the headline.
Correct me if I’m wrong but in short, the body text told us to donate to organizations which are responsible n reliable, instead of just donating to any charity that has ‘Japan’ written on it.
To be fair, many organizations consume/absorb a certain percentage of the donations before directing it to the intended place.
This article sort of makes me want to double-check the charity I donated to, just in case the money is never gonna make it to Japan..

Posted by turtle0909 | Report as abusive

Felix, please remember that, whether donating money, socks or choosing a title, the exercise of intelligence is equally important. Otherwise, I agree with what you have said in your article.

Furthermore, should you be sincerely interested in the relief efforts, I heartily invite you to my home, here in Japan. It is safe for now. Feel free to contact me according to your convenience.

Posted by AlexKovac | Report as abusive

Please get off your soap box.

A major poblem for Japan right now is the weather and there is risk for hypothermia. There is also a lot of debris, many of which are sharp and good source for infection. That is why socks is a low-cost, effective donation. Your rush to judgment against socks shows your ignorance about disaster relief.

Please look at the overhead of some of the organizations you recommended. Smaller organizations with a long history are often more efficient than the bigger charities. People have to do research before donating but big does not mean better. In fact, right now the biggest need in Japan is the dropping of staples, warm clothes, and blankets to parts of Japan that cannot be reached easily or fast enough due to infrastructure destruction.

You have a very small mind and heart to believe that giving to Japan means not giving to someone else. Many people gave to Haiti, Pakistan, the gulf states, and despite the economic hardships, are dinging deeper to find money to give to Japan.

Why is someone who experiences suffering in a rich country is worth less than someone suffering in a poor country, and what does it say about you that this is how you see the world?

Posted by readerabc | Report as abusive

This is posted in the top right corner of the page.


I would hope on every level that Reuters doesn’t, in any way shape or form, share this dipsh!t’s views. I can’t even imagine why in the world they would let a misinformed douche like this post on their site in the first place.

Posted by makone4 | Report as abusive

I’m Japanese and now living in Japan.
I’m very, very sad what you said.

Come to Japan as soon as possible.

Posted by Salliy.K | Report as abusive

I nominate Felix Salmon as the most anti-humanitarian for 2011. You call yourself a journalist? That is what I wanted to major as a second career but I’m already an engineer. What do you have against the Japanese people? Are you racist against them for some reason? What ethnic background are you? Just in case you’re not smart enough to know, that was a rhetorical question.
Economics, investigative journalism both obviously are not your forte. Japan is in an economic recession, you missed the boat on that count. If you saw the tsunami take out the vehicles and saw Mercedes and Porsches then you have better eyesight then I.
I know there’s no point in beating a dead horse but, you should consider a career change because you suck at this one. It’s no wonder that Reuters would have a disclaimer right at the top of the page. They paid you for this? OMG they are suckers. Talent must be in very short supply.
I wonder why posted comments have the “Report as abusive” button when articles such as your hate-mongering swill doesn’t? And look at these stupid “House Rules”, “We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive”. I won’t waste my time reading Reuters anymore.

Posted by politich8r | Report as abusive

First of all, I would like to present my deepest condolences to all Japanese people. As for the article, I unnderstand for someone to register his reservations on the title which for me is provocative to a certain extent, especially that it may seem like punishing the victims. However, when it comes to the content, we must be fair. Japan is indeed a rich country and doesn’t need money. Hence, he didn’t mean to offend Japanese people. In contrast, he tried to address the point of the efficient allocation of these resources, backed by the idea that people usually donate more to countries experiencing natural disasters, so it’s kind of event-driven charity whereas people around the world, do not even need such events to be in need of help. More importantly, the rise of new NGOs (with no clear objectives) after such events raises question about their nature. Finally, I insist that the title is shocking but the content is not as bad as the headline.

Posted by Mohamad.H | Report as abusive

I am so happy to read such a sensible article.
Well, it’s true that, Mr. Salmon, you have probably pushed a bit too far in making the title of your article eye-catching, but readers with ability of reasoning wouldn’t get carried away and not appreciate your very sensible analysis (on this note, by reading the many comments posted, I’m utterly surprise to see how easily people get carried away with emotions and sentiments which blind their eyes and stop their cerval activities).

It is very clear in your article that you are NOT saying not to help Japan, but merely just pointing out to a very important and true fact that if we want to give, and if we believe certain relief organisations are really doing what they claim to be doing (and it’s the donor’s job to find out and hold them accountable, by the way), unrestricted donations are always the best way to help victims in need.

As simple as that. And you made it very clear.

Bravo! I cannot agree with you more.

And by the way, for those who are so upset by this article (thinking that the author is advocating NOT to help Japan, which is not true): what are you doing to those suffering caused by one form or another of humanitarian crisis which did not manage to make to the first page of your newspaper in your country? Are you also angry that people are not doing anything to help? And are you ?

Posted by petitcochon | Report as abusive

Felix, your blogg should be the headline in every news. Sending monies to charities that have no expertise or for specific crisis is a waste of money. Chernobyl, Katrina, Haiti, etc are all names linked to massive humanitarian disasters are also linked to bogus charities or rather landlords of hunger and misery that pray on both the victims of natural disasters / wars and their gallubble donors. Too many times I travelled (for business purposes) in the company of ‘charity’ workers that indulged in business class pampering and found ‘refuge’ in four and five stars hotels.. I worked in 1990 (as a volunteer) with MSF in Romania after the December 1989 uprising and I can vouch for their expertise, professionalism, accountability and integrity. The same thing can be said about the Red Cross, Oxfam (the list may be extended).
So ‘YES’, donate to these organisations, donate blood and avoid all the scums that see opportunity in disaster.
Thanks Felix!

Posted by paulxk | Report as abusive

I think Simon has an excellent point. We should donate all the time, not just when some place has a severe crisis. Lord knows even when Japan is having it’s worst days (like right now), these are probably better than the best days in some of these poor African countries.

I don’t think the fact that Japan is a rich country is a good reason to deny them aid, but I also think we should try to help anyone who has hardship, not just those who fall victim the terrible natural disasters.

Posted by Andao | Report as abusive

why should we

Posted by speedy2 | Report as abusive

Everyone is saying, especially media outlets, not to Donate to groups that aren’t as well known as Red Cross as you may be getting ripped off. Maybe that’s bull to
cover up Red Cross ripping people off with their donations?

Posted by dann77 | Report as abusive

Your post really angered me. I am an American and I think people should be able to help whoever the hell they want to help and not the people like you tell us who we should help. While there are other parts of the world that need assistance, and there always will be, suggesting not to help Japan because it is a wealthy country and it can just “print money” is a load of ****.

Its people like you that have to get out of our way. Everyday it seems there is a new intellectual in our face at Rueters or the NY Times who knows better than all of us. Reuters seems to want to impose their global vision upon all of us and it always seems to be the wrong vision. I hope you get assigned to cover the reactor problems in Japan close-up and die a slow cancerous death. Its no coincidence that you have the same last name as a fish species because you STINK! And BTW Reuters is no longer part of my RSS Feeds.

Posted by JackS1 | Report as abusive

Guess !!! A columnist does not necesarrily be champion in every field. Moreover the headline used is totally negative. Just because someone is using a sensational headline, it will not guarantee that people will agree with the content in the article. You should have come up with strong statistics to prove your point here. On the contrary, your article is just limited to Red cross and selected prominent NGO’s. I totally disagree with your point that NGO’s which are not popular or known globally are not honest. At least your article implies that.

Posted by santoshvm | Report as abusive

i registered only to comment on this as well. here’s my comment: what.. a douchbag.

Posted by tonebobb | Report as abusive

I’m from Hiroshima, Japan. I couldn’t believe when I found this article.

people are suffering and surviving in this disaster caused by this earthquake and tsunami. so many people lost their families, children, and houses to live but they have to survive and get thru this tragic situations.

if you have time to write this kind of silly article do something what help victims in need. but I’m sure they wouldn’t need any help by people like you.

greenacres, “Japs” is very derogatory term. who do you think you are?

Posted by fromjapan | Report as abusive

I Agree with the article – dont send money to Japan; Japan is wealthy and can create liquidity.

I disagree with poor countries – poor countries dont have the wealth and resources internally. Helping wealthy countries is different than helping Haiti. For example – coats and rain gear. Its much more efficient for the 95% of Japan that wasnt impacted to donate physical goods up north versus clogging up airports. Every disaster means something different.

If you think Im being cold think again. I have two small children and my wife is going to Tokoyo tomorrow and where she will setup an emergency center in Kobe. What does she do? International transfer pricing for an accounting company. Japans year-end books close on March 31st and the situation is a mess. She’s dropping everything for her Japanese clients because if the financials arent released on time then the Nikkei will get hit and borrowing rates will go up – many people on the Japanese team are not at 100% and a few are missing. Her US clients are not happy but thats her sacrafice. As she put it – if everyone hussles on this then it literally could save 100′s of millions of dollars in borrowing costs – which makes it easier for the Bank of Japan to print money. So is it worth a bit of radiactivity risk – yes. We also have a Japanese friend who is an artist living in a studio and when her mother arrives for 2 months that she can stay in our slightly larger 2bdr apartment in manhattan.

Theres ways to sacrafice – the technical argument to this article is correct; perhaps a more humane title would have been a better introduction. Here are some examples:

1. Open your home for temporary displacement.
2. Contact your companies operations in Japan and see what you can for the company so local staff can volunteer
3. Go to Japan and help with the cleanup
4. Medical Staff are needed now
5. Builders will be needed in 3/4 weeks.
6. Find a Japanese friend and give them money to see if they can donate it to a local japanese charity that is moving goods in the domestic market.
7. Find out about survivors and write letters translated in japanese with small gifts for elderly. Sounds silly – but the number one killer after 20 days will be emotional abandonment and hope. Many Japanese elderly do not have large families and if they do they will be at work in another city. Living in a temporary shelter or camp is very depressing.

Im sure there are many more ways, these are just my ideas.

Posted by John2244 | Report as abusive

I am so disappointed with your column. Even though I do understand some donations are inefficient, but when people die in an earthquake, whether in Haiti or Japan, it is equally a tragedy.
Your article feels like stabbing victims in the back; there is no civility. I do not wish to stop what you think but your timing to express it is wrong. Now Japan is brutally hurt. They need money to rebuild houses, infrastructures, factories, farms and so on. So what if Japan is a rich country? A Japanese life is not worth any less (or more) than others. And they still need our help.

Posted by Hannari | Report as abusive

I think people are overreacting to this post. I don’t agree with the specifics of everything he says, but it’s not like he’s saying to leave poor Japan hanging without any support. Essentially, the message here is to think before you act, so that the money you donate actually gets put to good use.

Is his headline sensationalized and unnecessary? Yes. Is he being cynical in his view on organizations like Globalgiving and what they will spend the money on? Yes.

But in the end, he’s donated $400 to Doctors Without Borders/MSF. Just because the money isn’t specifically earmarked for Japan, doesn’t mean it won’t be used there.

Also, greenacres, your racial slur is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by Mags91 | Report as abusive

This is just poorly written. His idea isn’t stupid:

DO donate, but when you do so, don’t earmark your money and say it should go to Haiti relief only, or Japan only.

From what I’ve read, that’s pretty wise. I like Doctors without Borders but have heard less becoming things about Save the Children. Either way: 1) do your research and find the organization that you feel will do the best with your money; 2) don’t specify your money has to be spent on a certain disaster; 3) donate!


Posted by miarno | Report as abusive

Don’t forget another donation: blood. If you are fit and healthy enough to donate blood (and the vast majority of us are), celebrate that fact by sharing your good health. Blood donation has even been found to decrease heart disease in men, due to the effects of circulating iron levels on tissues. Start now and continue as often as safe to do so. In the years ahead the world is going to be faced with the effects of radiation exposure on those in the fallout–which will certainly mean bone marrow suppression and resultant life-threatening anemias. The trauma victims need blood now, and the radiation survivors will need it later.

Posted by Merkinidjit | Report as abusive

You are a disgusting person. Promoting overlooked charity is great but urging people NOT to help? What are you? I hope you and your family suffer the same fate, but this time no one cares.

Now that this post has exposed your sickened morality, you are the last person on earth to lecture anybody on where their compassion should be given to.

Posted by schumannistic | Report as abusive

Felix, IMO, your legitimate message was lost in the hubris and condescension in the tone of your piece. I recall after 9/11 that the Red Cross was inundated with so many funds earmarked to help 9/11 victims, that all giving to general causes (and there were other causes going on at the time) ceased, and the company actually had to put out a call for people to STOP giving to 9/11 and just give general contributions. It makes sense.

But your delivery of the message was lacking in tact, and your reach for sensationalism with your headline brought people to your piece with a jaundiced eye.

Next time, make your point – don’t belabor it, and make it in a mature, sensible way. You raise an important issue – too bad it was raised in such a careless way.

Posted by kanorcott | Report as abusive

Felix you are clueless. Do better research. For instance the Salvation Army, an organizarion with a strong reputation, has been embedded in Japan since 1895. You are trying to say do not donate to such orgs? Plus to fall back on the donate to the general fund of an org as the only way to contribute cash has you sounding like a California politician. Go write for a local tabloid, not Reuters.

Posted by TechSentinel | Report as abusive

No one is actually responding to the content of the article. He makes supported assertions if you would just read the article.

Posted by rtjoy | Report as abusive

Felix, it’s not only about what you say, but also about how and when to say it. It is true that Japan’s Central Bank is printing billions of Yen and it is also true that unlike other economies, the deflating Japanese economy will probably benefit from the extra money supply in the long run. But at a time when even half-decent people are saddened by the enormous suffering caused to ordinary Japanese by a earthquake-tsunami-nuclear triple whammy, to say “don’t help them” or anything remotely equivalent is just bad taste.

Posted by ivr | Report as abusive

Perhaps Mr Salmon resents the huge salaries paid to CEO s and other ‘staff’ of these NGOs and organizations like the UN? But name-calling and abuse accomplish nothing.

Posted by DrRoy | Report as abusive

The simple truth is, good Samaritans do not check the income level of their neighbors before helping.

Posted by JG3 | Report as abusive

He is right about one thing…give to the Red Cross as they are already very active in relief efforts in Japan. I have personally never seen a commercial for the Red Cross and I appreciate that b/c it shows that they do not waste donation money soliciting for more donations. Who in the world does not know who the Red Cross is, or what they do, right? That being said, donate to them even if nothing disastrous has happened in the world. I believe they do what is right with donation money unlike many of the other wealth redistributing “charities” out there.

Posted by kepi | Report as abusive

He is not saying “don’t donate to Japan at all” but is saying if you donate….do not do it in a way that EARMARKS your donation to only one cause…

Posted by mraphael824 | Report as abusive

I agree with Salmon. It is disturbing how donations to Japan has become something trendy, while other areas that are in great need are overlooked. What about malaria, which kills up to 5 million a year? Or the ongoing drought in Pakistan? Or the millions of children that die from unclean water? Japan is a wealthy developed country that has the resources for recovery. Human suffering exists in other places, yet they will ignored and never to be addressed. ‘Doctors without borders’ is a great idea and people should think more in the line of this article.

Posted by Nite | Report as abusive

Great article.

Giving japan socks is like donating to Bill gates a $10 bill for a heart surgery. It’s quite stupid. There are thousands of other poor people out there who can really use that $10. Where that $10 could actually mean something.

Japan has all the money it needs. If any one of these people really wanted to help japan specifically they’d fly there and clear some rubble up. But ofcourse not, sending their damn used socks helps clear their conscience and they can tell their co-workers how sorry they are and about their great donation to a worthy cause. Wow, we’re such good samaritans.

Somebody said Katrina was donated to. So what? Where was the American govt to help the people in Katrina? Have you been to New Orleans? I was. It was a wasteland for more than a year after the disaster. So much for being the biggest economy. The US probably threw all the donations into Iraq for killing civilians. Bah. What a farce. I doubt that’s how Japan will be one year from now. They don’t need anyone of us. They are strong people. All they need is our prayers and our cheers. Not a smelly sock or our filthy stolen dollars.

The columnist wants you to donate to poor and troubled people. There are people on this planet who don’t have homes everyday. There are people who don’t have water everyday. Not because of a natural disaster. But because they’ve been raped by western civilization for centuries. It’s a human disaster.

Nobody is saying we’re not sad for Japan. Ofcourse, we are. That doesn’t mean we have to be stupid so as to look good in front of your neighbors because they’re stupid too.

@kanorcott Bah, it has to be so frustrating to have to keep delivering even the truth using ‘tact’. In an ideal world, ‘tact’ would have to be reserved for lies and deceit. ‘Tact’ is what people use to scam money. Now because of all these retards, this writer with a completely valid point has to sugarcoat the truth so a bunch of retards can swallow it easily. How shameful is that?

Posted by onomatopoeia | Report as abusive

You’ve got to be joking. This blogger has done serious damage to the reputation of Reuters. I couldn’t care less about such lame posturing generally, but this is so offensive. No-one is saying there are not many problems in the world, and many deserving causes, but do you not think it does harm to dissuade people from donating to any good cause? A horrible small minded thing to suggest during a private conversation, let alone on a news website. Shame on you.

Posted by nekobasu | Report as abusive