http://www.theage.com.au/world/poverty- ... pacf4.html

Phnom Penh: She looks dirty, dishevelled and miserable and is labelled a sex worker.
Many Australians responded to a plea to save the pretty Cambodian girl called Pisey from child predators. "Teach a sex worker to sew," declares a glossy internet advertisement for Sunrise Cambodia, an Australian charity that has raised millions of dollars each year for Cambodia's orphanages.

"Your donation of $500 will get Pisey off the street and into the sewing room with the skills to start her own micro-business," it says. But Pisey is not her real name and she is not a sex worker.
Her portrayal in a campaign that has raised more than $200,000 in Australia in five weeks has prompted a firestorm of criticism in Cambodia and raised new questions about "poverty porn" and "pity charity", the practices where charities use hard-hitting images, such as malnourished children, to draw empathy and donations

"Pisey" is a village girl whom Sunrise Cambodia paid to be the poster-girl for its latest fund raising campaign, which critics say is unethical. A photograph portraying her as a sex worker will remain on the internet and in the public domain forever, critics say. So too will photographs of a boy with the fake name "Soksan", who is portrayed as a "trafficked kid" and a vulnerable-looking girl named "Srey Mai", who is supposed to be a "homeless teen."

frank lee bent wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/world/poverty- ... pacf4.html

Phnom Penh: She looks dirty, dishevelled and miserable and is labelled a sex worker.
Many Australians responded to a plea to save the pretty Cambodian girl called Pisey from child predators. "Teach a sex worker to sew," declares a glossy internet advertisement for Sunrise Cambodia, an Australian charity that has raised millions of dollars each year for Cambodia's orphanages.

"Your donation of $500 will get Pisey off the street and into the sewing room with the skills to start her own micro-business," it says. But Pisey is not her real name and she is not a sex worker.
Her portrayal in a campaign that has raised more than $200,000 in Australia in five weeks has prompted a firestorm of criticism in Cambodia and raised new questions about "poverty porn" and "pity charity", the practices where charities use hard-hitting images, such as malnourished children, to draw empathy and donations

"Pisey" is a village girl whom Sunrise Cambodia paid to be the poster-girl for its latest fund raising campaign, which critics say is unethical. A photograph portraying her as a sex worker will remain on the internet and in the public domain forever, critics say. So too will photographs of a boy with the fake name "Soksan", who is portrayed as a "trafficked kid" and a vulnerable-looking girl named "Srey Mai", who is supposed to be a "homeless teen."

If I was presented with the fact as an adult that I helped a lot of poor sick kids through fund raising when I was a child, I would be chuffed. She got paid for it. It was to help kids. Better to bring in the cash for the right causes.
Or
Absolutely disgusting if that type of advertising is found to be funding a fraudulent operation.

It's a human condition issue in the end anyhow. We shouldn't need to process the needs of others through visceral imagery. We should understand and intellectualize empathetically. Not emotionally or guiltily.

aside from the obvious damage to the kids, Pisey is in fact NOT a sex worker as Sunrise claims.
They are lying to get money.
If they lie to get it i imagine they lie about how they spend it.

I'm sure her family liked her losing face by being called a sex worker.

Ah yes, but it was SAVING THE CHILDREN so it's ok to ruin the life of that one child.

frank lee bent wrote:aside from the obvious damage to the kids, Pisey is in fact NOT a sex worker as Sunrise claims.
They are lying to get money.
If they lie to get it i imagine they lie about how they spend it.

You'd have to prove that they damage the kids in the photo first. They held up one child as an example, saying she was condemned in her community or something. Sounds bollocks to me if it was just a photo in a brochure alone. Maybe she would get hassle at school?

After reading what exactly Sunrise get up to, how many kids they help and their future plans, I would say the donors get real value for money. Do the sums.

i think you will find your opinion changes if you look more deeply into it.
Sunrise is being lambasted by every child help organisation there is right now.
this has been very extensively reported on TOF and now it looks like Aus Gov agencies will be taking a good look at this.
It is pretty much illegal to portray kids as sex workers, but especially fraudulent to portray a kid as a sex worker when they are not.
For sure kids are not able to give informed consent to this especially when under care of the NGO who is making them pose.

They are milking money by telling lies plain and simple.

Look into their books, $7 mil in assets, 4 mill non curent

juansweetpotato wrote:

frank lee bent wrote:aside from the obvious damage to the kids, Pisey is in fact NOT a sex worker as Sunrise claims.
They are lying to get money.
If they lie to get it i imagine they lie about how they spend it.

You'd have to prove that they damage the kids in the photo first. They held up one child as an example, saying she was condemned in her community or something. Sounds bollocks to me if it was just a photo in a brochure alone. Maybe she would get hassle at school?

After reading what exactly Sunrise get up to, how many kids they help and they're future plans, I would say the donors get real value for money. Do the sums.

So being a child prostitute steals the innocence of a girl, but calling a girl a child prostitute for the world to see causes no damage at all? There's no disclaimer saying she's a paid actor.

This ad is another case of self righteous people thinking the ends justify the means because they imagine their cause to be worthy. They sure have no compunction misleading poverty stricken Khmer for a dollar, using her image as a way of earning money, and then telling us it's fine because the Khmer get a small cut... similar to the pimps they campaign against.

ot mien kampf wrote:

juansweetpotato wrote:

frank lee bent wrote:aside from the obvious damage to the kids, Pisey is in fact NOT a sex worker as Sunrise claims.
They are lying to get money.
If they lie to get it i imagine they lie about how they spend it.

You'd have to prove that they damage the kids in the photo first. They held up one child as an example, saying she was condemned in her community or something. Sounds bollocks to me if it was just a photo in a brochure alone. Maybe she would get hassle at school?

After reading what exactly Sunrise get up to, how many kids they help and they're future plans, I would say the donors get real value for money. Do the sums.

So being a child prostitute steals the innocence of a girl, but calling a girl a child prostitute for the world to see causes no damage at all? There's no disclaimer saying she's a paid actor.

This ad is another case of self righteous people thinking the ends justify the means because they imagine their cause to be worthy. They sure have no compunction misleading poverty stricken Khmer for a dollar, using her image as a way of earning money, and then telling us it's fine because the Khmer get a small cut... similar to the pimps they campaign against.

I think it depends on whether the 1000+ kids would get helped if they didn't run ad campaigns like that. Otherwise, I would have to agree with you.BUT If it means that 1000 kids suffer because one child has her photo linked with prostitution then it seems an easy call to make.

Incidentally, they must have kids that are not actors that have had bad things happen to them. Should they be photographing those kids instead? Or is that worse?

It is against all professional guidelines to portray children as sex workers.
you might look into the OF, it has been covered in exhaustive detail with comprehensive source citations.
Sunrise are a pack of lying grifters.

frank lee bent wrote:It is against all professional guidelines to portray children as sex workers.
you might look into the OF, it has been covered in exhaustive detail with comprehensive source citations.
Sunrise are a pack of lying grifters.

I was reading that thread this morning, and although other institutions were condemning Sunrise for poverty porn, I saw nothing to indicate that the money wasn't spent properly. 1000+ kids a year at $5 a kid a day x 365 days = $1,825,000 plus staff and other costs like doctors , dentists etc . Are the managers/ fund raisers paying themselves too much you mean?

If they are just keeping kids in a room with no fans and a bare light bulb type of thing, paying for a nice school room for the orphanage tourists to see; basically stealing the funds meant to go to the children but keeping the kids on the minimal it takes to keep them alive and not sending them to the doctors when they need it ( there are plenty here like that) then they are a pack of lying grifters. I don't think that's Sunrise. I may be wrong but the accounts seem a bit grim to me. They seem to get value for money. Notice I say think and seem . I guess the only way I'd know is if I worked there for a year or so.