Podcast description

Why Are the Media So Wrong About Charities?

Charities are among the most trusted institutions in society, yet they often find themselves at the centre of negative headlines. Stories about executive pay, fundraising costs, alleged waste or governance failures frequently dominate media coverage, while the life-changing impact charities deliver every day receives far less attention.

In the latest episode of For Impact: The Charity Podcast, hosts Felicia Willow and Chris Pitt explore why anti-charity stories are so prevalent, why myths about the sector persist and what charities can do to challenge the narrative.

Featuring charity journalist Russell Hargrave, media psychologist Dr Sharon Coen and charity finance expert Pesh Framjee, the discussion reveals how media incentives, public psychology and misunderstandings about charity finances combine to create a distorted picture of the sector.

Why Negative Charity Stories Dominate the Headlines

One of the central themes of the podcast is a simple reality: bad news attracts attention.

As Russell Hargrave explains, journalists are under constant pressure to find stories that will engage readers, generate clicks and attract audiences. From a news perspective, a story about a major charity making mistakes is often seen as more compelling than a story about a charity quietly delivering excellent services.

This helps explain why stories about controversy, executive salaries or financial management receive disproportionate attention compared with stories about successful projects, community impact or positive outcomes.

While investigative journalism has an important role in exposing genuine wrongdoing, the result can be an overwhelmingly negative public perception of charities as a whole.

The Overheads Myth Refuses to Die

One of the biggest frustrations discussed in the episode is the enduring belief that charities should spend as little as possible on anything that is not directly delivering services.

Many members of the public continue to judge charities based on overhead ratios rather than impact.

The assumption is simple: the lower the overheads, the better the charity.

The reality is very different.

Charities require:

• Skilled staff
• Financial systems
• Technology
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Training
• Governance support
• Legal advice
• Fundraising activity

Without these things, organisations cannot operate effectively or sustainably.

As Pesh Framjee argues, charities that invest in strong systems, good infrastructure and capable staff are often more effective, not less. Focusing solely on overheads ignores the question that really matters: what difference is the charity making?

Why Impact Matters More Than Ratios

A recurring message throughout the discussion is that impact, not expenditure ratios, should be the primary measure of success.

In the commercial world, profit is often seen as the ultimate indicator of performance. In the charity sector, the equivalent measure should be impact.

The challenge is that impact is more difficult to communicate than a simple financial percentage.

It is much easier to publish a headline about how much a chief executive earns than it is to explain the long-term social changes a charity has achieved.

This creates a situation where financial statistics often dominate public conversations, even though they tell only part of the story.

As the podcast highlights, a charity with higher overheads may be creating significantly more impact than one with lower administrative costs.

Why Charities Face Different Standards

The discussion also explores a frustration shared by many charity professionals: charities are often judged differently from businesses.

A corporation investing in technology, leadership, legal support or professional expertise is generally regarded as being well run. When charities invest in the same things, the spending is sometimes criticised as wasteful.

Similarly, there is often public criticism of charity chief executive salaries despite the fact that most senior charity leaders earn substantially less than their private sector counterparts while managing similarly complex organisations.

Large charities oversee budgets worth millions of pounds, employ hundreds or thousands of staff and operate in challenging environments, yet public expectations around pay often fail to reflect this reality.

How Psychology Shapes Public Perceptions

The podcast takes an interesting turn when media psychologist Dr Sharon Coen explains why people may be particularly drawn to negative charity stories.

Research into negativity bias shows that humans naturally pay more attention to negative information than positive information.

Negative news feels more urgent, memorable and emotionally powerful.

This helps explain why stories about charity failures can spread quickly and leave a lasting impression, even when they represent a tiny minority of organisations.

Dr Coen also introduces the idea that people who have little direct contact with charities may be more likely to believe negative stereotypes.

People who volunteer, donate, work with or benefit from charities are generally more aware of the complexity and value of their work. Those without those connections are often more reliant on media narratives to form their opinions.

Is the Sector Making Things Worse?

One of the most thought-provoking parts of the episode is the suggestion that charities themselves may unintentionally reinforce some of these myths.

For years, many charities have promoted messages such as:

• “100% of your donation goes directly to the cause.”
• “Every penny supports beneficiaries.”
• “No money is spent on administration.”

While these messages can be effective for fundraising, they may also reinforce the belief that overheads are somehow bad.

The problem is that charities need infrastructure to have impact.

If organisations continue to suggest that spending on administration, technology, evaluation or fundraising is undesirable, it becomes much harder for the public to understand why those investments are necessary.

Why Positive Charity Stories Matter

Despite the focus on negative news, the podcast ends on a more optimistic note.

Dr Coen argues that there is absolutely an audience for positive stories.

While negativity attracts attention, many people actively seek hopeful, inspiring content, particularly during periods of social uncertainty and bad news fatigue.

Charities generate extraordinary stories every day:

• Communities coming together
• Lives being changed
• New opportunities being created
• Social problems being solved
• Environmental improvements being delivered

The challenge is ensuring those stories are told in a way that cuts through.

What Charities Can Do Next

The discussion concludes with several practical suggestions for the sector.

Focus on Impact

Rather than emphasising low overheads, charities should communicate:

• Outcomes achieved
• Lives changed
• Communities strengthened
• Long-term impact

Challenge Poor Reporting

When financial information is misunderstood or presented inaccurately, charities and sector experts should be prepared to respond and provide context.

Build Better Relationships With Journalists

Helping journalists understand charity finance, governance and impact measurement could improve the quality of future reporting.

Tell More Positive Stories

Charities should be proud of their achievements and actively share stories that demonstrate the difference they make.

Final Thoughts

The media’s relationship with the charity sector is complicated.

Good journalism plays a vital role in exposing genuine failures and holding organisations accountable. However, when misconceptions about charity finances and operations dominate public discourse, the result can be damaging for the entire sector.

Perhaps the biggest lesson from this episode is that charities need to become more confident in explaining how they create impact, why investment matters and what success really looks like.

Because if charities do not tell their own stories, someone else will tell them instead. And they may not always get it right.