In a feature published in the Sydney Morning Herald, Julietta Jameson asks the same question many of us have asked -- Is the compassionate celebrity the new public pest? If you are talking about Paris Hilton's insatiable self-promotion in grabbing one more photo-op by making a shallow meaningless promise to a charity for kids with cancer, the answer is a resounding yes. If you are talking about U2's Bono, who regularly meets with world leaders and often knows far more about the subject under discussion than the politicians do, then the answer is an emphatic no.

Then there are all the celebrities who fall between the extremes of Hilton and Bono, who lend their name and some of their time, for noble reasons and then too for the less-admirable ambition of keeping themselves in the news, to causes that need attention for the fundraising needed to keep the charity or cause going.According to Jameson, critics of actorvists have voiced disdain for a star's need for meaning. A recent columnist accused celebrities like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt of treating Africa as a toy to soothe the dreadful ache of being rich, gorgeous and famous. "Just being an actress doesn't help me sleep at night," Jolie once said. "When I do something for other people, then I feel my life has value."

The truth is, the competition for donation dollars is fierce among charities, and they find themselves in a position of requiring a celebrity to get them noticed in the news feeds and by the public. Essentially, a celebrity aligning themselves with a cause is not necessary a bad thing -- it depends on the motivation of the celebrity. I remember reading that Rose Kennedy raised her children to believe they had an enormous responsibility to public service because to whom much is given, much is expected. A good philosophy to live by.

That is a motivating reason why cancer survivors tend to stay in the cancer community. They are grateful for surviving cancer and they know giving back is what you do. When it comes to celebrity, it depends on the intent on whether the celebrity is simply a public pest or a genuine agent for positive change.