Down with Bono-bashing

 Ridiculing the U2 singer only makes it harder for any band with ideals to stick their neck out.

Lavish gift boxes, minimal charity donations ... last week's New York Post hatchet job on the Bono-endorsed ONE campaign flew around the world at the speed of schadenfreude. No matter that the U2 frontman is not responsible for ONE's day-to-day decision-making, nor that ONE's own website declares that it "does not provide aid directly" but is "an advocacy and campaigning organisation", nor that the source of attack was a rightwing tabloid. On sites such as Twitter, it was whoopingly greeted as yet further proof that Bono is a blowhard, a hypocrite, a fraud.
Though criticising Bono is hardly a new phenomenon, in the past couple of years it has become a feeding frenzy. He has been ridiculed for the financial struggles of his ethical clothing line, Edun, and private equity firm, Elevation Partners, his lobbying appearance at a Conservative party conference, the carbon footprint of U2's 360° tour, and even the back injury which forced the band to cancel their slot at Glastonbury. Anyone else would have to run for office to receive such relentlessly harsh scrutiny.
Of course, someone with Bono's profile and clout deserves to have his feet held to the fire. His manner can be off-putting, not least in his columns for the New York Times; he underestimated (or ignored) leftwing discomfort with his realpolitik charm offensive on the Bush administration, and U2's 2006 decision to move their publishing business to the Netherlands for tax reasons was a disastrous own goal which needs to be reversed. But amid the growing chorus of cynicism, he rarely gets credit for the huge efforts he has made on issues such as debt relief and Aids prevention.
It is as if Bono has become a lightning rod for general suspicion of celebrity activism. But unlike many celebrities whose political gestures are half-hearted and tokenistic, he has made it a time-consuming second job and is sufficiently well-versed in nuts and bolts issues to have serious conversations with world leaders, and serious leverage. More than other rock stars, he has worked to use his fame to benefit others. His tactical missteps should not mean that his motives are less than sincere. There are far easier, cheaper ways of getting publicity and the thrill of feeling important.
So to borrow an apt legal term, cui bono – who benefits – from casting him as a self-serving clown? Certainly not the causes he champions, nor any other celebrity who attempts to use their public platform for anything more than entertainment. It's the constituency represented by the New York Post and other rightwing outlets that will raise a cheer if celebrities, who tend to lean left, are discouraged from politics. The conservative media has taken this tack since the 1960s, but in the case of Bono, especially, the left is increasingly happy to take its talking points from the right.
This is the danger in knee-jerk Bono-bashing. Armed with a robust ego and a strong faith, the singer can weather the blows. But any young band with political ideals might well compare his experience with that of a band like the Rolling Stones, who moved their business to the Netherlands but without inspiring a fraction of the ire, and take the path of least resistance. Bono's activism is an ongoing experiment to see how far fame can be used to lobby for progressive causes, and to what degree a musician can act on principles rather than merely voice them. If he is discredited, then so is the whole endeavour.
After the Dixie Chicks were monstered by the US right for criticising George Bush in 2003, they sardonically titled their subsequent documentary after one particular criticism: Shut Up and Sing. Those who seize every opportunity to think the worst of Bono are helping to ensure that future generations of musicians do exactly that.

Dorian Lynskey
http://www.guardian.co.uk