Regarding his willingness to take up causes at his own expense and losses: I believe in this stuff! I’m going to do what I believe in, and if people hate it, that’s okay. I’m going to do it anyway.
Years ago, I went through the ‘cause’ stage of lending my name to boards. It didn’t mean a thing. When a celebrity lends his name for a cause it usually is more for his own credibility than the board’s. But I do believe in shared experiences with people.
My celebrity is only useful as a means to communicate or to listen to other people who believe in the same things. I’m a mouthpiece or a support system for those without a voice — the abandoned. I’m not out to make grandiose statements or to build a platform.
In 2002, David was interviewed on BBC Radio 2 as part of Hitting Home, a BBC-wide campaign to help raise awareness of the issue domestic violence. Here is that very personal and honest interview.
If a celebrity feels strongly enough about something, he has the right to get personally involved.
When a celebrity speaks up, he takes certain risks with his career. I’m willing to do that . . . I’ve gotten involved not to place blame but to help stir up action to improve any and all situations that are important to me. Other citizens do the same thing all the time.
Another strong example of David’s social conscience is his 2009 “Open Letter to the BBC” in which he challenged the BBC’s unwillingness to support the appeal for relief to the people of Gaza. In part, he said: It is unconscionable that the BBC refuses to make a distinction between “unbiased reporting” (which apparently means, bending to lobbying pressure, and supporting the humanitarian action that is so urgently needed in GAZA … whoever may be responsible for causing the destruction. … Innocent people urgently need supplies of food, water, medicines, shelter … yes, and limbs, too … as a result of the annihilation of GAZA. Meanwhile, the BBC puts its corporate tail between its legs and hides behind the thinly-veiled excuse of “impartiality.” What’s the difference between supporting an appeal for aid to the victims of a Tsunami and supporting a relief effort to the innocent victims of war … any war? As an independent broadcaster, the public mandate of the BBC should be to place it squarely on the side of HUMANITY. That being so, the BBC should be at the forefront of reporting the whole story even as it supports the greater cause of HUMANITY. Shame on you! You have lost my respect, and until the BBC can show me true “impartiality,” the BBC can have my TV license back.