It concerns me that some 30 years after Save the Children first published a set of image guidelines to steer its staff in avoiding negative use of imagery, and to start a dialogue in the aid sector about negative aspects of imagery in use, it’s still a thorny topic (‘White saviours’ belong in the past. We need new storytellers, 1 March). I joined Save the Children as the photographic librarian in 1989 and inherited the task of championing the image guidelines and explaining the issues raised in them.

While the departments responsible for communicating the aims of aid organisations embraced the guidelines, the fundraising arms constantly battled to continue using the negative imagery such as the picture that caused David Lammy such dismay. Their reasons were that heart-tugging images bring in the donations. This largely made them deaf to the perceived implications of confirming stereotypes of bountiful white folk and their countries offering the “helping hand” to the poor, dependent, mostly black folk who couldn’t look after themselves. The ignoring of reasons for need in those countries, which often had historic colonial attitudes at their heart, was a result.

Here we are 30 years on going over the same ground. It seems to me that no lessons have been learned. I am sure all the good folk, famous and otherwise, want to help, but that word “help” is the essence of the problem. Aid needs to be delivered sensitively and perhaps we need to avoid mixing it up with entertainment.

Of course, aid is still needed, but its delivery and the raising of the funds that feed that aid need to be the subject of constant reassessment on the basis of how the recipients might view what is happening to them and what they would choose for themselves given the means to do so.

Alan Thomas

London

• The discussion about white saviour syndrome needs to be seen in the context of the wider problem of the media’s bias towards negative news. The traditional news focus on what’s going wrong can leave people with a distorted view of the world. This is particularly pronounced with the coverage of low- and lower-middle-income countries tending to focus on conflict, disaster and corrupt government. That’s why it’s encouraging that news outlets like the Guardian, in its Upside section, and the BBC’s World Hacks programme, are embracing constructive journalism and covering solutions-focused stories of progress and self-empowerment, including from African countries. The extraordinary work of Comic Relief and other international aid charities is clearly vital and welcome. But more media coverage highlighting how local people in these countries are improving their own lives will help disrupt the narrative of them passively waiting for westerners to come to the rescue.

Giselle Green

Editor of Constructive Voices at National Council for Voluntary Organisations

• I write more in sadness than in anger. In the era of Idi Amin, I worked as a lecturer at the then Uganda Technical College under the auspices of Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO). The engineering technicians that I taught benefited from my presence in terms of their technical performance. Uganda would probably have gained from their establishment of rural workshops and the like, but many of them aspired to “desk jobs”. I don’t blame them; I would probably have wanted something similar.

David Lammy’s statement that the “world does not need any more white saviours” is itself racist, and should be called out as such. The colour of my skin didn’t matter while I worked in Uganda; only that I was a competent and enthusiastic engineer. I commend Stacey Dooley and the Comic Relief team for their efforts to raise funds in support of sustainable livelihoods in Africa and elsewhere. More power to their collective elbow. And to the wellbeing of the relative poor of places like Uganda.

Professor emeritus Geoffrey Hammond

University of Bath

• I agree with David Lammy re Comic Relief’s publicity doing eventual damage to Africa and its progress. I have personal knowledge of how the intense propaganda surrounding Mother Teresa for six decades killed off Kolkata’s image. At least Stacey Dooley is well-meaning. In Teresa’s case she never cared about the poor – all she wanted was constant publicity for her rightwing ultra-orthodox Catholic causes such as opposition to contraception and abortion (even for rape and incest). Western media unquestioningly and willingly gave her multiple platforms to publicise her rightwing causes and to denigrate Kolkata.

Dr Aroup Chatterjee

Author, Mother Teresa: The Untold Story

• Lammy’s right – it’s time to stop the cheesy, cringe-making, celeb-fest charity drive. We should stop stereotyping Africa as a basket case in need of charity. The developed world owes post-colonial Africa a huge debt, but it should be paid through the World Bank/IMF as social credit.

Chris Hughes

Leicester

• “Strictly star”? Would that be the award-winning documentary maker Stacey Dooley that you were referring to on Friday’s front page? The sort of lazy journalism we would expect from a red top. You can, and should, be better than that.

Caroline Johnson

Brighstone, Isle of Wight

• It is very common for “look what good I’m doing” pictures to reveal their priorities by naming the (usually white) “saviour” but leaving the recipients of the charity anonymous. Sadly you fall into this trap, not once but twice (Labour’s Lammy in row with Strictly star over Comic Relief Africa trip, and ‘White saviours’ belong to the past…, 1 March). You identify Stacey Dooley as the doer of good works, but who is the little boy?

Peter Wrigley

Birstall, Yorkshire

• “Africa deserves better from Comic Relief” (2 February). Surely, Africa deserves better than Comic Relief?

Declan McKenna

Portrane, County Dublin, Ireland

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition