To tmsruge's point (as well as most people's points here): "There's nothing wrong with helping the poor, there's something wrong with doing it poorly." Fully agreed, we have the NGOs (and for that matter the companies, politicians, prisons and so on) that we deserve or fight for and in that context, Lina's post is a welcome addition to the debate.
But doing it poorly could be spending donor money on ineffective campaigns - as in showing respectful images which don't trigger donations - , thus cutting the revenue streams and the work which NGOs conduct.
This assumes people give more after seeing shocking / disrespectful images than they do after seeing empowering / respectful images. I would agree that this is a big assumption.
In my mind that assumption would be well worth checking. To check that, one could ask NGOs to provide two ads where the same medium (billboards, magazines, TV ads) was used with one ad - which could be viewed as disrespectul and one as respectful. Donations made thereafter would then help understand what works and what doesn't. If that sounds too complicated (and that would definitely be a huge task) perhaps NGO ads on youtube could be a good basis to check if respectability of an ad impacts viewership. That in turn would provide for a rough idea of how successful a NGO campaign is.
Indeed, if one could prove that respectable photos / videos / PR sells more than the disrespectful type, it wouldn't take long for it to disappear :)