If you bothered to read things properly, I've stated that I think band aid came from a good place but 35 years later we can see that it did both harm and good and therefore maybe it's time to address problems in different ways. Thankfully, it's not up to you and so we are actually doing this, but you carry on thinking life is as simple as spending a couple of quid on a song and that makes everything better.
But things are done differently, in part because groups like Band Aid discovered that things like political corruption could make aid attempts really difficult to manage.
Most of the complaints in this discussion have been fairly idiotic, or historically blinkered.
It is not being a "white saviour" to want to raise money to help starving people in another country, unless you want to take the view that it is simply better not to interfere in such instances. And this was not an instance where you could try and help people help themselves. It's true that since the 80's that kind of help has been seen as more important in aid work, but that really wasn't relevant in that particular crises where people were starving on a daily basis and had no way to do a damn thing about it. You don't tell people near death that you are going to help them grow crops and improve irrigation systems.
As far as the political corruption, it was not anticipated the degree to which it would be a problem, in general - though I do believe some at the political level thought it would - but the fact is they also had no answers. Even today in these acute situations where they try and deliver aid, that is a serious problem and no one yet has found a good way around it. Often the choice seems to be to help and see some or a lot of the aid diverted in harmful ways, or not help at all. So maybe those being critical of the first forays into large scale aid of that kind can be a bit more humble at least until they have an answer themselves.
As far as making "stereotypes" in the lyrics - the fact that there are people here who seriously don't even understand the use of a metaphor in the song title and in some other instances is not helping the discussion look sensible. But even more generally, there seems to be a lack of understanding that just because people spoke about something differently does not mean it was wrong. People did generally understand the song was referring to a particular region if they were old enough to be watching the news, and if they had some knowledge of politics they knew more than that - more than a lot of the posters here have demonstrated. In general you find that when you look back at things like news reports, they are written for people who are aware of current issues - that is also true of things produced now.
But it's also the case that people were far more practically isolated than they are now. Cheap travel had not yet become common. People did not go off and do charity work on gap years. The internet did not exist and what you knew about things came from books, newspapers, and the news. Far away places were much more far away than they are today. So yes, people thought and spoke about them differently. The same was very much the case for people everywhere. Many people who live in places with limited access to information even today think that everyone in the west is well fed and rich. And that's not some sign of moral problems or being stupid, it's just what things look like from far away and there is even some truth in that perspective.
It's perfectly possible to see something is of it's time or place, and not what we'd say now, without it being problematic, or offensive, or anything like that. Not understanding this seems to indicate in itself a really incredibly narrow way of thinking, far beyond what the people who contributed to Band Aid at the time are being accused of.