Reuters AlertNet Full site
Homepage | Newsdesk | NGO Latest | Crisis briefings | Country profiles | MediaWatch | Jobs | Alerting | Login
A new year's resolution for aid agencies and broadcasters
07 Jan 2008 17:47:00 GMT
Written by: Glenda Cooper
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
Survivors of the Oct. 2005 earthquake carry water cans as they return to a camp in the devastated city of Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Oct. 2006. REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood
Survivors of the Oct. 2005 earthquake carry water cans as they return to a camp in the devastated city of Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Oct. 2006. REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood

As the first full week of the new year kicks off, self-improvement is at the forefront of most people's minds.

Instead of the usual resolutions to give up smoking, eat less and go to the gym, my plea for aid agencies and journalists is: rethink your relationship.

In the past, to operate in disaster zones, reporters had to turn to aid agencies. The result was a situation in which it was to the advantage of both sides that the story was as strong as possible. It's been described as a marriage of convenience, but at its most extreme I found it more like a doppelganger.

A journalist ends up in danger of sounding like an aid worker. For example, one told me he hoped that his reporting would help raise £100,000 for the 2005 South Asia quake.

And you can see aid workers increasingly thinking like journalists. An aid worker I met out in Sri Lanka told me that he'd been visited by the media department of a British aid agency, who'd asked him to push all the beds in a hospital into one corner so it would look more overcrowded, and thus make more dramatic pictures.

Will this change with citizen journalism - the big story of the past couple of years?

Certainly, aid agencies have adapted to fight their corner, now they are no longer the automatic port of call for journalists' case studies. They have turned to user-generated content sites to put up their own footage, photos and blogs as if they were citizen journalists themselves.

Type in Oxfam, CAFOD or the Red Cross on YouTube, MySpace or Facebook and a host of results come up.

Yet exposure on YouTube is still minute, compared to a slot on the Six O'Clock News.

Since the turn of the decade, aid agencies have begun turning their press offices into newsrooms, providing cash-strapped foreign desks with free copy and footage, a process that was led in this country by Christian Aid and Oxfam.

They pushed the idea of press officers as "fireman" reporters - not just facilitating media requests but attempting to influence the news agenda by writing and filming themselves. One senior BBC correspondent told me of sitting in a tiny restaurant in Darfur surrounded by five of the big agencies including Oxfam, World Food Programme and Save the Children all vying to offer more.

Last year as part of my research, I asked national newspapers, broadcasters and the leading aid agencies whether they used aid workers as reporters. A third of newspapers admitted that they had, although they were reluctant to talk about it. "Sometimes the lines are a bit blurred because former journalists go on to become aid workers," one foreign editor said. "And they have gone there on a 'for hire' basis."

Is there any problem with this?

Appearing on the comment pages, clearly labelled as aid workers is a long established practice. What is changing is aid workers appearing as writers on news and features pages. As Fiona Callister of CAFOD said, her press office sometimes provided features that went in national newspapers just re-bylined with the name of a staff feature writer. Christian Aid has seen pieces it has written appear in the Sunday Times, Express, Observer and Independent.

This has also spread to broadcast media. In a session on agencies and journalists I chaired at the Red Cross seminar Dispatches from Disaster Zones last month, there was a debate between Fran Unsworth, head of newsgathering at the BBC and Dominic Nutt of Save the Children about whether agency footage was credited. Unsworth stressed that it was BBC policy always to do so; Nutt said he had seen his own footage from Somalia appear uncredited.

This, it appears, was a one-off genuine mistake. But I have heard of other examples where broadcasters appear to have presented aid agency footage as their own.

Does it matter? Well, I believe viewers should be aware of the provenance of what they are watching. An agency may be doing a very good job - but if they've filmed themselves you are hardly going to get any other story.

Recent scandals over TV fakery probably mean any news editor would be more careful these days. Certainly, this week I have seen footage from Kenya labelled clearly as coming from Red Cross.

But if I had a New Year's resolution for agencies and broadcasters it would be this: always do this, and ensure these lines between you are no longer blurred.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.

Del.icio.us Del.icio.us  |   Digg Digg  |   NewsVine NewsVine  |   Reddit Reddit   
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.

2 responses to “A new year's resolution for aid agencies and broadcasters”

Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
  1. Bob Macdonald says:

    I think your concerns mostly stem from the British approach to things. In my experience, Americans and other nationalities are usually very earnest in their approach to aid work and journalism, and would be horrified by such blatant manipulation of the facts. This sort of cynical truth-twisting is oh so very British: a sad statement about the low deeds of contemporary British journalists brought up in a scoundrals-rule media environment.

    Britain's aid industry needs to come clean and get some integraty if it hopes to avoid these follies.

  2. Tony Vaux says:

    Thanks, Glenda. We need to be clear but we also need to be aware of hidden influences. Newspapers often team up with aid agencies to make appeals. This adds further pressure for positive 'spin'. It pleases readers to hear that their money is well spent and so they are more likely to buy the newspaper. The problem lies partly with readers who are more concerned with feeling good than knowing the truth. It also lies in commercialism of the media.

Leave a Reply

Enter the code shown on the left *

When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.

All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content in this article, including by framing or by similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

Glenda Cooper is a visiting fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford. She has just completed a Guardian research fellowship at Nuffield College, Oxford, researching how the media and aid agencies work together - or don't - during natural disasters. For the past 12 years, she has worked as a journalist around the world for a range of media including the BBC, Channel 4, the Daily Mail, the Independent and the Washington Post.

Latest bloggers

More bloggers
China: Death as business

China: Protest against government “hook” by chopping little finger off

Afghanistan: UN withdraws from Kabul?

Afghanistan: Security deteriorates, says report

Laos: Concert to raise funds for typhoon victims



Disclaimers |  Copyright |  Privacy |  Contact Us |  Feedback |  About Us |  RSS XML

Last updated:Mon Nov 23 02:08:30 2009