Email 
Print 
The changing face of foreign news coverage
Written by: Andrew Stroehlein
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.
While articles about the changing media landscape are these days as common as out-of-work journalists, we have been spoiled over the weekend with some excellent pieces about new media, foreign correspondents, and covering crisis zones.
Anand Giridhardas article in the New York Times, "These Days, No Reporting Behind a Nation's Back" is well worth a read. He starts off noting that, "Foreign correspondents no longer cover one place for the exclusive benefit of readers somewhere else. In the Internet age, we cover each place for the benefit of all places, and the reported-on are among the most avid consumers of what we report."
It's amazing that some people still don't get this. Even in 2009, I know people at some NGOs who still think that a quick comment to a journalist writing for a newspaper in some distant country X will somehow not be seen by the regime in country Y where they are working. And I know others who think that a report published on their organisation's website is unlikely to be noticed by the authorities in the country the report is about. But as Giridhardas explains: "'There, not here,' is over." Has been for some time.
But the author doesn't end with this. He looks at how the current information landscape could colour the foreign correspondent's writing, as they aim to accommodate the blogs dedicated to the subject and the expected flood of emails that they know will follow their reporting, quoting the New York Times' Roger Cohen:
"You hear a great range of views about what you are writing, and some of those views can be exciting or interesting or lead you in new directions in terms of what you write and subjects you choose. My hesitation is that this is a temptation to somehow write into that noise and stir it further and be in the noise because it's fun being in it, which I think can be a distraction."Excellent stuff.
In the 1990s, Mr. Cohen chronicled, in person, the horrors that accompanied Yugoslavia's dissolution. Today, correspondents doing such work can find their time being sucked away by the profusion online of viewpoints and images and tweets from the scene, which multiply and demand attention. But keeping abreast of the Internet chatter is not the same as bearing witness.
"Instead of looking at a Bosnian village or hillside or being in a room with a group of concentration-camp survivors or bereaved women," Mr. Cohen said, "you would have just been staring at a screen and dealing with the rage of the Serbian diaspora in Munich or Los Angeles."
Of course, even the best advice for foreign correspondents will have ever decreasing value as the number of overseas journalists dwindles. But as a forward-looking article by Human Rights Watch's Carroll Bogert argues, NGOs are filling in the gaps in international reporting, and could do so more and more in future.
Written from the perspective of 2014 and casting an eye back over five years to see "How Journalism Got Saved", she projects step-by-step how field-based NGOs would move from helping traditional media obtain information from the ground, to producing field-informed media products themselves, to banding together to create a consortium that would act almost like a news agency of worldwide correspondents. She concludes:
In 2014, just as in 2009, the public continues to hold the media in low esteem, right down there with businessmen and politicians. The nongovernmental sector, meanwhile, still enjoys higher approval ratings than any of them. What we learned is that readers don't trust the information less because it doesn't come from the mainstream media. They trust it more.Her article crystallises what a number of us here in the world of NGOs and international news have been murmuring about for a while now, and it's a conversation Reuters AlertNet itself has done much to promote. If you really want to know where we are all heading, surely this piece offers the clearest direction yet.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
4 responses to “The changing face of foreign news coverage”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
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.
Journalist Andrew Stroehlein is Communications Director for the International Crisis Group, the conflict resolution organisation, where he promotes responsible coverage of current and potential conflicts and helps draw attention to forgotten wars around the world.
17 Mar 2009 12:12:32 GMT
Nice blog and thanks for the pointer to the article "How Journalism Got Saved".
Who wrote such a flattering report on the supposedly visionary use of new media by Human Rights Watch? Imagine my surprise that it was by someone who does external relations for Human Rights Watch... The risks of agenda journalism could hardly be better illustrated.17 Mar 2009 12:13:34 GMT
Not like it was thirty years ago today foreign news coverage is quick in getting more details and reporting the true facts. Many electronic devises introduced along with the computer Internet connection has made easy for reporting from any corners of the world. Journalism has also turn into a dangerous job in Many countries with death to many journalists in many parts of the world. Some powerful parties investment in media outlets is creating different logical propagandas on the same issues among readers. Foreign coverages also undergo deep influence regarding international issues for certain polices.
If you are looking to read certain type based on your views it is very easy now a days by going to your choice of web sites and read your interests. International media could also reach any part of the world today by passing all barriers and restrictions imposed by certain government on its peoples.17 Mar 2009 14:28:15 GMT
Dog: The author identified herself as HRW, and I identified her as such above as well -- hardly a hidden agenda... And what's most interesting is not what HRW or other groups are doing today, but rather what the next step will be, particularly given that the credibility of most major NGOs is stronger than the MSM.
19 Mar 2009 14:55:41 GMT
Advocacy journalism and/or journalism supporting by philantrophy seems to be one of the very few ways that the media industry will continue to survive. So that's definitely how people in the industry see the near future.
That said, human rights organisations and NGOs also have agendas. It's dangerous to pretend they will be very different from MSM. One should note that although NGOs may be seen as a trusted source of information by the public now, as compared to MSM, this faith may erode greatly in the future as the public becomes aware of the NGOs' agendas. So I wouldn't go so far as to think that organisations like HRW will be that trusted even in the near future. Especially when they are based in New York, far away from the regions they comment on. I would think that there would be disdain for their views, as there is now for the MSM, in the countries and regions they are commenting on.