VIEWPOINT: Criticisms of NGOs’ media relations off the mark
15 Mar 2004
Previous
| Next
A street vendor in Abidjan holds copies of Ivory Coast newspapers in November 2002.
File photo by LUC GNAGO
Paul Mylrea, head of media at Oxfam GB, responds to a study by Reuters AlertNet, the Fritz Institute and the School of Journalism at Columbia University that says many NGOs are losing out on press exposure that could help generate public and donor attention because of a lack of training in how to handle the media.
What is the problem with getting humanitarian stories into the headlines? When horrific extremist attacks kill more than 190 in Madrid, broadcasters clear their schedules and send in their big name journalists -- and rightly so.
Yet what about the chronic conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where estimates suggest three million have died since 1997 and more than two million have been displaced?
What about the drought in Kenya, the landslides in the Philippines in December or the floods in northern Brazil? Where are the star correspondents? Where are the headlines and where is the airtime?
Of course, this is nothing new. Oxfam was born 60 years ago out of a desire to respond to such tragedies and to bring them to the public's attention. It remains our work today. We struggle to find ways of raising awareness, not just of humanitarian crises, but of the reasons people continue to live in poverty and what should be done about it.
At Oxfam, we work closely with reporters and broadcasters to get that message across.
Getting this message out takes persistence and professionalism. There is no magic solution. It's simply hard work. So, it's to be welcomed when an organisation like AlertNet decides to look at the issue and provide suggestions for improvement.
Unfortunately, some of the recommendations in the recent report by the Fritz Institute and AlertNet on journalists and humanitarian relief coverage are unlikely to improve anything.
For example, Steven Ross, the report's author and an associate professor at Columbia University's School of Journalism, recommends the creation of a fund to offer support to journalists who want to cover humanitarian emergencies.
It is unclear who would pay for this. How would journalists be selected? For many journalists, this would create ethical problems -- would they not be under pressure to file stories to justify their payment, whatever the strength of the story?
More importantly, would it make it more likely to get more coverage of humanitarian issues on those media organizations that reach global audiences: the BBC, CNN, Reuters, Rupert Murdoch's empire? I don't think so.
PR PROFESSIONALS
Or take the suggestion of a "facility to make photography, audio and video available on request to journalists who can't travel". Again, who would organise it, how would the material be distributed and would news organisations take such video? In any case, surely such a facility already exists. It's called Reuters.
I ought to declare an interest. It's rare to feel well qualified to respond, but for once, I do. As a former Reuters correspondent, the former editor of AlertNet and now head of media at Oxfam GB, I feel I may have some insights.
It's a shame the report prompted the unfortunate headline in Third Sector, a magazine for the charity world in Britian: "Reuters: NGOs lack media savvy".
The report does point to very real problems journalists face. But it delivers a blanket verdict that there is a "lack of media skills among relief charities". That is simply not true. Some charities do have problems but many, and in particular the big names, have thoroughly professional media operations.
Of course, NGOs need to improve. The problem is that the report does not quite seem to grasp how things work in the field.
"Field offices tend to be staffed by local nationals and such personnel are inexperienced in press relations", it says, as if this is a surprise.
Of course field offices are staffed by locals. They should be. Flying in expatriates for every project is rightly frowned upon these days. The bulk of the work of project officers has nothing to do with media work. They are expert at delivering projects, at logistics, at building alliances, at analysing situations.
Big agencies do work with staff to develop their expertise. But such expertise comes with practice, and with media organisations flying into a crisis when it is deemed to be a big story and then flying out again, such experience is hard to develop.
When an agency finds someone who can communicate well, we use them. Take Sam Nagbe, our project officer in Monrovia, who was a regular on the main broadcasters throughout the Liberia crisis last year (see his diary).
COMPELLING STORIES
"Funders would be wise to allow NGOs to direct a reasonable portion of their donations to public education through media relations," the report says.
Maybe, but institutional donors on the whole do not.
And newspapers don't help. Often, the web addresses of charities working in crises are not published alongside the report -- even when information has come from a humanitarian agency's staffer on the ground. The result is a drop in revenue to support the very work the media want to report on -- or even to spend on media work.
So what is the answer? We have to tackle what I believe is the key problem -- the reluctance of schedulers and editors to give the developing world the space it deserves.
In my experience, journalists and NGOs try hard – but you can't get very far if the channel controller does not believe the developing world boosts ratings.
Oxfam, together with the London-based lobby group International Broadcasting Trust and other NGOs are working on this. We're talking to broadcasters in Britain about why the developing world gets short shrift.
We're pointing out the responsibilities broadcasters have to inform and educate -- as well as to entertain. But we're not just complaining. We're working together to make sure we, as NGOs, can provide the kind of compelling stories needed to push the developing world up the schedules.
The intention is not to dismiss AlertNet's new report. Some of the recommendations may be wide of the mark, but we do need to think about and get more insights into how we can create this media space for humanitarian and development stories.
It is not going to change overnight. We need to keep working at it.
