Reporting is often a dirty word, particularly among those in the aid world who think they know best and feel no need to be accountable to the public-at-large. For well over a decade, however, specialized media groups have been working with local and international journalists to ensure that disaster-affected populations receive the sort of “lifeline” information they need to survive. What many policymakers do not realize is that better informed media can also play a key role in resolving or at least alleviating conflicts. Nonetheless, despite the media’s proven effectiveness as a crucial component of any humanitarian, peacebuilding or recovery effort, such initiatives are still failing to receive the support they need. This lack of commitment, often the result of ignorance, is not only risking lives but costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly even billions, every year. In this two-part series, part of which was previously published in the April 2009 issue of Development and Cooperation , Edward Girardet examines why all too many aid agencies and donors are acting irresponsibly and why they urgently need to clean up their acts. Otherwise, they shouldn't be in the business.

PART I: From humanitarian arrogance to informing the public

Geneva – At the recent Global Media Forum organized by Deutschewelle in Bonn, many of the 1,200 media specialists involved focused on the need to develop broader multi-media platforms for reaching out to different and constantly changing audiences worldwide, whether stockbrokers or refugees, and whether through print, radio, television, Facebook, U-tube, SMS messaging or Twitter.

While the prospects for survival among many conventional media, particularly newspapers and magazines, are daunting, the prospects for keeping the public informed on a host of new media platforms are both exciting and enormous. So is the role that existing and new media can play as the true “voices of the people,” whether in Europe, North America and other parts of the industrial world but also those caught up in disaster zones and conflicts or simply struggling to stave off the burdens of poverty.

This ongoing media revolution has been clearly embraced by Deutschewelle, Germany’s public service Voice of Germany, and the Berlin government. But they are way ahead of the curve. Deutschewelle is clearly asserting itself as a media leader of ideas. The German government, for its part, is seeking to promote its former capital Bonn as a replacement for Geneva. It unabashedly wants to see Bonn emege as the new headquarters and conference centre for global issues.

Despairingly for those seeking to promote media awareness as a key component of the international aid community, both the Geneva and Swiss governments (the local Genevan authorities often act more like narrow-minded mountain Valaisan in their attitude to the outside) are failing disastrously to fathom that the world is changing. Geneva is in dire danger of losing its position as a pivotal humanitarian and environmental hub unless they react more decisively. This means understanding what media is all about. It also means a better effort to support it.

But the Swiss are not alone in failing to understanding what specialized media can bring to the table. At last May’s Swiss-backed International Security Forum in Geneva attracting experts from all over the world to discuss coping with global change, there was not a single panel dedicated to the role of media for helping to alleviate or even resolve conflicts. While one of the hosts, the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) , did support a parallel workshop for experienced editors and journalists on security issues, the organizers (including the Swiss) failed to ensure that governments, policymakers, military or think tanks also grasp the urgent need to incorporate credible and independent media in their efforts.

Similarly, at this month’s UN-organized Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction , the role of the media was once again ignored. When John Holmes, head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), elaborated on various urgent climate-related issues, such as the international community’s need to invest at least three billion dollars a year in risk reduction, he – once again since the last conference two years ago – blandly acknowledged the critical role of media for influencing governments and the public. However, he did not consider it important enough to be incorporated as a key component to any international response effort. “Media issues are indirectly part of any discussion,” he said.

Such attitudes mean that international support for keeping crisis-affected populations informed remains outside the loop resulting in lives lost plus numerous opportunities ignored for making aid more effective. The sad reality, too, is that international aid operators and donors have been fully aware of this need to keep their  ‘beneficiaries” informed for years, yet consistently fail to respond to this gap in the matrix.

When this writer talked to one of the ISDR coordinators about why they had not included a media panel in the conference, the official responded that it preferred to have the BBC or Al Jazeera cover the events, but did not see the need to have media as part of the discussion.

Shortly after the 2005 earthquake in northern Pakistan, for example, OCHA held an emergency donor meeting in Geneva to allocate funding for the different “clusters” – food, medical relief, shelter…- that would help international aid agencies provide the humanitarian relief needed. All areas were covered, except, as usual, specialized media initiatives designed to inform the affected populations. The international community is normally quick to fly in aid, but always seems to forget the need to reach out to the very people they are supposedly helping.

When questioned why the UN did not have an information cluster, the OCHA chairperson gave a puzzled look. “There is a cluster dealing with communication among the different UN agencies,” she insisted. But what about the disaster victims themselves? What is being done to inform them? She agreed that this was important and that perhaps some form of mechanism should be put into place to provide funding for emergency media support. However, for the moment, this was not on the agenda.

Given the considerable evidence available at the time on the effectiveness of specially-tailored “lifeline media” initiatives to enhance humanitarian operations one would have thought that the UN and other members of the international community would have finally understood the need for local and specialized international media as critical communications vehicles for reaching out to affected populations.

Even the International Federation of Red Cross Societies (IFRC), which had published the 2005 World Disaster Report fully dedicated to the role of media in crisis zones, failed to grasp the importance of providing victims with needs-based information as a crucial component for effective humanitarian operations. “Giving vulnerable people the right information at the right time is a form of empowerment,” noted Jonathan Walter, former editor of the report. “It enables people to make the decisions most appropriate for themselves and their families and can make a difference between being a victim or a survivor.”

Nevertheless, when approached by a media specialist within hours of the Pakistan earthquake, the IFCR admitted that it had still not incorporated a mass information component as part of its day-to-day global disaster operations. Instead, it sought to put Internews, BBC Trust and other specialized media groups in touch with its press department, which was more geared to promoting IFRC’s own public profile with mainstream media such as CNN or BBC than communicating with victims. In fact, it had no idea what to do with regard to providing support for lifeline media initiatives.

Another key humanitarian organization, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) dismantled its mass information representative at the end of the 1990s, but has since incorporated such initiatives as part of overall operations and is partnering with media groups such as Internews and BBC World Service Trust . While a step in the right direction, one of the weaknesses of this field-only approach is that - as an institution – UNHCR lacks the regular presence of a fully-dedicated expert or mass information team to maintain regular contact with specialized media.

Also, most operations’ people are simply not trained for dealing with proper information needs. Another problem is that there is no specific global mass information budget making it difficult for the media groups to undertake timely public outreach initiatives involving UNHCR.

All this means that support for local or specialized media, particularly as part of emergency operationa, is still relegated to the backburner by much of the international community. This comes at a terrific cost to the populations concerned, both in lives and the ability to survive. It also encourages a certain 'we know what's best arrogance' plus a basic lack of donor and aid agency accountability, when it comes to explaining on-the-ground actions to the victims themselves.

It also means critical missed opportunities for improving aid effectiveness or alleviating conflict situations, such as the 2008 – and now re-emerging – political upheaval in Kenya. In many disaster situations, people need to know what is going on even before they can begin thinking about food or medical relief. This means receiving critical information about what the government or relief agencies are doing, or not doing, when the they can expect to receive help or what to do if nothing is forthcoming. Should they wait with their wounded, or should they carry them out? Will the roads be open? What about clean water? Have my other family members survived in the towns or valleys beyond? How long will it take before food arrives?

They also need to be informed by credible sources which ensure that rumour does not run rampant, an often highly destructive force when reliable information is not available. In other words, victims require urgent “needs-based” input that will enable them to make informed decisions about their own survival and future.

This is where specialized “lifeline media” working with local journalists can make a significant difference.

Normally, such information might be available were all the infrastructure to remain intact. However, disasters such as earthquakes, wars and floods tend to knock out power supplies meaning that people no longer have access to electronic media, such as television. Radios, too, will depend on whether there are any functioning sets or batteries available. Local broadcast journalists are also not necessarily trained up to deal with disasters or political strife by providing the sort of information that victims need. Mobile telephones for SMS messaging and calls, an increasingly efficient tool for communication (but also for spreading rumour), are only usable if transmitter points stay operational.

Since the mid-1990s, various organizations such as Media Action International (MAI), a Geneva-based media NGO which instituted the notion of “lifeline media” but eventually had to close down for lack of Swiss support, Internews, Institute for War and Peace Reporting, the Hirondelle Foundation, Panos and, more recently, the BBC Trust, have been seeking to provide “news that you can use” or needs-based information as a key humanitarian component to disaster victims but also as part of normal development or post-conflict and disaster recovery initiatives. All work with or train up local journalists to respond more effectively to the needs of these populations. The Media21 Global Journalism Network in Geneva is now in the process of updating MAI’s Lifeline Media initiative with Tufts University and other partners.

Increasingly, too, Deutschewelle, Media21, Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting , Center for Investigative Reporting and the Boston-based quarterly magazine Dispatches (see Mort Rosenblum article on reporting in the June 22, 2009 Essential Edge ) are promoting better informed local and international coverage for keeping tabs on global issues ranging from climate change to peacekeeping and security but also the international aid community itself.

Over the past 20 years, the international aid industry has dramatically improved the way relief is provided to victims caught up in disasters and crisis, such as the Southeast Asian Tsunami or more recently the floods in Bangladesh and the situation in Darfur. Far more, however, needs to be done to keep those most affected by disaster - but also recovery - informed of aid efforts and to have a voice in the relief process.

All too often, however, the aid agencies simply forget about credible information needs or embrace a form of neo-colonial humanitarianism whereby they do not feel a responsibility to explain their actions to the beneficiaries, the very people they are supposedly be helping. Whether Afghan refugees returning to the country or Kosovars engaged in the reconstruction of their homeland, people need – and want – to know what is going on.

One of the reasons why resistance to the recovery and peacekeeping effort in Afghanistan is growing is that rural populations are frustrated by the lack of transparency by both the international community and an increasingly corrupt government. They feel they have a right to know where the money is going, and why.

Clearly, numerous media support efforts have been established with considerable success in different parts of the world ranging from Sierra Leone to Thailand. However, there is still a general and highly debilitating failure by the international community to incorporate needs-based information as an automatic component of any aid operation alongside food, medical, shelter and other forms of relief.

As experience has shown, one of the cheapest and most effective forms of outreach is local FM radio with reports produced by journalists often in coordination with the host government and aid agencies to inform the victims. If transmitters are down, provisional “radio stations in a suitcase” (prices vary between 2,000 and 5,000 US dlrs each) can be set up in the field. These use computer satellite uplinks to pull in programming and then rebroadcast locally to nearby communities, such as villages, holding centres or refugee camps.

For this reason, if possible within the first 24-48 hours, aid agencies such as the Red Cross, Medecins sans Frontieres or CARE should include simple First Information Aid kits. These need to be tailored to local conditions, such as straightforward printed materials, including comic books for illiterate audiences, with basic survival information on what to do with contaminated water or how to prevent infection.

These First Information Aid kits should also be equipped with pencils and notebooks for local committees to comment on conditions or forward information elsewhere, plus windup radios or cheap battery transistors, which can cost as little as two dollars each, as well as frequency details. Once the emergency stage is smore settled, the specialized media groups can work with local journalists to develop more long-term approaches, such as daily recovery programmes for local or national radio stations, or even street theatre in the refugee camps. This has been done with considerable access in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Liberia.

Today, in 2009, one of the key remaining problems is the need for media to be automatically incorporated from the very beginning in the overall humanitarian, peacebuilding or recovery process. Little appears to have changed when it comes to tangibly providing logistical or financial support for media initiatives, particularly in emergency situations.

While the role of information may seem perfectly obvious to my own teenage daughter and her friends with their social networking and even my computer literate nine-year-old son, many aid groups still do not grasp the point of involving media. Medical relief or food aid is easy to understand, it seems, but not information. Aid operatives – and donors - repeatedly question its effectiveness and do not see the need to invest in media support, whether short-term or long-term, in order to inform.

Many, too, still regard media as coming under press and public relations, when, in fact, it should be part of operations or linked to the director’s office itself. The international aid community urgently needs to embrace a whole series of new parameters and reforms for involving media as a key player.

PART II will run in the days ahead on The Essential Edge.

Essential Edge co-editor Edward Girardet, a former correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor and The NewsHour/PBS, is a journalist and writer based in Geneva.  A journalist advisory to the Media21 initiative, he writes on humanitarian, conflict and media issues. He is also writing another book on Afghanistan, plus writes a regular global post: Coward in Kabul.  

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview