“Don’t chase headlines, chase good quality news... Don’t be first, be accountable” is the key message delivered to the news media and humanitarian communities by this latest ALNAP report. The report draws on debates at the 23rd ALNAP Biannual Meeting held on the 4th June 2008 in Madrid, as well as a broader programme of research and analysis. It outlines a series of new opportunities and challenges for decision makers across the donor, media and humanitarian communities, and points towards a new agenda for news media and humanitarian aid.
Access this report via ReliefWeb
At the point of a humanitarian crisis, a complex set of obligations and interests arise in media and humanitarian agencies, and become interlocked. Relief agencies rely heavily on the media to get the humanitarian message out, to inform the world of unfolding disasters and to harness the power of donors to raise funds and respond to the crisis. Cash-strapped news agencies primarily concerned with providing coverage of the latest world affairs and ensuring currency, relevance and audience engagement are increasingly dependent on humanitarian agencies for access and information.
The relationships between providers of news and providers of humanitarian aid can influence public perceptions and capture political attention. They can trigger, inform, critique and, in some cases, undermine international responses. They can also fundamentally shape information flows and aid allocations. In times of crisis, the relationship can be essential and complementary, but it is also often - and at the same time - uncomfortable and ambiguous.
The report points to five key changes which could improve this complex relationship in favour of improved humanitarian outcomes. First, greater effort is required to improve understanding between aid and media agencies, moving towards mutual respect – and perhaps even trust – as a means of addressing the current, complex set of relationships. Second, there need to be attempts to change the existing flawed and simplistic narratives about crises and people affected by them, and to change the ‘media logic’ around disasters. Third, local and national media in disaster-affected countries should be viewed as instrumental part of humanitarian response capacities. Fourth, more should be made of the potential of existing humanitarian information platforms for communication. Fifth, and most importantly, those affected by crises need to be put centre stage in efforts to improve humanitarian reporting.
How can such changes be brought about? Increased accountability and transparency within both the humanitarian and media sectors lie at the heart of possible solutions. A wide range of actions, both short term and long term, could be taken by humanitarian agencies, the media and donor governments to change the current paradigm. The discussions at the Biannual Meeting and subsequent research and analysis identified five recommendations:
1. Evaluate the role of media relations and communications in humanitarian action, and actively apply this learning within and across agencies
2. Undertake a regular, independent review of “Humanitarian Reporting”
3. Establish collaborative partnerships to enable cross-sector efforts in “disaster myth-busting”
4. Establish a global alliance of media and humanitarian actors, at the local, national and international levels
5. Establish serving the needs of crisis-affected populations as a central common goal of both media and humanitarian agencies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment