Can journalists and aid workers trust each other?
That was the title of a panel discussion at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in London of which I was part in 2007.
Back then among the many pressing questions up for debate was whether aid agencies simply treat the media as a marketing tool and to what extent we could be said to be on the same side rather than just the same place at the same time?
Few concrete conclusions were drawn from that discussion, though I do remember sensing signs of disquiet that the aid and journalistic community were perhaps beginning to pull in different directions.
That view is borne out by a recent report entitled The Aid Industry - What Journalists Really Think, published by the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), which reveals the strained nature of relations between aid agencies and reporters. Based on interviews with leading journalists in the field of foreign reporting a number of damning criticisms stood out.
Among them was that non governmental organisations (NGOs) set unrealistic development objectives and make exaggerated claims about what they can achieve. The report also flagged up how aid agencies sometimes overstate the scale of a disaster while raising funds, were too big, competitive and overly concerned with their branding and corporate image.
At best too the report concluded, such aid often only forms part of part of the economic development of any particular country and at worst can encourage corruption and an abdication of responsibility by national governments.
This small column does not allow me the opportunity to comment on these issues at length, but as a journalist who has spent two decades working closely with aid agencies overseas here are a few of my summarised thoughts on such criticisms.
Firstly, it's important to recognise that these criticism were overdue, and frankly, in many instances hit the nail on the head. The three criticisms I have highlighted above being points in case. For too long aid agencies have felt themselves untouchable, something the media itself largely went along with.
As organisations that do good, they were not it seems deserving of the same scrutiny that other large corporate bodies were regularly subjected too. That journalists - myself included- frequently rely upon NGO's for access and support when covering war zones or natural disasters and emergencies overseas is a given. I for one can think of many occasions when good and accurate reporting would have been impossible without such help.
Increasingly though the problem is that working with some NGO's has become tantamount to being 'embedded' in much the same way as a reporter would do with the military. This invariably comes with restrictions and expectations by the 'host' as to how the reporter should go about their job filing stories that are effectively vetted to ensure they are on message. If relations are indeed at an all time low what then needs to be done? Again space prevents me from elaborating, but two things immediately come to mind.
The first is that a new, fresh dialogue between aid agencies and journalists needs to take place. In the past there have been many talking shops but few that looked at practical ways to establish an mutually effective working relationship. The second, is that aid agencies need to re-evaluate those journalists who genuinely care about such issues and see them for what they are, potentially powerful allies. Yes, we can trust each other and work together for the benefit of all.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article