I spent Thursday evening at the House of Commons at an excellent event organised by Muslim Aid, looking at the ‘Silent Tsunami’ the label being given to the current world food shortage. It is an issue that is going under-reported and one of the main issues discussed was how could the media better report complex humanitarian emergencies?
The issue originated from a meeting of humanitarian agencies and media outlets in Madrid in June. A report published from the meeting found that the media and aid agencies can become dependent on each other, creating difficulties; and resulting in the media over simplifying complex emergencies in their reporting. Humanitarian agencies would like to think that the news agenda is driven by the need to highlight humanitarian emergencies, instead the reality is very different. An emergency will only get coverage if there is strategic or political interest in the country. The response of the aid agencies is to try and change this and persuade news outlets that coverage cannot rely on a vested interest.
But what became clear from the event last night was that there is a far more sinister threat to reportage of humanitarian issues – editors. One representative from a media organisation was told that she could not file copy on a food crisis in Africa because the paper had already run a story on food shortages that week. If we have reached a point where we can only run a single story on a particular issue per week what hope is there of persuading news outlets to focus on the peripheral emergencies?
The chair of the event, BBC News presenter George Alagiah, suggested that maybe aid agencies and journalists should get together and discuss new angles to take when pitching story ideas. His illustration was Somalia, where instead of focusing on food shortage and starving children maybe the media should focus on weapons and the global arms industry which sustains the conflict. This was an interesting idea, but there were concerns raised that again editors would block the stories if they were not what they wanted. Maybe what we need then is a joint discussion between editors and NGOs, and not the reporters?
[...] and certainly none that could be defined in one evening. But the fact that my colleagues Alison, Nathan and Josie have all chosen to blog about the ethical dilemmas we grappled with that night suggests [...]
Pingback by Feast, famine and freedom « Public Elations — November 11, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
If people are tired of hearing the same stories, and God knows they are, it becomes the reporters responsibility to think laterally and come up with an interesting new angle. Sneak the worthy stuff in under their noses. Gently, gently, try not to wake them.
Comment by davidmchristopher — November 14, 2008 @ 9:56 pm