Media and disasters

Dear Elisa, I would be interested to hear about your research. My area is the relationship between media and aid agencies when it comes to natural disasters [url]http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/12/glenda-cooper-when-lines-between-ngo-and-news-organization-blur/[url] but I would be interested to read your approach.
Best
Glenda Cooper

Elisa, about media & natural disasters:

1. Unlike 100, or 50 or even 15 years ago, communications now let us know
about large natural disasters within seconds, allowing and encouraging aid
agencies (and public attention to support them) to kick in within minutes.
Aid agencies do in fact respond substantially faster than in the past.

2. For many disasters, including quakes, it's still too late when we do
respond... and international aid resources and search/rescue comes after the
period of life-saving is past, which the media does not report very well.
the media encourages myths still, such as dead-bodies-spreading disease or
knock-on epidemics. The media does not do any better job of distinguishing
what is life-saving and what is palliative or reconstruction.

3. the flip side of point 2 is how little the media reports on the
opportunities missed to have saved lives through prevention, preparedness,
mitigation, early warning, and risk reduction. There has been much quiet
progress in the humanitarian aid community in these arenas, but these
activities are not sexy. Thus, the media doesn't cover it, encourage
public attention to support it, or credit it. Thus, the media perpetuates
an after-the-fact, clumsy, throw-money at problems attitude. Even during
reconstruction after a disaster, there's a huge opportunity to deploy
reconstruction funding toward early warning and risk-reduction systems, but
the media prefers instead to look for less technical stories that are more
about immediate tragedies. Instead of useful stories, the media
seeks/promotes a "who's in charge", "who's at fault", "who's the bad guy"
atmosphere of finger-pointing often. At least from the U.S. vantage point,
there's still far too much of "oh gosh, look how badly things operate in
poorer countries", mixing up (confusing) what is about the disaster and what
is about basic poverty.

4. It remains just as much the case now as 10 or 20 or 30 years ago that
the media's attention is clumpy: lots of attention to a few natural
disasters a year; far far less attention to the many other quieter and
forgotten disasters.

5. Because so much technical material in the aid community is documented
and on-line journalists probably have less of an excuse than in the past for
their failure to better understand the professional aspects and science of
aid. Therefore, one could argue, that the vapidness and stupidity of
reporters like Anderson Cooper is more egregious now than for his
predecessors 20 or 40 years ago.

6. There remains an aspect of television journalism where the focus is more
on the reporter-being-there than on the facts/evidence trends there. It's
quite possible that Youtube and twitter will make this CNN style of reporter
even worse: more focused on the moods, heroism and experience of the person
reporting than on the work of aid organizations. This is accentuated (made
worse) by the media's increasing (gradual, over the decades) coverage of
celebrities going places. Thus, the public is oriented to care/donate
because of the narratives about Ben Afleck, Sean Penn, UN ambassadors, and
other celebrities rather than the details, merits and impact of the programs
of the agencies that asked them to travel.

One could easily do a dissertation just on the
history/growth/unique-role/penetration of AlertNet (Reuters), alone. Or of
Relief-web, which is a mere 15 years old. Or Crosslines.

good luck, steve hansch

Steven's point 3 is correct but not exclusive to humanitarian news - how much do news outlets -- or bloggers for that matter -- report about crime reduction or disease prevention, for example? The celebrification of TV reporters under point six is well stated and likely to worsen as the kittens and bloopers hog the YouTube buffet.

Elisa -

In terms of reading, the ALNAP documents are excellent, also look for the Fritz report, Glenda's work, also look out for Karen Rothmyer who is researching NGOs and the media with an Africa focus. Records of the Red Cross "Dispatches from the Disaster Zone" series of events and the InterAction "summits" on media (most recently in New York) may also offer something useful.

But the hot area where I think you should consider researching is in the area of crowd-sourcing, citizen journalism, mobile technology, geolocation and traditional broadcast radio as mashed up in Haiti. I think this counts as "media" although you don't state your definition.

The actors include Ushahidi, INSTEDD, InterNews, EIS (affiliated, like AlertNet, with Thompson Reuters Foundation), CrisisCommons etc... There has been tremendous excitement about the breakthroughs that the Haiti disaster catalyzed in this space.

The disaster aid system could benefit from challenges these tools hint at: ossified assumptions, inefficiencies, hirerarchical and unaccountable practices certainly need a vigourous shake up, perhaps an overthrow.

Nevertheless, there has been little critical assessment to cut through the hype and pick through the Haiti techfest for real value and impact (although a recent commentator wondered if there were part of "amateurisation" of disaster response). Someone should ask the harder questions...

Ben
IRIN
Nairobi

Hi Elisa,

Several references that way be of interest to you:

Benthall, J. (1993). Disasters, relief and the media. London, Tauris.

Ignatieff, M. (1998). The stories we tell: Television and humanitarian aid. In Moore J. (Ed.), Hard choices: Moral dilemmas in humanitarian intervention. Rowman and Littlefield.

David Reiff's "A bed for the night" talks quite a lot about the "CNN effect" and the cynical use of the media on the couch potato do-gooders...

As a former spokesperson I was always amazed at how the mere presence of a camera can attract attention and create news, even when the street at the given time was "quite". An interesting dilemma I suggest: creating news or reporting news?

Another possible approach: consider the very different ways aid agencies make us of public statements, and how they do so. The ICRC is discrete and does not disclose confidential reports and conversations it has had with the stakeholders in the humanitarian network. It sends out a press statement that is usually very carefully balanced. Other aid agencies "name and shame" stakeholders in the media (UNRWA, for example). I argue that the choice of public discourse effects the nature of the humanitarian space that can be negotiated, and consequently impacts upon effective aid delivery.

Great subject, enjoy.

Dan

Dear Elisa

The topic of poor media coverage of humanitarian disasters - and associated editorial coverage around it - was the subject of a recent letter to the Lancet submitted by three colleagues (Emergency Nutrition Network and NutritionWorks), attached or see: http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673610603820.pdf

Some of the ENNs observations and concerns around media coverage of disasters were reflected in the editorial of our latest issue of Field Exchange 38 (download at http://www.ennonline.net/pool/files/fex/fx-38-final-copy.pdf) and raised recently as a 'cross cutting' topic on our technical forum, en-net : http://www.en-net.org.uk/question/222.aspx

More specifically, ENN have been looking more closely at media coverage around infant and young child feeding in emergencies (IFE) over the past 4 or 5 years, as part of an interagency collaboration to build capacity to appropriately respond to nutrition needs in emergencies (IFE Core Group, www.ennonline.net/ife). The media have played a significant role in fuelling inappropriate responses, e.g. calls for donations of infant formula, or reinforcing myths and misconceptions (e.g. mothers too stressed to breastfeed, equating vulnerability with weakness). It doesn't need to be that way and we have been working on how to improve this. For example:

We have evaluated IFE media coverage around a number of disasters, the first presented at a regional workshop in Bali (report: http://www.ennonline.net/resources/643) and the second around the China and Myanmar earthquakes (download report at http://www.ennonline.net/resources/745 ). In response to IFE media issues, we have developed guides for the media on IFE that have been widely used in emergencies for quick communication in general, see http://www.ennonline.net/resources/126 and more detailed guidance on responsible IFE coverage at: http://www.ennonline.net/resources/744

On IFE, media has actually been a source of information of inappropriate actions that we have used to intervene. We conduct 'media watch' around IFE in disasters that alerts us to, for example, arrival of donations of infant formula. We have many examples of how we have used this information to alert UNICEF, NGOs, US government (OFDA) to this, who have intervened. The 'real time' availability of information across the globe has enabled this.

The observations from the respondents above are very interesting. In our IFE work we have found that strengthening the press releases from agencies, like NGOs, is important in order for media outlets to pick up stories. However there can be a great disparity between what the technical (eg nutritionists) team think is appropriate and what the communication team would like to release. Often we have found that communication depts are loath to put out negative stories associated with their agency, eg alerting to causing harm, and prefer positive stories, eg actions to benefit. We have found that 'risk of harm' stories are more powerful.

Regards, Marie

Attached file: lancet-letter-media-haiti.pdf

Yes, we have serious problems with the media, but we must blame ourselves for this too. Attached is a vidoe of my talk to the recent EU conference on Emergency Response "What is Wrong with Humanitarian AID

http://webcast.ec.europa.eu/eutv/portal/env/_v_fl_300_en/player/index_player.html?id=8055&pId=8110

Michael Stone 

A very interesting thread and a lot of information for Elisa. I quite agree with all the points about the potential downsides of especially the international media. This may be off her topic, but I would also suggest that she thinks about the +ve and -ve role of media in creating emergencies; in the official response mechanisms to emergencies and also in positively contributing to mitigation of impact. Examples :
- Rwanda - the role of the media in provoking and manipulating the violence
- Civil defence - the role of the media (and particularly public service broadcasters) in early warning, and response - eg volcanoes, bushfires, tornadoes etc
- the role of local media in managing response and informing those affected after the event

In Ethiopia (1984) the camps like Korem were effectively created so that the Ethiopian govt could get media to see the scale of the famine (as any aid was being channelled to 'the other side'), but the aid agencies also needed the media to get to see the famine desperately as there was no international interest at the time, and no resources to respond inside Ethiopia.

Lastly, how many lives could have been saved if news flashes were sent out on CNN etc to tell people to get away from the beaches/low lying land, once it was known that the tsunami was en route......

Thank you to everyone that has contributed to this fascinating forum discussion. Given the wealth of valuable insights contained here, I have taken the opportunity to summarise this discussion into a short paper. This will allow ALNAP to capture the ideas and resources shared here in a format that can be easily disseminated.

Please pass this summary onto any colleagues that may find it of use or that may wish to contribute to the ongoing discussion around the media and disasters.

As we approach one year since the devastating earthquake in Haiti, I'm aware that the humanitarian response is once again moving up the media agenda and is likely to dominate the news in the coming weeks. I wonder if anyone has any new thoughts on the relationship between humanitarian agencies and the international media. Has the prominence of humanitarian action in Haiti and to a lesser extent Pakistan, improved the understanding between aid workers and journalists?

Is there anything we can be doing to shape the news agenda in the weeks ahead?

I'd also love to hear an update from Elisa if this forum has helped her thinking on the topic.

As we approach the one year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake many of us have been anticipating an examination of the humanitarian system from the media.

On the anniversary of the Indian Ocean Tsunami various media inquests took place and, with a couple of exceptions, I think the debate that emerged was a positive thing. However, this time it looks as though the agencies are in for a particularly rough ride.

I have blogged today on my impressions of the current trend for polemic criticisms of aid agencies. Please take a look and let me know what you think?

http://www.alnap.org/blog/23.aspx

I too thought the Stourton piece was unnecessarily negative, gave excessive space to one or two contributors who were saying newsworthy but not very representative things, and did not distinguish as clearly as it should have done between humanitarian emergency relief and reconstruction aid.

The impression too easily left was that money donated by people very often does not reach its destination or do any good, which is quite false in my view, despite the weaknesses of which we are all well aware.

I see Frontline Club has an event on this subject in London next week:
http://frontlineclub.com/events/2011/01/aid-and-the-media.html

Elisa, you might find this interesting:

http://site.ebrary.com/pub/kumarian/docDetail.action?docID=10124787&p00=world%20disasters%20report%202005

Click on my chapter on the right: 'Humanitarian media coverage in the digital age'. Six years old now, but much of it is still relevant, I think. Good luck with your dissertation. Best rgds...Alex

E: alex.wynter@btopenworld.com

Hi everyone!
I'm a master student of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine. I'm writing my thesis about "Media Coverage of Fukushima Disaster in Ukrainian Media".

Would you kindly write me the names of the books about media coverage of disasters or some researches about media coverage of Fukushima?

I've already found " 1) P. A. Merriman, Royal Society (Great Britain) Natural disasters: protecting vulnerable communities: proceedings of the conference held in London, 13-15 October 1993, 591p., 2)Ralph Izard, Jay Perkins. Covering disaster: lessons from media coverage of Katrina and Rita. Transaction Publishers, 2010, 125 p.' 3) Scanlon J., McCullum C. Media coverage of mass death: not always unwelcome // Australian Journal of Emergency Management. - 1999. - Vol. 14, ? 3. - p. 55-59.