Andrew Chaggar is frustrated by claims that charities 'ambulance-chase' disasters around the world. Here he ponders the role of the media in fuelling charities' emergency responses, from the frontline in Haiti.
Last week I came across an article by the BBC’s Mark Doyle with the headline Haiti cholera challenge ‘failed’ by agencies. It made interesting but also frustrating reading, and it got me thinking how essential and influential the media is in regards to if, when and how aid agencies and NGOs respond to disasters.
Media attention is critical for disaster responders, particularly in regards to fundraising. In 2006 the World Disasters Report analysed the amount of media coverage versus generated income for disasters in the previous year and the result was a startling direct correlation: media = money, plain and simple.
For example, the 2006 report compared the examples of hurricanes Katrina and Stan which struck the USA and Central America respectively. Both killed around 1,500 people, but Katrina generated over 40 times the number of articles than Stan. The resultant funding for each was even more disparate.
My point here is that disasters which receive little, if any, media attention can be more difficult to respond to. If funding isn’t forthcoming then even the most capable NGOs will struggle to provide assistance. Overall, without media coverage the ability of many NGOs to operate is seriously limited.
Because well publicised disasters receive more funding, allowing NGOs to operate, the allegation of NGO “ambulance chasing” can arise. NGOs can sometimes be perceived as chasing the latest disaster - the one in the news - so that they can raise the funds they need. This is reflected in Mr Doyle’s closing paragraph. However, some NGO’s might counter that this is more of a requirement than a choice.
The way disasters are portrayed by the media is also very significant, particularly if long-term vulnerability is to be tackled.
Sensationalist media coverage
Niger’s food crisis of 2003-5, also discussed in the 2006 World Disasters Report, was unfolding for months before sensationalist media coverage and imagery finally prompted a major response. However, while the eventual response was critical in saving lives, the crisis was portrayed as sudden and stemming from relatively simple causes. Little effort was made to clarify the real root causes, such as poverty and climate change, and as a result little was done to reduce future vulnerability through longer-term initiatives.
Ironically, even when disasters receive substantial media attention from the outset, such as with Haiti’s earthquake, the high levels of attention and funding can also cause problems for those responding. This is because this attention and funding bring a high level of expectation and pressure to quickly deliver results. This pressure to act quickly can lead to mistakes being made, like those discussed by Mr Doyle, as aid workers are forced to make hasty decisions in stressful circumstances.
Further, as I discussed last month, money is important but not the only issue. Recovery and reconstruction are complicated, long-term processes and are often affected by political factors which aid workers struggle to address. These political factors are both national, as also mentioned last month, but also international.
For example, in Mr Doyle’s article he quotes another, more recent, report as criticising the Haiti response for missing opportunities to tackle mistakes made through “failed neo liberal development policies” of the past.
Mr Doyle does explain that this refers to the cutting of import tariffs on imported rice, which effectively crippled many Haitian farmers. However he declines to mention that this followed pressure from former US President Bill Clinton who was promoting subsidised exports of American rice - something that Mr Clinton publicly apologised for in March of last year.
The poverty, and increased vulnerability to disaster, that stemmed from this international pressure is one of many reasons that Haiti now finds itself so dependent on outside aid.
By not providing a more in-depth analysis in his article Mr Doyle is contributing to a common trend of failing to clarify root causes. Such simplified analysis, as with Niger, promote short-term fixes to long-term problems, the very problem Mr Doyle is himself reporting on.
Now I’m certainly not meaning to be overly critical of Mr Doyle or the media in general. There is some excellent, in-depth reporting of disasters by groups such as the Guardian, AlertNet and the BBC. My point is that the media is so pivotal to perceptions of disaster that we should all be encouraging every possible effort to increase public understanding of root causes and discouraging the easy “sound-bites” no matter how tempting they are.
Andrew Chaggar is executive director of European Disaster Volunteers which he co-founded in 2008, and is a 2010 Vodafone Foundation World of Difference International winner.
