Aid Agencies and Journalists-The International Risk

Nervous, she sipped at water before speaking. Sharon Commins did not seem used to facing a room of eager faces, all ready to hang onto every word she spoke.

We were not to press discussion on her own personal ordeal abroad working in the international aid realm but Sharon would speak to us about the risks and threats of working in international aid, global security and humanitarian work.

Sharon Commins began as a press secretary for GOAL after completing an undergraduate degree in journalism and a masters degree in international relations in Dublin. Looking back now after so many years of working first-hand abroad with international aid, she says she cringes when she sees some of the press releases she wrote at the beginning of her career. Everything was so simple, either black or white, she now knows that's not the case.

Sharon Commins was kidnapped from a compound run by the GOAL aid agency in Darfur, Sudan with her Ugandan colleague Hilda Kawuki on July 3, 2009. The kidnap lasted until October 18, 2009 and was Darfur's longest running kidnapping involving foreign humanitarian aid workers. It was the first time any of GOAL's charity workers had experienced a kidnapping whilst in action and the Irish, Sudanese and Ugandan governments all refused the demand for a ransom to be paid. The kidnapping ended peacefully and Sharon returned home to Ireland and was reunited with her family late in the night of October 19, 2009.
But this is not to say Sharon's ordeal was easy. Nor is it to say all is well now in the world of humanitarian and international aid.

The recent death of Marie Colvin, the award-winning American journalist who worked for the Sunday Times, at the siege of Homs in Syria has placed even further emphasis on the dangers of supplying humanitarian aid and reporting the story from areas of violent dispute abroad.

Regarding the risks and threats of working abroad, the three most violent countries to work in are Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan. The definition of a risk or threat in international aid accounts for anything from kidnappings to personal health or stress.

2008 has been the most violent year in recent times with an estimated 165 violent incidents affecting aid workers taking place. 2010 had 129 violent attacks, affecting 242 victims in total. Although Sharon has an avid interest in these statistics and regularly checks reports on the risks of international and humanitarian aid, she admits herself she does not know how these attacks are counted, kept track of and even if her own kidnapping has been taken account of in reports.

There are two reasons international staff from aid agencies are targeted abroad; the first being political, for the kidnappers in question to promote their cause to the media, the second being purely financial. Sharon knows her kidnappers' intentions were purely financial, they did not have any political motives in mind.

The new attitude on the aid agency scene is to manage risk, not avoid it. This change in thinking has arrived in the last decade. New measures like military escorts in countries of high safety risks did not come as an easy decision for most aid agencies. Sharon believes humanitarian work is more dangerous now than it was ten years ago. This has come as a result of the new war of terror, the often negative perception of humanitarian work and the blurring of lines between politics, military and humanitarian action.

New initiatives for international aid workers have been appearing recently like a hand-held security and information device quite like this one of the US Marine Corps. Times are changing, international politics is changing and the degree of danger in which international aid and journalists are placing themselves in is changing also.

The work has to be done. The story has to be told. But a priority for governments, international aid agencies and newsrooms across the world should be the safety and the learning of effective survival skills for the people who place themselves in this danger.

Allowance of a Mistake

We all make mistakes. And, although some of them may not want to admit to it, apparently so do journalists with decades of experience.

RTÉ Chief News Correspondant Charlie Bird visited the University of Limerick as part of the Current Issues in Irish Media Seminar Series last week and admitted to a few of his own mistakes he had made throughout his career.

Charlie Bird asked us did we think journalism was an exact science. "To me, it is in a way," he said.

"To tell the truth and to get to the truth is a raw form of science," he said, "but the moral compass is the most important thing of all."

Charlie admitted he forgot the moral compass on several occasions, but realising you'd been in the wrong afterwards is half the punishment.

Speaking to a soon-to-be graduating class of journalists this honesty on Bird's part is invaluable. Ethics and fact-checking are two of the most important aspects of modern day journalism and these two elements of journalism are where a lot of mistakes are made.

The rate of which news changes can put pressure on the journalist to get the story and the facts out fast, before anyone else does. This can result in a lack of fact-checking and a weakness in credibility. But when a mistake is made, Charlie emphasised, the best approach is to tell the truth and apologise, letting it fester will not have a positive result.

Warning: Mistakes may be made

The most memorable example of this in recent media history is the RTÉ PrimeTime Investigates programme, A Mission To Prey. "Even a stupid name," Charlie exclaimed before recounting what he knows of the investigation.

"Of course RTÉ PrimeTime Investigate's name is tarnished," he said. And indeed it is.

We all do make mistakes. Journalists make mistakes. The pressure of a news story deadline can let anyone make mistakes. But a simple lack of fact-checking and a the irrational desperation to get a story out fast is not making a mistake, it's foolishness.

The sniff of a story that a priest may have an illegitmate child in Africa, a country he worked in as a missionary, would get any journalist excited. But to have a second source for such a libelous claim should have been mandatory. To simply take the woman's story as gospel, speak to her daughter about her experiences growing up and to feebly attempt to door-step the priest, Father Kevin Reynolds, was not enough for any journalistic standards.

If the man you are accusing of such a crime offers you a paternity test, surely the church bells would ring and choirs in your head would question his innocence.

Charlie Bird was not involved in any way with the programme's production and I regretted such a majority of the questioning focusing on the show, but it is understandable that people wanted to know how an RTÉ insider felt about such a mistake.

Charlie told us we all make mistakes. And we do. But mistakes cannot be used as excuses too often. Should I have been an RTÉ producer, I think I would preferred to broadcast a last-minute quick-fix change of a show and a public apology to the audience for the mistake in scheduling, than the unmeasurable defamation lawsuit that faces them now, as well as the loss of their investigative and journalistic credibility.

"Every country needs a public service broadcaster," Charlie said, "Someone watching, someone probing. People who work in a public service broadcaster are the custodians of society at any one time."

That may well be Charlie, band it may have been, but it will take some while for RTÉ to reestablish a custodian reputation in this country.

Consumer of an Education

The word 'consumption' refers to the use of final goods until disposal. Can we use this analogy to describe the Irish education system? Are we, the students, consumers of this service that is provided for us-a third level education?

Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn believed it was a suitable analogy to avail of during his recent address at the University of Limerick. Minister Quinn visited the university as part of the Issues in Irish Media Seminar Series, organised by the BA Journalism and New Media course.

A debate followed both during the seminar and in class during the week as to whether students are indeed 'consumers' of a service in Ireland. A Sociology lecturer at the university argued that students are citizens, not consumers in a marketplace.

I believe we are consumers.

We are paying for an education-a service provided to educate us in our chosen fields. Minister Quinn explained that his analogy placed emphasis on the fact that students should be critical of their education and how it is delivered to them, quite like a consumer would be critical of the service they receive from a mechanic, doctor, electrician or caterer.

Minster Quinn said that he expects a response from the user, not necessarily a negative response, but one that could assist in improving and developing the service we receive. He said there should be a way to hold lecturers to account. He would leave the sanctions, if necessary, to the institution itself.

I agree that we are consumers of this service. You would expect to be receiving some sort of service paying €2000 a year for it, having been promised a free third-level education.

But why mention the "new idea" of making lecturers accountable for their actions? We can do this already.  

There are services in every university for people to use to either praise or complain about an educator in the institution. Why mention the possibility of creating a new layer of administration in the Department of Education for a service that is already provided to students? Does Minister Quinn believe more students would hold lecturers accountable if the word went straight to the central government as opposed to being able to deal with the problem first-hand at the institution?

The ability to hold lecturers accountable is there. If anyone wants to hold anyone accountable for their actions in a university context there is always a way.

We may be consumers Minister Quinn, and with that I agree, but with that comes the expectation to get the most for our money. We don't need the government's permission. If we wish to hold someone accountable, we can and we will.