DevPolitics

Media: Three cups of tea

On April 20th  2011, Nicholas D. Kristof wrote an op-ed in The New York Times about the controversy surrounding Greg Morterson the author of the book “Three Cups of Tea.” Mr. Morteson has been accused of lying in his book about being kidnapped, constructing less schools then what he claims and using the funds from his organization, “Central Asia Institute,” for his personal use.
As I read this op-ed and reflected on a discussion professor Morduch had on the same topic, I realized the importance of monitoring the funds organizations receive. Organizations and their executive directors should be accountable for the money received. Wagner has opened my eyes to the realization that most of the contributions/donations given to organizations never reached the hands of the needy, a large amount of funds go to administrative work. However, what Mr. Morterson did is outrageous. He was stealing from the organization for his own use.
On the other hand, it is essential not to forget that Mr. Morterson did create jobs for children in Afghanistan and that the schools he built do depend on the contributions given to the “Central Asia institute.” I agree with Mr. Kristof, the real problem with this controversy it is not that Mr. Morterson misused the funds from his organization, but because of the bad image, the majority of people who heard about Mr. Morteson mismanagement will stop contributing to his organization and many children that do depend on these funds will not be able to attend school. In addition, other organizations might be threatened and might lose funds given that people might have lost their trust on charitable organizations.
My best advice is for contributors/donors to monitor how their money is being used.

Response To "Filter Bubbles"

Faigy's post explains the concept of a 'filter bubble', as mentioned by Eli Pariser during a talk at the most recent TED conference. It explains how people can create an influx of information specifically catered to their interests, enabling them to remain ignorant about certain issues. The post mentions that "Invisibility of famines in Niger, among many other development crises, may also be attributed to the lack of interested media consumers." I agree with this line of thought, especially because so many people are accessing their information strictly through the Internet. Several people no longer read the news on paper, or own a television. Therefore, in order to access news and information, people have to go seek it out, and this gives them greater control over what they are exposed to. 

Taking this into consideration, this is precisely why online activism and awareness campaigns are far more relevant and have more impact today than they might have been or had in the past. Sharing of links and articles means that someone who might not have been aware of or interested in a crisis on the other side of the world is suddenly exposed to it through a Facebook feed, a blog post, or a trending topic on Twitter. For example, when the late president of Nigeria, Umaru Yar'Adua died last year, the news spread first through Twitter. Twitter users in the US were privy to the information almost instantly, and there was quite a bit of confusion as Nigerians in the US called back home, only to find out that people in Nigeria actually had no idea that Yar'Adua was dead yet. Ah, the power of social media. 

Awareness campaigns are catching on to this, and there is a strong likelihood that utilizing social media can penetrate the 'filter bubble' Pariser speaks of. 

Online "Filter Bubbles" and Development

"A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now then people dying in Africa." -Mark Zukerberg, the founder of Facebook

This is the opening quote of Eli Pariser's talk at the most recent TED conference, in which describes how internet powerhouses like Google and Facebook incorporate every individual's demographic data and click-throughs into their search results and newfeed content. This means that every person's news is personalized to their tastes and views, creating what Pariser calls the "filter bubble." So if someone wants to read about squirrels or Lady Gaga or the royal wedding more than they want to read about starvation or Malaria or rainforests, that is exactly what they will get. 

In a recent class debate about Niger, one reason cited for the lack of media coverage covering their crises is their lack of resources to attract attention. However, Pariser's assertion could provide another layer of understanding to the general invisibility of Niger in the global media. Invisibility of famines in Niger, among many other development crises, may also be attributed to the lack of interested media consumers. If audiences generally don't want to hear about such things, these items will disappear from their results and feeds without them even being consciously aware of it. 

So as future change-makers, in thinking ahead about how such a dilemma could be remedied, I ask you this: What should we try to change first, the interests of the audiences in the developed world or the methods by which search results are 'filtered'? 

Media's Effect on Development

How do we draw attention to pressing development issues? What is the most effective medium through which we can garner support for a policy or country or minority or majority or a need that must be addressed with haste? Well, most would say the media. Since September 11, 2001, our country has turned to 24/7 news coverage. During times of tragedy, it feels as though the media adds a 25th hour into our days for the extra coverage. This holds true for the role of the media on the attention paid to the earthquake in Haiti. We had to pay attention to this tragic event because we had no other choice. Even MTV paused their display of American hedonism to focus on Haiti (with an endorsement from Snooki, no doubt). 

 

The devotion of our time and energy led to fundraising and relief efforts that far surpassed those post-Hurricane Katrina. Money and supplies flooded Haiti and slowly manpower trickled in as well. When listening to the sheer volume of money and items donated to Haiti coupled with the slowing of media attention, a development novice (i.e. our average American) must think Haiti is already on the road to full recovery. But if you’re like me and like to balance equal parts “reality TV” with reality, you may have caught the Battle for Haiti series on PBS this January. Personally, I found this to be the most important media attention to post-earthquake Haiti, and not because it was the one year later special that would show Americans how all of their donated t-shirts and toothpaste helped. It did quite the opposite. The series portrayed the failure in coordination of efforts by governments, aid organizations, and international institutions. After the earthquake, the country was flooded with donations that, while appreciated, did not meet the most pressing needs of the country. Many medical camps lacked basic supplies like bandaids and water. Additionally, there was a lot of overlap in what the organizations on the ground were trying to accomplish. This redundancy in some areas meant there were gaping holes in others. The ability to clear rubble and debris was and still is severely lacking, which has led to over crowded medical-turned-refugee camps. New homes are being made in these camps because Haitians cannot return to where their homes once were--not just for lack of personal funds but also the inability to rebuild on top of rubble.

 

I digress. My point here is not to highlight every way in which we, the international community, failed to respond adequately to the earthquake. I merely want to highlight how our 24/7 news coverage of everything and nothing going on in the world deludes the public into thinking that when attention is no longer given to a particular issue or event, the problem has been solved. This contributes to our culture of instant gratification. There was an earthquake, we donated some money and clothes, things got better. Success! Insta-development is unfortunately not possible. We cannot change a country for the better over night (we can, however, do the exact opposite in a moment). While no one is ever prepared for anything like what happened in Haiti over a year ago, we can still learn from our mistakes that the immediate attention paid is not enough and we cannot go to bed one night and wake up with all being right with the world. I think our addiction to media does us and the rest of the world a disservice in providing a false sense of reality. 

 

A Realistic Vision of Peace

Jody Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work as chief strategist of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which established the first global treaty banning antipersonnel mines. In her TED talk this past winter for the “Women Reshaping the World” TED conference, entitled "A realistic vision for world peace," she describes what she calls a “realistic vision for world peace.”

This realistic vision focuses on the need for human security – peace, according to Williams, means “sustainable peace with justice and equality.” To achieve human security, Williams emphasizes the need for action. She identifies women from around the world who are working together to create participatory democracies – democracy beyond just voting – such as Wangari Maathai and the Women’s League of Burma. Williams’ final message is one of action, taking on the hard work of achieving peace, one volunteer at a time.

Defining peace is just as difficult as defining development. World peace has become something of a taboo term, because, I think, it is seen as too naïve, too optimistic. The idea of a “realistic” vision for world peace is appealing, but Williams seems to make peace less of a “dirty word” by defining it in poverty reduction and human rights terms. I wonder if peace can actually hold another dimension besides what she calls human security, or whether a more philosophical idea of peace must come after basic human rights are achieved. I’m curious to know how the vocabulary of peace plays into international development, and whether the frame put forward by Williams can re-integrate “peace” into the language of development.

 

United Nations Webcast: Referendum in South Sudan

A UN panelist consisting of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, António Monteiro, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portugal, and Bhojraj Pokharel, a former Chairman of the Election Commission of Nepal convened on December 22^nd to discuss South Sudan’s upcoming referendum. The panelists are responsible for monitoring the referendum and will return to Sudan in two weeks before polling begins.

 The discussion focused on the need for greater transparency and outlined the many challenges the South faces. The panelists were concerned with whether eligible voters understood their obligation and right to vote and whether people living in remote areas would be able to travel to referendum centers. They also confirmed that the Abyei referendum is scheduled to coincide with the main referendum. Abyei, is an oil-producing area that borders the north and the south and the Abyei referendum will determine whether Abyei residents will vote to join the north or the south. Historically Abyei belongs to the south but during the civil war the north administratively governed it.

The panelists concluded by urging both parties to keep their commitment to the CPA and carry out the referenda process in a peaceful and transparent manner. Despite the many challenges and issues the South has faced, panelist believe the referendum will take place as scheduled and according to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “the eyes of the world will be watching.” I hope UN troops will not only be watching but will be prepared to intervene in the case of conflict. A time like this requires all involved parties to be prepared for the worst outcome. "Freedom is not Free." 

 

In Honor of "World AIDS Day"

In honor of ‘World AIDS Day’ we must not forget the millions of people that are living with HIV and AIDS. If the expression "out of sight, out of mind" is true, then wealthier nations may be at risk of forgetting about the global AIDS epidemic. According to a study that tracked coverage in 115 leading broadsheet newspapers in 41 countries from 1990 until May 2010, media coverage of HIV/AIDS fell more than 70 percent in developed countries over the last two decades. In the early 1990s, an average of 1.5 articles about HIV/AIDS was found in every issue of the newspapers. Since the presence of AIDS was first recorded more than twenty years ago, the news media have shaped our beliefs about AIDS, defined it for us and set the agenda for public discussion. Everything from our attitudes toward people living with HIV and AIDS to the response of our governments to the epidemic has been influenced by the media.  News coverage of AIDS in the United States, as in other Western countries, has evolved over time but, in many parts of the world, the media’s reporting of HIV/AIDS has not evolved much beyond that first phase.  In several countries, sensationalist and often misleading reporting of AIDS-related issues continue to fuel fear and misconceptions among the general population and promote stigmatization and discrimination of those living with HIV. The international public health community is often frustrated by the poor quality of media coverage of HIV/AIDS issues in many countries, given the critical role that media plays in setting the social context for each country’s response to the epidemic. This community has tended to view journalists through their lens—as a vehicle to disseminate their health information—and is often disappointed when they fail miserably (Malan 2005). Over the past decade, recognizing the media’s essential role, a number of international agencies and health NGOs have tried to reach out to local journalists in countries where they work to “train” them or “sensitize” them to HIV/AIDS issues. Also in an effort to increase media coverage of HIV, some UN agencies and other international organizations have tried sponsoring radio programs on AIDS as well.  But these approaches mostly fail to take into account the journalists’ needs and constraints or the way in which news is actually produced. It also neglects to take into account the local media environment in which the journalist is working.

We agree to agree...by 2050?

 

Last weekend the Climate Change Summit in Cancun,Mexico came to a close being heralded as “historic” by the head of the UN climate change secretariat. So, what did this monumental accord agree to? According to this Al Jazeera article on-line, the plan for climate change is to figure out a plan. Yes that's right, 200 countries sat down and agreed that they would try to agree to an actual goal of how to reduce the emissions of green house gases by 2050. They also agreed to create a $100 billion fund for developing countries to tap into so they can obtain technologies to lessen their emissions or to subsidize the negative effects they are feeling from climate change. However, they are not sure where the funding will come from but realize that it is very vital. If you are unfamiliar with the damaging effects that climate change is currently causing around the world, take a peak at this video. I think we owe it to the people suffering from food insecurity due to the devastating effects of climate change to do more than agree to help them. Maybe we should think about how we can actually help them and stop putting off tough decisions.

Luckily, my Oma still wanted me

The International Herald Tribune Magazine issued a special report on the Global Agenda 2011, which includes several articles on many of the topics we discussed in class regarding development. I focused on “Not the Child My Grandmother Wanted” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The article recounts the author’s childhood experience in Somalia where her grandmother teaches her the value of a woman in their culture (women are worth as much as a piece of fat). Ali continues to analyze the differences between two books - Eat Pray Love by Elizabeth Gilbert and I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced by Nujood Ali. She discusses the freedoms (or lack thereof) of woman in marriage and divorce in both books, and claims that Western feminism has created a disconnect between women in the Western world and women in the Eastern world. She calls for a new form of feminism that reminds Western women of their struggles to get to the freedoms they currently enjoy. Ali writes, “For the dream of liberation to come true for women in the East it is imperative that we seek to shatter the underpinnings of their subjugation, which are now enshrined in religion and custom.”

I agree with Ali. Her article reminds me of conversations I had with my Oma, who spent her first 35 years in the Dutch East Indies (today’s Indonesia), where she was raised to believe that women were lesser than men. My Oma’s claims that divorce was harder for women than men (because men could easily support themselves and find another wife, while women struggled to do so – and it was okay for men to be single, but not okay for women to be single) appalled my liberated American self. Luckily, my Oma still wanted me. Although western women have come far to enjoy equality and the freedom to choose their lives and place in the world, there is a long way to go for women empowerment globally. Ali’s case is one where human rights trump culture. Our culture changed, why can’t other cultures change? All women need to stand in solidarity and fight for women empowerment around the world.

Media Analysis: Development Drums

I have been making my way through the Development Drums podcasts, which are generally fascinating and well-balanced vignettes that I have truly enjoyed...but for all their merit, I was surprised by the series of reactions that "Episode 17: Obama in Ghana" and Obama's speech more generally elicited from leading academics and practitioners. Bill Easterly, for example, was up to his old tricks, arguing that we know nothing and should eschew all interventions, only to trumpet those interventions that promote and support individual 'champions in the next section (cake is, therefore, something you can most certainly enjoy and save, so long as you use enough verbal tricks). Running thin on criticisms of Obama's content after Easterly and Blattman, Foreign Policy's online magazine instead settled for criticizing Obama on those things he left unsaid -- namely, oil and the African Union. Their article was even dissatisfied with allusions to their pet projects! Of course, one can only imagine how the messaging would read if the President (the American President) had given marching orders to the AU, and so on and so forth, but such is the business of blogging...

Which brings me to my point: the trouble with being a critic, especially a fast-paced e-critic, (which is, effectively, what we have been asked to become in this third-hand blog), is that you feel compelled to criticize. Yes, criticism and conflict are healthy and vital parts of any decision making process, but they can also become addictive and fuel a competitive approach to development that lauds innovation over copy-cat achievement, irrespective of their proportional impact. While "best-practices" and information sharing have their place as buzzwords, they are waning with respect to sexier phrases like social entrepreneurism and bottom-up development. If our main goal is to criticize, then I suspect that the development arena will provide plenty of fodder for years to come. But if our goal is better livelihoods abroad, we may want to temper our enthusiasm for debate and learn to harness agreements in the rare instances where they occur. 

More importantly, I wonder how social media and the blogosphere can ever come to terms with the longitudinal, excruciatingly slow timeframes of development efforts. If development actors are expected to satisfy the whims and instant-gratification preferences of our digital age, we may be in for decades of stilted, serpentine progress. 

Or so might read a criticism of the articles attached to Episode 17...