Charitable Advertising, Media, and Public Perception
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 10:20 am
This recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review, Hiding the Real Africa: Why NGOs prefer bad news, highlights a trend with media coverage of aid and development issues. According to their article:
“And now for some good news out of Africa. Poverty rates throughout the continent have been falling steadily and much faster than previously thought, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The death rate of children under five years of age is dropping, with “clear evidence of accelerating rates of decline,” according to The Lancet. Perhaps most encouragingly, Africa is “among the world’s most rapidly growing economic regions,” according to the McKinsey Quarterly.
Yet US journalism continues to portray a continent of unending horrors. Last June, for example, Time magazine published graphic pictures of a naked woman from Sierra Leone dying in childbirth. Not long after, CNN did a story about two young Kenyan boys whose family is so poor they are forced to work delivering goats to a slaughterhouse for less than a penny per goat. Reinforcing the sense of economic misery, between May and September 2010 the ten most-read US newspapers and magazines carried 245 articles mentioning poverty in Africa, but only five mentioning gross domestic product growth.”
The author goes on to say:
“But the main reason for the continued dominance of such negative stereotypes, I have come to believe, may well be the influence of Western-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international aid groups like United Nations agencies. These organizations understandably tend to focus not on what has been accomplished but on convincing people how much remains to be done. As a practical matter, they also need to attract funding. Together, these pressures create incentives to present as gloomy a picture of Africa as possible in order to keep attention and money flowing, and to enlist journalists in disseminating that picture.”
This is an issue I’ve talked about before concerning the messaging in nonprofit advertising. In my post Nonprofit advertisements: What message are we sending? I show examples from recent nonprofit advertising campaigns. My conclusion:
“Having seen these ads, the average person could easily walk away believing that all of the developing world is a senselessly violent place and that the best way to help is to give them stuff. I complain a lot about the media oversimplifying or incorrectly portraying aid. Unfortunately, nonprofits rely heavily on stereotypes and over-simplification as well.”
These stereotypes can be extremely difficult to break. The VSO (Volunteer Service Overseas) research, The Live Aid Legacy (pdf), found that the impressions created by that fund raising effort still impact the British public’s understanding of the developing world. Commonly held beliefs include:
Starving children with flies around their eyes: 80% of the British public strongly associate the developing world with doom-laden images of famine, disaster and Western aid. Sixteen years on from Live Aid, these images are still top of mind and maintain a powerful grip on the British psyche.
Victims are seen as less than human: Stereotypes of deprivation and poverty, together with images of Western aid, can lead to an impression that people in the developing world are helpless victims. 74% of the British public believe that these countries “depend on the money and knowledge of the West to progress.”
False sense of superiority and inferiority: The danger of stereotypes of this depth and magnitude is the psychological relationship they create between the developed and the developing world, which revolves around an implicit sense of superiority and inferiority.
Powerful giver and grateful receiver: The Live Aid Legacy defines the roles in our relationship with the developing world. We are powerful, benevolent givers; they are grateful receivers. There is no recognition that we in Britain may have something to gain from the relationship.
Confidence in out-of-date knowledge: Researchers remarked on the respondents’ confidence in such one-dimensional images. British consumers are not hesitating or seeking reassurance for their views. Unconsciously accumulated images of the developing world have led to a certainty on the part of consumers that they have all the facts.
And now I wonder about the impact of the media coverage and charity appeals surrounding the recovery efforts in Japan. Has the coverage adequately shown that, given the magnitude of the disaster, the Japanese government has done a good job of responding? Yesterday’s situation report from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA) states:
“Meanwhile damaged roads, airports and ports are gradually being repaired. But delivery of relief goods sent in from around Japan to evacuees and survivors still remains difficult due to shortages of fuel and transport vehicles. International aid organizations in the affected areas say that most basics are being provided and there are only pockets of people still without assistance. NGOs such as MSF and Save the Children are focusing on getting to especially remote areas or on providing specialist help to the elderly or young children.”
And here’s a quote from Oxfam Japan
“The Japanese state has the means to reach 99 per cent of the population, but there will always be some who need more specific assistance.”
Is this the same message that the public is receiving from the media and nonprofit advertising? What have you seen?
—–
Related Articles
A Tragedy of the Commons in Selling Tragedy – Views from the Center – another recent article on this same topic.
The boy who cried crisis – Aid Thoughts – And another post discussing the Columbian Journalism Review Article
Related Posts
Nonprofit advertisements: What message are we sending?
Media’s Impact on Aid – Aid Debates
« My interviews on the Japan recovery efforts • Update on the Japan relief efforts – Don’t send stuff or volunteers »
[...] post: Charitable Advertising, Media, and Public Perception | Good … This entry was posted in NGO, United Nation and tagged africa, article, columbia, continued, [...]
Unless there is a suggestion that the the stories about the woman in Siera Leone and Kenya are untrue, I don’t see what the issue is. There are some reasons to have hope for Africa, but that shouldn’t mask the fact that there is still suffering from the deepest and most heartbreaking sort of poverty imaginable.
Eight million children under five years of age died of preventable causes last year and a large portion of them were in Africa. Now that number has steadily decreased, but that’s still two million more than the entire number of Jews who died in the Holocaust.
No, we shouldn’t develop patronizing attitudes that Africans are inferior to us and will always need our aid. Neither, however, should we dismiss the severity of Africa’s problems and assume that Africa does not need our help.
Bill,
There are some real issues with a constant portrayal of the very worst of an area. One of which is the difficulty in getting people to invest or build companies in “Africa.” If an area is always shown as completely on the edge then companies are going to be far more hesitant to invest or provide services. And not all countries inside of Africa have the same level development or the same level of need. We do a disservice to the entire region by alway presenting a single story.
I agree with your premise that the media tends to focus on the negative aspects regarding Africa, but I believe this happens all the time with the vast multitude of news stories. Bad news sells, and TV stations know it. Fox News has it down to an art form – “Fox News Alert!” every twenty seconds. At the same time, bad news from NGOs and the UN is meant not just for individuals to donate but also for governments to donate. Whereas WFP used to have 85% of all donations fund development and non-emergency activities, now the numbers have flipped and almost 85% of all money goes directly to emergency operations. Many governments and individuals are reluctant to donate without bad news.
In terms of media influences, there is one form you didn’t mention that has shaped my perception of Africa more than anything else: movies. Off the top of my head, I’ll name three movies that have had more impact than any newspaper article: Blood Diamond, Hotel Rwanda and District 9. All three of these movies make Africa scare me half to death and reinforce the notions that Africa is a place of senseless violence. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about the impact of movies – because to be honest, I believe these movies reach a broad number of Americans and have a greater effect than newspaper articles. Many of my perceptions of “problems in Africa” have come from these three movies in particular.
Interesting, I hadn’t thought about the impact of movies. But I can definitely see your point.
You are so right in regards to the movies portraying African nations as a place of poverty and violence. I tried to think of some films other than the ones you mentioned and came up with The Last King of Scotland and Tsotsi. Tsotsi is the South African equivalent of an American film set in a deprived area of a major city, but I’ve never seen a film soles about the lives of the middle class in South Africa, so there’s no balance.
The Last King of Scotland is set in the 1970s which ironically is where most people’s attitude towards Africa is stuck.
I agree that the media gives us a negative concept of what is actually occuring. Before reading this post, I didnt perceive Japan as rapidly fixing things. However, after reading it, I can see where the media has distorted the publics concept of what is really going on around the world and especially in Japan. People tend to take media at their word instead of learning the truth for themselves, we need to start finding the truth for ourselves to have a real perception of what is occuring in today’s world.
Lauren,
That’s what I was beginning to wonder. Japan has done a pretty good job with the recovery efforts given what they’re up against. Yes, some needs are still there, but that’s due to issues present after all disasters – damaged roads and ports and fuel shortages. And they’re resolving those issues as quickly as possible. I really am impressed, but the news doesn’t seem to be about what’s going right.
Also, here’s a quote from Oxfam Japan “The Japanese state has the means to reach 99 per cent of the population, but there will always be some who need more specific assistance,” How much of that is coming out in these fundraising appeals?
[...] this is not how many of nonprofits are presenting the issue. You still see appeals with pictures of the destruction or children and the elderly. The fallout of [...]
[...] Charitable Advertising, Media, and Public Perception | Good Intentions Are Not Enough [...]
[...] (HT Good intentions are Not Enough). [...]
The media without a doubt taps into the emotion of the American people. For whatever reason, it very well could be warranted, they believe simplifying the complexities of development (but to the point it’s so watered down you lose sight of the complete, unbiased truth) to a heartfelt sentiment is most effective. But I can’t say emphatically I think it’s all bad. Yes, the media should focus more on the positives, but a large sector of the American public in general is naive, lazy and don’t view themselves as world citizens. For instance, during the Egypt uprising and subsequent revolution my college professor asked who all had heard about what was going on. 3 out of 20 people raised their hand, and these are “educated” college students. There’s an obvious gap in the well-informed segment of society and those content in their American bubble. This makes the power and influence media can have on the public absolutely terrifying. In terms of the response to Japan, I think America is all over the board. There are thousands of non-profits being created, but the truth is the Japanese government is well prepared and with the 3rd largest economy in the world capable of rebuilding. I think the role should be more supporting and backing the Japanese government and working closely with them on what they deem important.
It is certainly unfortunate that the media portrays negative stereotypes. However I think in some ways, those negative stereotypes are beneficial in that they encourage giving. Most people receiving aid are not the same people seen in clips on TV, but isn’t it true that the worse off a group appears, the more likely people (Americans) are to help? Americans may be grossly misinformed, but at least that misinformation can result in more donations, which, though not as direly needed as the donors may believe, can still do a lot of good. Furthermore, the people in need of aid shown by the media do exist, even if they do not represent the majority. So the media is only guilty of omission, and I doubt the pattern will ever change.
As for Japan, their capability to deal with the situation has certainly been downplayed by the media. In fact, most people probably have no idea just how little help Japan requires. I wonder why Americans are so quick to conclude that another country is not capable of dealing on its own? Do we have some kind of collective hero complex? Or are we just surprised that any country is capable of handling a disaster effectively? (Katrina, anyone?)
While negative stereotypes encourage giving – they also discourage business. Why would anyone want to deal with a company that comes from a country where everyone sits around helplessly starving to death – or so it appears. I’d guess it also affects political policy as well, but don’t have any proof of it.
[...] Charitable advertising, media, and public perception [...]