Dec 17, 2010
In general, I find that the Associated Press does a better job covering Haiti than many of the other major media outlets. I also feel that the Wall Street Journal is doing a good job even though their coverage is less frequent. What are the AP and WSJ doing differently from the others? They provide a clearer picture of the causes behind the sorrow and desperation, not just the shock of it. They also take the time to see what is being done right — especially by Haitians for Haitians.
It is important to provide a poignant description of the pain being experienced by Haitians who have been through a century’s worth of calamities in a single year and who are now, on top of that, justifiably anxious about the slow pace of the internationally-assisted reconstruction. But, it is also important to report, in detail and based on serious research, the causes behind Haiti’s pain and frustration, especially when those causes are neither natural nor local in origin.
AP writer, Martha Mendoza did a great job of this in her recent article, “Would-be Haitian contractors miss out on aid” [Washington Post, 12/13/2010]. She describes the local business owners’ frustration as they watch international non-governmental organizations, aka NGOs, and large foreign companies take the lion’s share of contracts. Local business owners might have come off looking like crybabies if it were not for Mendoza’s uncovering the fact that they are seeing less than $2 out every $100 of aid pass directly through their businesses.
While her story has little of the immediate drama of those describing the human sorrow associated with the earthquake and cholera, Mendoza has provided a clear description of one reason international aid administered by globetrotting relief organizations often does less than the amount of money being spent would suggest. For those of us who are caught involuntarily in the centrifuge of the large NGOs, not to mention the traffic jams they cause daily, this is the growing drama. It is the un-covered disaster that needs to be uncovered.
Even Mendoza left a few rocks unturned. She reports that two large NGOs involved in the cash-for-work program — a program that pays the Haitian minimum wage to masses of unskilled, poorly managed workers to do what amounts to busy-work — spent 70% of the funds they were given on equipment and materials. As a result, only 8,000 Haitians received very short term employment through the program, rather than the 25,000 they had projected.
What she doesn’t report is that, given Haiti’s minimum wage is roughly $5 US per day, a shovel costs two and half days’ work; a wheelbarrow is equivalent to 20 days’ pay; and the car driven by the ex-pat sent to supervise the program is equivalent to employing one worker in the program for 25 years. This not only sheds light on why a high percentage of the money went to tools and materials; it also points to the futility of the program — which is even clearer when you see it in action.
Why aren’t more journalists reporting on the deeper causes behind the sad stories? Why aren’t they asking hard questions like, “Wouldn’t it be cheaper and more logical to fund public works through the local government rather than have NGOs act governmental?” Could it be that they are too stunned by the sadness to see beyond it? Or, is the sadness all they are being allowed to see?
It is likely a little of both. Much of the media is either embedded with or highly reliant on the large NGOs to get the story. This makes it easy to get caught up in the drama. It also means journalists are getting much of their information from these NGOs which are competing for big funds. Since funding is given in proportion to the size of the misery, not the effectiveness or appropriateness of the solution, the NGOs talk pain and suffering, not causes and progress.
There is also the pressure to sell papers to readers — pressure made worse by the demise of traditional newspaper looming on the horizon. Shocking stories sell papers, not dry pertinent facts. The critical words of real investigative journalism have been replaced by superlatives. Facts are no longer important — just how many ways you can say biggest and worst ever.
Oddly, I fear Haiti will only get what it really needs when journalists stop focusing on Haiti’s suffering. That may seem a bit cold to say, but it is the causes of the suffering, and not the suffering itself, that need to be reported. There are causes and there are solutions — that’s the actual story.