Resource: What Journalists Want from Aid Workers

We all - most of us - like a little attention.  And, there are few things more ego-gratifying than having a reporter ask for your opinion, even if your organization refuses to let you answer the question.

With the help of a few friends, I took a quick, completely unscientific poll of various journalists, to get a sense of what kind of information they want - and don't want - when they speak to aid workers.

According to one friend with the Financial Times:

"Key thing for me is dynamics of the situation - what's driving the conflict, who are the players, what are their motivations, what are the economic factors, where does money come in, how does it go forward?

In a way, what we don't want is even more important: i.e. we all need to resist the temptation to recycle ever-increasing numbers of victims, often based on nothing more than guess-estimate that the echo-chamber of NGOs-media turns into gospel.  Always in the market for people willing to put crisis in perspective rather than hype!"

Advice from other journalists below:

- "Transport, especially assisted passage into parts of world otherwise difficult to access."

- "Surprisingly often, help with fixers, hotels etc (this is usually directed at the agency PR person, as is above)."

- "Someone who can speak the language of their audience (esp if it's TV or radio)."

- "Humanitarian stories that are either disasters (ie flood, earthquake etc) or have happy endings. They are surprisingly rarely digging for dirt. There is a cycle to how these stories work."

- "Almost always, something that photographs well - kids, helicopters, visible disasters (collapsed buildings post earthquake etc) are all good. Action shots always best - i.e. people actually getting vaccinated, actually clearing a road etc."

- "Access to 'real' people i.e. beneficiaries who match the story they're covering (ie The Sun - UK paper - refusing to come to Aceh unless Save supplied them with orphans). if these people speak English so much the better. PR team of agency should be involved in pre-selecting those who will tell nice colourful stories that also push the message the agency wants to convey (stalinist, no?)."

- "Nice, easily understood facts and figures (they usually won't question the provenance too closely - as humanitarian agency you can get away with murder - e.g. Oxfam's habit of generalising about issues from studies involving about three villages)."

- "NO JARGON. Say something like 'capacity building' and watch them tune out...."

- "Pithy quotes that non-development people can understand."

- "Some emoting if appropriate ('I've never seen anything like it etc etc')."

- "The 'quirky' feature items - especially as the story cycles away from D-Day."

- "Some assurance of exclusivity if I sit in some NGO's 4x4 for eight brutal hours to cover something."

- "PIOs who don't oversell a story - gimme the straight dope and we can have a relationship/burn me once and both you and your agency will become one of the horror stories journos tell each other."

- "No-bullshit backgrounders from people local/foreign who grok the nuances."

- "Use of a sat-phone in emergencies."

- "Understanding and sensitivity to deadlines is very important esp to broadcast people. Help with access to internet etc is always welcome. And if it's broadcast, NGO peeps need to be clear if it's live or pre-recorded and able to go into a studio if they can - the audio is far better quality than on the phone..."

- "Abundant, free comfort food - a foot-rub after a long day in the field, access to liquor and sympathetic,goggle-eyed young women on their first field missions."

- "And finally, someone who can opine on the record about the Scientologist's Emergency Response Unit."

[Photo of a press conference in Kabul]