The Space Between Us: Understanding Trust, Communication and Collaboration between Media and Humanitarian Organizations in Public Health Emergencies

"Journalists and health and humanitarian actors both have important roles to play in times of crisis, but they often get frustrated with each other, due to a lack of understanding about their differing roles, but not dissimilar aims."

This report shares the findings of research carried out by Internews in 2022 that explored the relationship between humanitarian/health actors and media practitioners amid the COVID-19 pandemic and infodemic. It seeks to identify new and ongoing gaps and barriers faced by the two groups in their engagement with one another and offers recommendations for a better working relationship. Although the report uses the COVID-19 pandemic as the case study, the challenges and solutions identified are seen as relevant in other public health emergencies and humanitarian crises.

The report is part of Rooted in Trust 2.0 (RiT), a global infodemic project initiated by Internews in 13 countries that focuses on the identification of and response to COVID-19 and health misinformation among vulnerable communities. The report is based on interviews with 51 humanitarian practitioners and 51 journalists across nine countries (Brazil, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, South Sudan, Sudan, and Zimbabwe). The interviewees shared their experiences working at national and sub-national levels with vulnerable communities of people affected by humanitarian crises as part of United Nations (UN) agencies, international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations (CBOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), and national or local media outlets.

In the introduction, the report explains how the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the erosion of trust in the health response and in health systems and public authorities, leading to a distrust in official information that then had to compete with misinformation. At the same time, it also showed a lack of fundamental understanding, trust, and collaboration between humanitarian/health actors and media practitioners, often resulting in "untimely, inaccurate or irrelevant information that is out of touch with communities' needs or local priorities. This was especially felt by vulnerable and marginalized communities living in humanitarian contexts as public health guidance often ignored or failed to consider the challenging contexts faced by these populations."

Part of the issue, according to the report, is that local media faced challenges in accessing the information they needed to report back to their communities. In addition, "health/humanitarian actors were not always successful at transmitting the complex science behind the pandemic in a way that was relevant for journalists at the hyper-local level. Efforts were put in place to get accurate messages out, but the gap between health experts and media was not always successfully bridged at the local level. Issues of connectivity, language, contextual adaptation of information and curtailed access to locally relevant experts affected the relevance of the information provided, leaving communities confused, feeling ignored, and ultimately ill-informed. This resulted in many people turning to other, less reliable, sensationalist or inaccurate information sources, which played the role of sensemaking mechanisms in a time of fear and anxiety."

In an effort to unpack these challenges and search for solutions, the researchers looked at what obstacles health/humanitarian organisations encountered in engaging with media/journalists and what the media had to say about the obstacles they face in their relationship with health and humanitarian organisations.

As highlighted in the report, the main findings include:

• There is still a lack of specialised health capacity among journalists, making it difficult for them to report on technically complex health issues and public health emergencies (especially if they are as fast-evolving as COVID-19).
• Both actors identify that their differing mandates and lack of mutual understanding for each other's objectives make it difficult to trust each other's intentions, ultimately affecting their relations and the exchange of essential information prior to and amid an emergency.
• There is intermittent collaboration among the two groups but a lack of common spaces for continuous engagement between the media and health/humanitarian actors. This situation ultimately impacts the potential for collective responses and plans, with media often absent from humanitarian/health coordination platforms and, in the long run, preparedness and response plans.
• Both actors highlighted the limited human resources available to respond in timely, adequate ways. This lack influences, for example, how quickly humanitarian and health actors can respond to queries from journalists or their capacity to respond to complex and sensitive issues at the news cycle pace. It also impacts the ability of journalists to have the luxury to specialise in one thematic area, such as health reporting. Financial resources also create barriers: For media practitioners, limited funds mean less capacity to cover issues that affect remote areas or vulnerable groups. Transportation, accommodation, or the need to use long hours of the day to unpack complex and delicate events result in these topics being often neglected. The financial struggles faced by local media in rural or isolated areas contribute further to gaps in what humanitarian and health actors identified as contextualised media work.
• This lack of contextualised media work can result in stereotypical or sensationalist coverage of vulnerable groups. This observation was often linked to perceived agendas on the part of media practitioners or the lack of understanding of local dynamics or complexities by journalists who do not belong to the specific group/area.
• Journalists shared their challenges accessing humanitarian and health experts for interviews - in general but especially those who spoke local languages and understood the local context - a point that humanitarian practitioners also identified as an obstacle due to bureaucratic lines, approval processes, concern over reputational risk, and lack of human resources to respond to all media queries.
• Issues of security and access to vulnerable populations were mentioned as additional limitations faced by media practitioners to cover issues affecting humanitarian populations. Humanitarian actors shared that their first and foremost mandate is to do no harm and to protect populations affected by crisis. This concern sometimes translates into highly controlled and choreographed media interactions with humanitarian populations, which can arguably impact opportunities to share complaints about humanitarian actors and for the media to fulfil their role as an accountability actor.

Moving forward, the report recommends a process of building and strengthening trust and collaboration through regular and deeper interactions between media and humanitarian actors that will allow them to share each other's motivations, approaches, and respective ethical frameworks. "This would enable them to recognize each other as allies in a public health crisis, with common concerns and interests, while also managing expectations and establishing important differences in their roles. Such opportunities may also offer a window to unpack the practices, beliefs and dynamics that prevent the two groups from relating to each other as equals, from practices such as envelope journalism to the legacy of colonialism in global health."

The report also outlines specific recommendations for both the media and humanitarian organisations:  

Recommendations for humanitarian and health organisations involved in emergency responses (more detail in the report):

1. Do not only explain the science, but also discuss the why and how of the decisions taken to manage a health emergency.
2. Provide training to media practitioners on a range of topics ahead of the next health emergency, which will help them to be better equipped to cover complex crises and be part of preparedness.
3. Shift the perspective: Media is a relevant part of the emergency response, not only a loudspeaker for key messages or programming visibility.
4. Consider the establishment of media taskforces as a common platform to drive collaboration during, pre, and post emergency.
5. Don't try to control the media's narrative, but, rather, support the media's independence.
6. Be available and ready for media questions. They may look to unreputable sources if experts are unresponsive.
7. Consider and plan for more resources allocated to media collaborations as part of emergency preparedness and response.
8. Think of the value of engaging with media beyond the communications team.
9. Share community feedback and social listening findings with journalists so they can work on media products that are relevant to their audiences.

Recommendations for media practitioners:

1. Actively cultivate relationships with humanitarian response actors to build trust.
2. Discuss differing principles, needs, and goals to enhance better cooperation.
3. Stand up for accountability.
4. Ensure financial autonomy for independent reporting.
5. Join efforts with other peers to elevate challenges in accessing information.
6. Leverage the unique position of media and capitalise on local perspectives.
7. Find the balance between the public good and the public's interest in a story - especially at the onset of an emergency.
8. Aim for quality.
9. Lead dialogues with stakeholders in the humanitarian sector to establish a culture of trust.

Editor's notes:

• Click here for the 36-page report in Arabic in PDF format.
• Click here for the 40-page report in French in PDF format.
• Click on the video below (or click here) to watch a webinar of the report launch event.