Balancing act between affinity
For our democracy, it is healthy competition; for those involved, it is often a delicate balancing act: the media and NGOs are «symbiotic rivals» vying for attention. A paradox that is gaining in significance and dynamism. Guest commentary by Oliver Classen, press spokesperson for the development policy organization Declaration of Bern and former media editor.
You get used to the occasional envy attacks from PR professionals from the private sector and politics. One quote: "Journalists just eat out of your hand and blindly believe what you tell them." But even the colleagues in the editorial offices who are criticized in this way are not always free of resentment, because the number of members of many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and thus their budgets for research and communication are constantly increasing, while their material and personnel resources are continually being cut back.
One thing is clear: NGOs and the media, especially those with an investigative or advocacy focus, have always benefited from each other. Amnesty, Greenpeace & Co. need multipliers, newspapers and broadcasters in turn need informants and experts. This is particularly evident in frontline reports on disasters and war zones. Aid organizations support journalists with their logistics, provide them with interview partners, studies and story ideas. The reporters, in turn, provide the kind of publicity that serves political clarification, but of course also the good cause and thus the cited NGO in its fundraising.
In addition, globally active NGOs are increasingly filling the growing gaps created by the thinning out of correspondent networks. They are faster on the ground, carry out more thorough research and have better dossier knowledge. Semi-secret telephone and parachute journalism are the result: reporters are forced to limit themselves to desk research or are briefly flown in and then quickly flown out again during current crises and disasters. Although NGOs can make a vital contribution to the troubled foreign reporting, they must insist on the greatest possible transparency in order to maintain their credibility and that of the journalists.
NGOs still need traditional media, but they have long been offering their own news and background information online. The websites of large NGOs increasingly resemble professional, topic-centered news portals. And on social media channels, NGOs present their content much more actively and creatively than the media. Greenpeace (652,000 fans), Amnesty International (144,000), WWF (464,000) and Doctors Without Borders (342,000) use Facebook to appeal to young people in particular with topics that are considered "ratings killers" in many editorial offices. For comparison: The New York Times has 852,000 friends, Der Spiegel just 95,000 and Tagi a whopping 302. Interactive advocacy journalism appeals to the young target group of the future. And they don't just want information, they apparently also want targeted help and support for political causes.
However, these new opportunities also put NGOs under pressure. Professional management of the Internet costs a lot of time and money. It also requires qualified staff. But there are currently more than enough unemployed journalists looking for (new) meaning. And what is actually to be said against NGOs focusing on similar topics financing and producing their own innovative, well-founded and committed journalism? For example, on the basis of a joint media foundation, a kind of "pro publica.org" of civil society? Another interesting project is Alertnet.org by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, which bundles information on humanitarian crises. Either way: Network effects will be the media recipe for success for the NGO of the future. And, if it works, collegial envy will continue to be a pleasant side effect.
One thing is clear: NGOs and the media, especially those with an investigative or advocacy focus, have always benefited from each other. Amnesty, Greenpeace & Co. need multipliers, newspapers and broadcasters in turn need informants and experts. This is particularly evident in frontline reports on disasters and war zones. Aid organizations support journalists with their logistics, provide them with interview partners, studies and story ideas. The reporters, in turn, provide the kind of publicity that serves political clarification, but of course also the good cause and thus the cited NGO in its fundraising.
In addition, globally active NGOs are increasingly filling the growing gaps created by the thinning out of correspondent networks. They are faster on the ground, carry out more thorough research and have better dossier knowledge. Semi-secret telephone and parachute journalism are the result: reporters are forced to limit themselves to desk research or are briefly flown in and then quickly flown out again during current crises and disasters. Although NGOs can make a vital contribution to the troubled foreign reporting, they must insist on the greatest possible transparency in order to maintain their credibility and that of the journalists.
NGOs still need traditional media, but they have long been offering their own news and background information online. The websites of large NGOs increasingly resemble professional, topic-centered news portals. And on social media channels, NGOs present their content much more actively and creatively than the media. Greenpeace (652,000 fans), Amnesty International (144,000), WWF (464,000) and Doctors Without Borders (342,000) use Facebook to appeal to young people in particular with topics that are considered "ratings killers" in many editorial offices. For comparison: The New York Times has 852,000 friends, Der Spiegel just 95,000 and Tagi a whopping 302. Interactive advocacy journalism appeals to the young target group of the future. And they don't just want information, they apparently also want targeted help and support for political causes.
However, these new opportunities also put NGOs under pressure. Professional management of the Internet costs a lot of time and money. It also requires qualified staff. But there are currently more than enough unemployed journalists looking for (new) meaning. And what is actually to be said against NGOs focusing on similar topics financing and producing their own innovative, well-founded and committed journalism? For example, on the basis of a joint media foundation, a kind of "pro publica.org" of civil society? Another interesting project is Alertnet.org by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, which bundles information on humanitarian crises. Either way: Network effects will be the media recipe for success for the NGO of the future. And, if it works, collegial envy will continue to be a pleasant side effect.
