The panda in the media crosshairs

The bombshell dropped on June 22. Despite the midnight hour, in front of an audience of millions. Because it was detonated on ARD, where, as is well known, there is always a front row seat - even in this country. The explosive material was compiled by a renowned documentary filmmaker on behalf of WDR, which is known for its investigative TV journalism. Since then, "The Pact with the Panda" has been causing a stir on the internet and dividing the NGO community. The core criticism of the elaborately researched report is that the discrepancy between the WWF's official messages to its donors (e.g. we are against genetic engineering) and contrary practices (including corresponding statements by leading WWF managers, e.g. US Vice President Jason Clay) undermine the credibility of the world's largest environmental protection organization with an annual budget of 500 million euros. And without credibility, nothing is possible in this business.

Power needs criticism - even at NGOs

Regardless of the outcome of the debate raging on Twitter, Facebook, WWF websites, but also in the German mainstream media, as to whether the "eco multinational" (Der Spiegel) actually supports the cultivation of genetically modified soy plants in South America, this - actual or supposed - fall from grace shows three equally important things for the media and NGO world:

1) Nowadays, corporate partnerships are always accompanied by their own reputational risks, especially if these partners have a dubious reputation (as is the case with WWF's Monsanto).
2) The larger an organization is, the more vulnerable it is, but the greater the need for external control of its activities and professional internal crisis communication.
3. the always ambivalent relationship between the fourth (media) and fifth (NGO) powers in the state as "complementary competitors" is coming to a head.

Point 1: The line between pure sustainability PR or mere "greenwashing" and real progress in corporate behavior through civil society pressure is becoming increasingly difficult to draw, even for experts. However, anyone who gets involved in business alliances because they see dialog as a greater lever for change than confrontation needs trustworthy partners, otherwise the trust of their own followers will suffer.

German PR disaster without Swiss media coverage

On point 2: Under media pressure, the German section of the WWF made exactly the same cardinal communication mistakes that corporations usually make when they come into the crosshairs of NGOs: more obstruction than support for research and a late, inaccurate, uncoordinated response - at least by social media standards. It is disastrous and simply unacceptable for top representatives of a global civil society player to publicly express contrary opinions on issues that are crucial to the organization's DNA, such as genetic engineering.

Point 3: The fact that power needs independent control naturally also applies to political actors beyond parties, administration and associations. The media should and must fulfill their role as watchdogs vis-à-vis NGOs just as they do in other areas. The fact that they rely more than ever on their field experience and research capacities due to a lack of their own knowledge or resources in everyday journalistic work should not lead to reservations. After all, to ensure that these (inherently critical and constructive) cows remain in the pasture, they need media jolts in the fence.

PS: In this country, this PR disaster has so far been ignored by the press, radio and television. Perhaps after the recent celebratory reports on the panda's 50th birthday, the "WWF contingent" in some editorial offices was already exhausted. Only the alert Christof Moser reported in the Aargauer Zeitung on the "Twitter thunderstorm" that also descended on the Swiss section. Thanks for that.