What does the UK public really think about shifting power?

When Shifting the Power asked the UK public who should lead international development, the answers suggested that genuine localisation is not only possible, but desirable, writes Ayesha Farah, Senior Comms and Advocacy Manager at Comic Relief.

Here’s an uncomfortable question for anyone who works in this sector: what if the biggest barrier to changing how we tell stories about development was never the public, but us? Our comfort with a formula we knew was tired but kept reaching for anyway because it had always worked, or because we told ourselves it worked.

Back in 2023, we commissioned some research to test that discomfort properly. Working with the Development Engagement Lab at UCL and the University of Birmingham, we asked what the British public thinks about who should lead international development: a mix of qualitative and quantitative research drawing on a wide range of voices across the British public.

The results? The public is more open to locally-led development than we have ever given it credit for. And because the data held up, we wanted to do something braver with it than publish a report and move on. We wanted to test it in the wild, with real money and real campaigns. That is how the Shifting the Power Communications Lab came about. Comic Relief brought together six organisations (Christian Aid, Save the Children, WaterAid, ADD, Age International and Plan International UK) and gave each a small grant, expert coaching and a genuine licence to experiment in live fundraising campaigns. It was seven organisations agreeing to test new narratives with real audiences and real money, and to be honest about what happened.

Support for localisation has increased

In 2023, 34% of people told us local development organisations should take the lead, with organisations from countries like the UK playing a supporting role. Another 33% wanted equal partnership between UK and local organisations. Only 8% thought UK organisations should be in charge.

We retested the public attitudes research in December 2025, half expecting the numbers to have softened. They had not. By 2025, support for local leadership had risen to 37%, equal partnership sat at 27% and the UK-in-charge model had crept up slightly to 11%. Two years of genuine turbulence in the aid sector, and polarisation at an all-time high, and the public’s core instinct had barely moved.

The public also has clear views on why: 57% think local organisations are more knowledgeable about what their communities actually need. On effectiveness, a quarter said local organisations were more effective outright, and another 25% said both were equally effective, which means half the public already rates local organisations as at least as effective as their UK counterparts. UK organisations still score better on accountability and transparency in people’s minds, but even that gap is narrower than we may like to believe.

The public is ready for a new kind of messaging

Researchers tested 54 different messages with the public, covering every aspect of the Shift the Power model. The number one ranked message read: “We need to empower and uplift local communities in developing countries, so that they become self-sufficient in decision-making and funding development projects.” No mention of crisis. Not a single image of need. Just capacity and self-sufficiency.

The pattern held across all 54 messages. Anything emphasising long-term impact, capacity building and local expertise performed well. On the other hand, anything built around abstract talk of power, hierarchy or the wider colonial history of aid switched people off, even among audiences who broadly supported the underlying principle. People are not necessarily rejecting the politics. They are rejecting how we have chosen to talk about it. Tangible, outcome-focused language about sustainability and effectiveness beats conceptual language about redistributing power.

These messages don’t land the same way with everyone either. Reform UK voters, for instance, responded more positively than the general population to the message that aid should go directly to local organisations, 69% compared to 58% among the public overall.

And through the Comms Lab, we saw all of this borne out in practice, not just in theory. Locally-led storytelling outperformed celebrity-fronted content, even in live fundraising campaigns. That is the headline that should give the whole sector pause. We have spent decades treating crisis and pity as the only reliable route to a donation.

This matters beyond fundraising

There is a wider cost to getting this wrong, and it is not just reputational. Africa No Filter’s research on the cost of media stereotypes shows that biased media coverage, dominated by conflict, poverty and corruption, inflates the perceived risk of doing business in Africa. This distorted narrative is estimated to cost African economies up to US $4.2bn a year in inflated borrowing costs alone.

Our sector has played a part in that story. Every time we default to the familiar narrative of need, crisis, distance, we reinforce a version of the world that has real economic consequences for the people we claim to be supporting.

The public was ready before the aid sector

None of this points to a single perfect message. What it gives us is a set of principles to work from: authenticity, respect for local expertise, clarity about impact, and confidence that the public can handle a fuller, more honest picture. Support for locally-led development is not unconditional. It is strongest when we can show it is effective, accountable and built for the long term.

This is the thinking behind Comic Relief’s Shifting the Power programme, our ten-year initiative with the FCDO and partners across Ghana, Zambia and Malawi. It is built on the belief that the communities closest to the challenges are best placed to lead the solutions, and that those of us in the UK have a responsibility to reflect that truth honestly in how we speak to the public.

We took a risk in 2023 by asking a question we were not sure we wanted the answer to. The answer turned out to be more hopeful than we expected. The public was ready before we were. Now the only question worth asking is whether we are finally going to act like it.

Ayesha Farah is Senior Comms and Advocacy Manager at Comic Relief. A longer version of this article can be read on Bond. To find out more about the Shifting the Power Comms Lab, including the full report and the data behind it, take a look here:
https://www.comicrelief.com/funding/tackling-injustices/shifting-the-power/narratives/

Watch in full: Briefing with The Nerve

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: Briefing with The Nerve

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Gaza is no longer headline news. But the suffering continues

Since the ceasefire announced in October 2025, Gaza has slowly faded from the headlines. But as Dr Mohammed Abu Mughaisib from MSF writes here, whilst the media coverage may have fallen, the suffering has not stopped.

As the international attention shifts elsewhere, many people in the world assume that the situation in Gaza has improved, but the reality is very different.

Despite the ceasefire announced in October 2025, the war didn’t stop. Since then nearly 1,000 people have been killed and more than 3,100 injured, with women and children making up more than half of the casualties.

MSF faces severe restrictions in Gaza

New restrictions on humanitarian organisations have made it increasingly difficult to respond to the enormous needs on the ground. Israeli authorities have withheld or revoked the registration of more than 30 NGOs, including MSF, which is one of the main providers of healthcare and essential services in a health system that has largely collapsed. International humanitarian staff are blocked from entering Gaza and the delivery of medical supplies and aid remains severely restricted.

The humanitarian situation continues to worsen. Overcrowding of people displaced in the tents, lack of clean water, poor sanitation, shortages of essential items, and the spread of several skin infections and other preventable illnesses are creating a growing public health crisis. With summer temperatures rising, living conditions are becoming even more difficult for displaced families.

The injuries are psychological as well as physical

Beyond the visible destruction, there are also less visible needs that continue to grow every day, hundred thousands of families are living with the psychological impact of repeated displacement, loss of loved ones, uncertainty about the future, and the daily stress of trying to survive in conditions that would be considered unacceptable anywhere else in the world. Children have spent nearly three years without stable access to education, safe spaces, or normal social activities. Many people are struggling with anxiety, depression, grief and continuous traumatic stress while having very limited access to specialised mental health support.

The destruction of homes, schools, water networks and healthcare facilities has created long-term humanitarian needs that will not disappear even if the war stops tomorrow – rebuilding infrastructure, restoring healthcare services and supporting communities to recover will require sustained international attention and commitment for years to come.

For patients requiring specialised medical care, options remain extremely limited in Gaza. More than 17,000 people are still waiting for approval to leave Gaza for treatment that is unavailable inside the Strip, including cancer care, cardiac treatment and specialised surgeries. For many of these patients, delays are not simply administrative obstacles – they can be life-threatening.

Media coverage has fallen, but people are still suffering

Perhaps the greatest concern is that all of this is happening while media coverage has declined, humanitarian needs do not disappear when cameras leave. Families in Gaza continue to struggle for food, water, shelter, and healthcare, while medical teams work under extraordinary pressure.

As someone who has worked and lived in Gaza for more than 25 years, I have seen how public attention can influence humanitarian action, when Gaza remains visible in international media, there is greater pressure on decision makers, more public engagement, and often more support for humanitarian responses; but when coverage declines, the suffering does not decline with it. Instead, people’s suffering becomes invisible.

One of the challenges for journalists is that Gaza has become a prolonged crisis in a media environment that constantly moves to the next headline, but for the people living there, this is not an old story, it is a daily reality. The danger is that audiences begin to experience fatigue, while communities in Gaza continue to experience the consequences of war, displacement, and deprivation every day.

Media coverage is not only about reporting events; it is also about maintaining public awareness of ongoing human suffering. Continued reporting helps ensure that the needs of civilians in Gaza are not forgotten and that accountability remains part of the international conversation.

If one sentence could describe Gaza today, it would be this: the crisis did not end, it simply disappeared from the headlines.

Dr Mohammed Abu Mughaisib was the deputy medical coordinator for MSF’s operations in Palestine

Watch in full: Briefing with 5 News

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: Briefing with 5 News

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

KHARTOUM – the making of a film

KHARTOUM is an extraordinary love poem to a city and its people. As its creative director Phil Cox writes, its innovative approach was born out of a response to war and a rejection of the way in which the media usually tells stories about conflict in Africa.

It’s June 2026 and our UK-Sudan feature documentary KHARTOUM is playing on BBC iPlayer and in venues across the UK and globally. From the outside, it’s a success story – a new collaborative world cinema documentary that overcame great adversity to tell the story of Sudanese citizens at war. A film offering a window into the tragically under-reported Sudanese conflict affecting over 22 million of its citizens. From the inside, as the creative director and writer of this film, I feel a mass of emotions ranging from disbelief that it was completed at all, to pride in the small world cinema family that overcame so many obstacles to produce it.

Our project began as a small workshop in 2021 in Khartoum, led by my indie company, Native Voice Films, with the Sudan Film Factory and a seed grant from the British Council. Due to the unforeseen outbreak of war, this project expanded from a series of short workshop films to a full-on collaborative cinema feature made as a creative statement against war. With hindsight, I still wonder how we managed it.

This film was only possible because it was shot on donated iPhones

One major reason is the ‘how’, which was low tech and low budget. We started and finished on donated iPhones in a collaboration between four new talent Sudanese filmmakers, Anas Saeed, Rawia Al Hag, Brahim Snoopy and Timeea M. Ahmed, together with Palestinian-Irish editor, Yousef Jubeh, and me, a British writer and director.

iPhones on the streets of Khartoum were less likely to get you arrested or shot. Nevertheless, the police or military would still check footage, and the wrong image or sequence could mean the end. It was a real tightrope. To make the best use of them, they also had to be close, often within breathing distance of the participants. This created the unique and intimate feel of the film.

Our team was made up of fearless documentary indies

The second reason was the ‘who’ – our team was made up of fearless documentary indies, working outside of broadcaster timelines or editorial constraints. In making KHARTOUM, we were essentially our own bosses creatively and financially. When producers, Giovanna Stopponi and Talal Afifi, determined that the escape and physical and mental wellbeing of the whole film team was the priority, it led to the eradication of our small budget, but it created an unbreakable new family bonded by war and cinema.

The film KHARTOUM mixes stark verité street realities with green screen reconstructions and animation graphics. It’s a modern and personal take on documentary storytelling in sub-Saharan Africa, set against a Sudan in revolution, a military coup, and eventually total war.

The film features five Sudanese citizens caught up in a city at war

The film reveals the emotions and inner worlds of five very different Sudanese citizen-participants, struggling to stay alive amidst their country’s turmoil. These five participants, through raw street filming and lyrical animated dream sequences, convey what it is to be caught up in a city in conflict, becoming refugees for the first time: Majdi, the civil servant, flies on a racing pigeon smoking a shisha over his burning city; Lokain and Wilson, two young Khartoum street-boys, ride a lion through gun-toting militias, and Jawad, a Sufi Rastafarian motorbiker, flies upwards over the Sudanese pyramids only to land at the Hollywood Hills. Khadmallah, a tea vendor and single mum, sings her hope to protect her child, under a blooming tree on the Nuba Mountains.

I’ve worked in Sudan since 2004 both as a journalist, a filmmaker, and as a media and cultural collaborator with Sudanese colleagues. Due to geography, language and a lack of interest from broadcasters, it’s never easy to bring Sudanese stories to UK screens. They are often limited to news reports of war, suffering and refugees, so the only time the UK public would see Sudanese people is as victims or perpetrators.

The challenge of telling richer and deeper stories about Sudan

Many filmmakers and journalists strive to have longer time frames to give depth to those in front of our cameras, but the outlets for such work are limited. KHARTOUM, as an independent work, is an exception and although undoubtedly tougher to make than a commissioned documentary, it had the space to paint a deep and rich holistic canvas of the city of Khartoum and five of its unique citizens. It is also led by Sudanese voices and filmmakers in their own city and their own language which gives the work great depth and an indelible authenticity.

Our working process was simple; each filmmaker focused on reaching a poetic depth and dream intimacy with participants Majdi, Khadmallah, Lokain, Wilson and Jawad. I would then share different visual possibilities to link these individual stories into one cinematic film.

We trusted audiences to find the city of Khartoum in these stories

We weren’t afraid to break form, and we trusted audiences to simply watch and find the city of Khartoum in the faces and small acts of its people. Khartoum is a city but also for me a state of mind. It’s a fusion of all that is Sudan, incredible diversity and coexistence, yet always balancing a powder keg of entrenched political elites, corruption and rival military powers.

Our creative process, where we created dreamscapes, led to a non-linear structure that reveals an emotional memory to a city now destroyed. It also weaves a coup, a revolution, a civil war and the destruction of Khartoum through graphic animation FX and a vérité documentary.

We put emotion first and information second

The power of the storytelling is in our creativity and an intention to lead with emotion and experience over information. There is beauty and fun in this film. Audiences laugh whilst watching struggle and endurance. We worked collaboratively and sensitively with the participants and invited them to reflect their inner worlds, memories and dreams as much as their physical journeys of survival. The result is a dynamic hybrid between vérité and graphic animated narrative that provides an immersive viewing experience. KHARTOUM is a cinematic poem and homage to an incredible metropolis and its people.

As a group of very different filmmakers, from Sudan, the UK, Palestine and Italy, we’re proud that we stayed united, that we worked to keep each other safe and that we always prioritised the physical and mental well-being of the team. We have all learnt from each other, and we all understood the value and importance of what we were doing: creating a film that documents a moment in Sudan’s history, a film honouring the resilient and enduring heartbeat of the Sudanese people. That it is now accessible inside millions of UK households on iPlayer and in venues globally, is a testament both to independent and collaborative world cinema and also to a small group of filmmakers who became a family.

For more information see www.khartoummovie.com

IBT and IOM are hosting a screening and Q&A discussion of KHARTOUM at the BFI on Friday 19 June.

Phil Cox is one of the writers and directors of KHARTOUM

Briefing Notes: Briefing with Global Eye

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Briefing with Global Eye

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Charities Are Using AI Images. Most Haven’t Told Anyone.

AI tools are everywhere, but charities are still largely unaware of the risks and the obligations around artificial-imagery, writes Emma Bracegirdle, Founder of The Saltways.

Like many people in the sector, I was shocked to read The Guardian’s investigation in October 2025. Major NGOs were using AI-generated images of people living in poverty to fundraise, without labelling them or telling their supporters. So I started asking charity communications teams about their own use of AI-generated imagery, and what I found made the Guardian story feel less like an outlier and more like the tip of the iceberg.

Smaller organisations especially, were using AI images regularly, often in fundraising content, and without labelling them. The speed at which these tools had been adopted without much thought or discussion surprised me. It reminded me of the conversations I had around GDPR several years ago, except that back then, charities were cautious. They took legal advice. They updated their privacy policies. They worried about getting it wrong. With AI imagery, that caution seems to have disappeared.

Charities are full of good people, and I believe what is happening here is a lack of understanding of the impact rather than any deliberate intention to mislead. We surveyed 116 people and spoke in depth to eleven charity communications professionals. Here is what we found.

Obligations around AI imagery are not well-known

What we found was not a sector full of people making deliberate bad decisions. It was a sector that was under pressure, confused, and in many cases unaware of the risks. Ninety-four percent were unclear about their disclosure obligations. More than half of those using AI imagery were not labelling it. Seventy-six percent agreed that authentic content builds donor trust and yet a significant number were using AI-generated images anyway.

The reasons people gave were understandable, especially budget pressures and tight deadlines. The most common reason given was the need to protect beneficiary privacy, particularly for organisations working with children or survivors of abuse. These are real constraints, however, replacing a real person with an AI-generated image does not protect them. It substitutes them with a composite built from decades of potentially biased existing imagery that the sector has spent years trying to move away from.

Enhancement, not generation, is the biggest challenge

The finding that genuinely shocked me was not about generation at all. It was about enhancement. Organisations were using AI tools to expand the edges of photographs, adjust lighting, remove backgrounds and not considering any of it as “using AI” in a meaningful sense. Enhancement was being treated as something entirely different and far more acceptable, when in reality it raises some of the same serious questions. The person in that original photograph consented to their image being used in a specific way, they did not consent to it being altered by an AI tool, and they almost certainly did not consent to their image being uploaded into software that may then use it to train future AI models. That is a conversation the sector has not yet had, and it needs to.

For those charities who think they can ignore AI generated imagery, by simply saying ‘we don’t use it’ were unaware of the wider risks. This is happening quietly, inside tools that staff already use every day, often without anyone in a leadership position knowing about it. If your organisation has not had a conversation about AI imagery, the chances are that conversation is already happening on the ground, just without any agreed boundaries.

This is not an argument against AI

None of this means never using AI. Abstract illustrations, campaign graphics that are clearly not photographs, visualisations of data, these are all reasonable uses that carry very little risk. The question is always whether the image could mislead someone into thinking they are seeing something real when they are not.

For NGOs, trust matters

There is a bigger issue here, and it matters more than any individual piece of content. Trust in charities is not high. Donors are more sceptical than they have ever been, and public scrutiny of how charities communicate is intense. We cannot afford to chip away at that trust further. Think about your least tech-savvy supporter, the one who still donates by cheque, who has supported your cause for twenty years. If they saw your content and later found out it was AI-generated and unlabelled, how would they feel? That is the standard we need to hold ourselves to.

In a world where people are already scrolling and wondering whether what they are seeing is real, charities have a genuine opportunity to be the exception. We can be the sector where supporters know that if an image is AI-generated, it will say so clearly, in plain language that anyone can understand. Not buried in small print. Not in technical metadata. Written for the person who has no idea what a large language model is and does not need to.

Ask yourself: Would our supporters be comfortable with this?

The disclosure does not need to be complicated. “This image was created using AI” is a starting point. Explaining briefly why, because we wanted to protect someone’s privacy, is better still. Sharing the prompt you used is best practice. Which brings me to the question I think every communications team should ask before publishing: would I be comfortable if our supporters could see exactly how this image was made and why? If the answer is no, that is probably your answer about whether to use it at all.

Authenticity is our superpower

The sector’s real superpower has always been authenticity. Real people, real stories, genuine connection with the communities we serve. AI imagery, used without thought or transparency, puts all of that at risk. It only takes one organisation to end up on a front page for the whole sector to feel the damage.

We cannot be the sector that prides itself on ethics, on careful consent processes, on treating the people we serve with fairness and dignity and then quietly use AI-generated imagery without a second thought. It simply does not fit. The values we talk about in our fundraising appeals and our annual reports have to show up in our content decisions too, including the small ones, including the ones nobody is watching.

We have a chance to get ahead of this, and to do it in a way that is consistent with everything the sector is supposed to stand for. The charities that will be trusted in five years’ time are the ones being honest with their supporters now about what they create, how they create it, and why.

Emma Bracegirdle is the Founder of The Saltways, an ethical video production company working exclusively with the third sector

Watch in full: Behind the Headlines report launch

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Is the BBC meeting its international news remit – and why should we care?

IBT’s latest research, looking in detail at the content of TV’s flagship news bulletins, has revealed an alarming decline in the quantity and range of international stories, with serious implications for international NGOs wishing to use television to reach mainstream audiences. Professor Martin Scott, one of the report authors, explains.

Providing high-quality, impartial international news coverage has always been a fundamental purpose of public service media. It ensures universal access to reliable information about the world, regardless of market-driven incentives. At a time of rapid and intense geopolitical change – with shifting power dynamics having profound consequences for communities in the UK and around the world – international journalism has never been more important.

The BBC’s current Public Purposes, which were set in the 2016 Royal Charter, incorporate this objective via an obligation to ‘provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them’. Before that, the 2006 Royal Charter required the BBC to ‘bring the world to the UK’. As the UK government undertakes a new BBC Charter Review, it is vital that an obligation to provide comprehensive, distinctive and globally diverse international news coverage is retained, if not strengthened.

To investigate how well the BBC – and other broadcasters in the UK – are helping audiences understand and engage with the world, we analysed the international news coverage on their flagship television news programmes, social media feeds, news apps, and bulletins. Data collection took place across two non-consecutive weeks in January and February 2026 and also involved interviews with leading international news editors, correspondents, academics, and NGO representatives.

Three key findings about the BBC stand out.

Declining international news on BBC News at Ten

Just 38% of news items on the BBC’s flagship BBC News at Ten programme focused on international events, during the sample period. By contrast, in 2016, when comparable research was last carried out, 50% of news items on this programme were international.

This is a significant decline given the extraordinary geopolitical upheaval taking place in early 2026 and when compared to other UK television news programmes. For example, Channel 4 News increased its proportion of international news coverage significantly over the same period, rising from 38% in 2016 to 54% in 2026 – the highest level ever recorded by these studies – whilst Sky News maintained roughly the same level of coverage of around 50%.

In response to these findings, Sam Taylor, Chief Operating Officer of BBC News pointed out that, whilst the proportion of international news may be lower during the sample period, BBC News at Ten was broadcasting ten minute-long, lead story reports about Iran on three days in one of the two sample weeks. He also explained that the BBC is prioritising online platforms to fulfil its obligations for in-depth international news coverage, saying “the primary objective is to grow digital and social audience engagement.”

Limited international distinctiveness on BBC News at Ten

The BBC is also obliged to provide news that is ‘impartial, high-quality and distinctive’. Specifically, its first public purpose mandates that, ‘it should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other UK news providers’. However, this study found limited evidence of such distinctiveness in the international coverage on BBC News at Ten. Across 54 international news items, it reported on just three countries not covered by its competitors and had an overall news agenda that was very similar to ITV News at Ten and others.

Recently published research from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) shows growing audience frustration at the narrow worldview provided by BBC News. Research participants described BBC News as ‘provid[ing] good coverage of important global topics but sometimes focused too heavily on a handful of major stories while underreporting others.’

Indeed, Newshour from Al Jazeera English was the only television news programme in our sample to report on the ongoing civil war in Sudan, which has caused the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and events in Yemen that included the resignation of the Prime Minister. There were also no reports about Haiti on any of the television news programmes studied, even though NGOs were warning of rapidly escalating violence and displacement. Channel 4 News was the only television news programme reporting on Myanmar during this period, including a case in the International Court of Justice alleging the treatment of its Rohingya population amounts to genocide.

When challenged to describe what makes BBC News’ international television coverage distinctive, Sam Taylor pointed to the nurturing of senior foreign correspondents. “We have the career-long experience of people like Lyse Doucet and Jeremy Bowen, and continued investment in having people based in-country. We are investing in brainpower, long-term knowledge and experience.”

A shift towards social media in the BBC’s international news output

A final key finding is that the BBC had the highest proportion of international news on its YouTube channel (81%) and a significant volume of international news (56%) on its Facebook channel. This is a far higher proportion than was recorded on either the BBC News at Ten (38%), the Today programme’s 8am news bulletin (41%), or was featured on the BBC News app (50%).

This is less surprising than it might at first appear since the BBC is actively developing its presence on YouTube, with a deal to make bespoke content for the platform’s global audience announced in January 2026. Sam Taylor also told us that, “overall, we are running a multimedia story first approach, so when we’re launching a new report from Steve Rosenberg or Jeremy Bowen, digital and social media is as important as the Today programme.”

The BBC is also using social media platforms to cover more international news stories than is possible through television programmes or bulletins alone. For example, the BBC News feed on Facebook covered 39 different countries compared to just 18 on BBC News at Ten. As Sam Taylor explained, “if stories don’t cut through in the daily news bulletins, we’ve got other ways of doing them… Our Syria coverage within your sample period. No one else did that. That’s a long running story that, for many, had dropped off the agenda.”

Interestingly, the BBC tended to prioritise ‘hard’ news topics on YouTube including ‘conflict and violence’ (42%) and ‘international relations’ (18%), whereas its Facebook feed addressed a much wider range of often lighter or off-agenda subjects, including light human interest (14%), science (8%) and health (5%). Of concern, however, was the distinct lack of environmental international news on social media, with five out of the eight social media feeds studied carrying no stories about the environment – including the climate emergency – during the two-week sample period.

Strengthening the BBC’s remit for international news

Is the BBC meeting its international news remit? On the evidence of this study, the BBC’s social media channels appear to be far more effective than BBC News at Ten at ‘help[ing] people understand and engage with the world around them’ in all its complexity and diversity. Given this, it is vital that the BBC’s new charter places firmer, measurable obligations on the BBC to sustain prominent, distinctive, and globally diverse international news coverage across both broadcast and digital platforms.

For international NGOs seeking to secure visibility for themselves and underreported crises, these findings indicate that they should consider proactively engaging with the BBC’s digital and social news platforms, rather than its flagship broadcast bulletins. It also suggests that they might prioritise programmes and channels that are still dedicating significant news time to international issues – including Channel 4 News, Sky News and Al Jazeera English.

Martin Scott is a Professor of Media and Development at the University of East Anglia

Watch in full: Pitching Workshop

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: IBT Pitching Workshop

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

How your charity can succeed on YouTube (Presentation)

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Six key truths about co-creation

Many NGOs from the Global North are starting to embrace co-creation as a way of shifting power back to communities. But, as Ruth Mileham from Peace Direct writes, there is no one-size-fits-all model of co-creation. Co-creation requires embracing discomfort, uncertainty and, ultimately, human connection.

With growing global instability, escalating conflict and increasing humanitarian crises, we as a sector must question our default ways of working and commit to different approaches. Co-creation has emerged as one such approach, based on dialogue, creativity and collaboration. Effective co-creation demonstrates how collaboration and decolonising principles can lay a strong foundation for peacebuilding and wider humanitarian work.

Over the past three years, ten local peacebuilders from different contexts have come together to shape Peace Starts Here, a global movement for local peacebuilders. In the past, many campaigns focused on singular issues or contexts, whilst struggling to reach a wider, global audience. For this campaign, co-creation was the only way to remain true to the goal of building a global movement for local peacebuilders, by local peacebuilders. It created space for shared ownership, mutual learning and longer-term thinking.

True co-creation is much more than a trend or simply “participation.” It is a shared space that requires time, flexibility and commitment. The result is genuine collaboration, rooted in trust and respect. It is a tool that challenges ways of working that have exacerbated colonial stereotypes within the sector and kept local actors at the margins.

Whilst not a definitive guide to co-creation, these are six key truths that emerged through Peace Starts Here’s co-creation process:

Human connection was our most valuable early investment

The importance of bonding cannot be understated. Taking time to connect with everyone involved creates genuine trust. This allows for feelings of hierarchy or uncertainty to dissolve and makes way for creating something truly shared. Co-creating a space that encourages collective action, particularly across time zones and busy schedules, is not easy. Yet, during some of the most turbulent periods of the past few years, this bond brought comfort and hope. Luis, a campaign co-creator from Venezuela, says that “it helped me to reduce the feeling of isolation, because it allowed me to gain awareness on how other social leaders and peacebuilders face the same circumstances around the world.”

It’s important not to rush to a consensus

Rushing consensus only further instils an idea that someone is ‘leading’ the process. Instead of voting on outcomes, trust that through open and honest conversations, the right decision will emerge. Agreements reached this way tend to be stronger and more durable. One of the campaign co-creators, Grace, explains that “what often feels deeply personal is often profoundly collective.” Respecting the bonds that have been built means building in time for the group to reach an agreement.

Discomfort is a sign that the process is working

Co-creation is not an entirely smooth process and discomfort is a sign that the process is working. There will be moments of disagreement, where progress feels slow, or where conversations are uncomfortable. Though such moments are hard to navigate, they lead to greater clarity and only add to the strength of the product co-created. By acknowledging differences in perspectives and contexts, you ensure the co-created product represents the voices of those individuals and communities you intend to reach.

We are not there to lead

The role of a Global North actor in this space is not to direct or lead, but to host and resource. The trust built must go both ways, which means letting go of control and supporting the group to decide where to go next. Current global instability should be a time for Global North actors to commit to change and reform; co-creation can be an effective method of prioritising the efforts of local organisations and actors over those of international non-governmental organisations.

There are limitations to co-creation

Co-creation is not a ‘fix all’ tool. Labelling a process as co-created does not undo centuries of inequality and colonial legacies. Rather, co-creation can help Global North institutions to centre local actors and resist the ingrained role usually taken by international organisations. Co-creating is not a service provided by INGOs, but a step toward changing our sector and giving back a space that was not ours in the first place. Opening collaborative spaces like this helps actively shift power and encourages action over words. Diana, a campaign co-creator from Jordan, expressed her appreciation for Peace Direct’s commitment to co-creation: “I especially appreciate how much effort and investment was put into tangibly valuing our work, the labour of voices for peace, our contextualised knowledge and reach.”

There is no ‘one size fits all’ model to co-creation

In letting go of control, co-creation also needs flexibility, and to allow for adjustments. There is not one way to co-create, and different approaches are needed to support the outcome. This might mean bringing in external expertise to develop team bonds or having one-on-one conversations with people in the group to complete tasks. With no strict template to follow, co-creation allows you to test assumptions and ideas without the stress of traditional funding or programmatic restrictions. This works through balancing flexible structure with productive uncertainty and shifting the dial according to the needs of the group.

Co-creation invites Global North organisations and funders to step back. To support when invited and to contribute to the creation of a safe space in which local actors can lead. If our sector is serious about shifting power and supporting local actors to lead, co-creation must be more than a convenient buzzword. It is not about inviting people in; it is about stepping back and centring those best placed to lead.

Ruth Mileham is Senior Content and Campaigns Officer at Peace Direct

Watch in full: How your charity can succeed on YouTube

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Briefing with BBC Policy Team

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: IBT Briefing with The i Paper

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Briefing with The i Paper

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Why Sudan needs to be in the media spotlight

As we approach April 15, the three-year anniversary of the Sudanese civil war, there is a desire among journalists to tell more stories about Sudan. Yet reporting on the conflict remains profoundly difficult. A recent meeting of politicians, NGOs and journalists, convened by IBT, explored those challenges and highlighted ways we can keep a spotlight on Sudan despite them.

We are approaching three years of brutal war. More than 1,000 days of fighting have triggered what the UN describes as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Over 30 million people – two thirds of the population – are in need of humanitarian assistance. Almost 25 million people face acute hunger, with more than 600,000 on the brink of famine. Sudan is now experiencing the largest displacement crisis in the world: around 13 million people, nearly a third of the population, have been forced from their homes.

And yet, Sudan remains largely absent from the news agenda. While Gaza and Ukraine continue to dominate headlines and evening news bulletins, millions of Sudanese people are suffering with little attention from the UK public.

Last week, IBT convened a roundtable of journalists, politicians and NGO representatives, some speaking virtually from Sudan, to discuss why the conflict remains so underreported and what we can do in response. Baroness Jennifer Chapman, Minister for Development, and Anneliese Dodds MP, Chair of the Sudan and South Sudan APPG, attended alongside the Chief Executives of Action Against Hunger, Save the Children and Islamic Relief. A number of UK news organisations were represented including the BBC, ITV News, Channel 4 News, The Mirror, The Guardian and The Economist.

The discussion, chaired by Rose Caldwell, CEO of Plan International UK and chair of IBT, covered several broad themes. Reporting on Sudan is undeniably difficult, but some of those barriers can be overcome.

Why reporting from Sudan is so difficult

The obstacles to reporting on Sudan are, first and foremost, practical.

Security and logistics make travel extremely challenging. Visas are notoriously difficult to obtain, limiting access for foreign journalists and aid workers alike. Communication blackouts (including international internet and telephone shutdowns) are frequently imposed, restricting the flow of information.

On top of this is the very real risk to personal safety.

Good journalism relies on local knowledge and first-hand testimony, yet many people inside Sudan are understandably fearful of speaking out. Journalists have acknowledged that the complexity of the conflict has made it harder to “sell” stories to editors, particularly when compared with Ukraine or Gaza. Sudan’s war is less familiar, less understood, and, too often, assumed to generate less audience interest. In the absence of strong visual material – photographs and video – it can be hard for audiences to connect emotionally with a story.

Despite the challenges, reporting is still possible

The meeting made clear that these challenges are not insurmountable.

While obtaining visas is difficult, it is not impossible. Many international NGOs continue to operate inside Sudan, despite immense constraints, and some are still able to facilitate journalist visits. Trips are happening, and NGOs are keen to bring journalists with them.

But crucially, foreign journalists do not always need to be inside Sudan to report on the conflict.

The scale of displacement means there is now a vast Sudanese diaspora, particularly in neighbouring countries such as Egypt, South Sudan and Chad. People who have fled can give powerful testimony, highlight the human cost of the war, and often help journalists connect with family members or contacts still inside the country.

NGOs can also support reporting by sharing video material and facilitating access to trusted local sources. There are, of course, serious considerations around safety, consent and anonymity. But physical presence inside Sudan is not the only way to report on atrocities and the humanitarian crisis.

We need to reframe how Sudan is covered

There was a strong appetite in the room not just for more coverage of Sudan, but for better coverage.

Sudanese speakers joining the discussion online were keen to remind journalists that local NGOs, mutual aid groups, and volunteers are still operating across the country. They cautioned against narratives that portray Sudanese people solely as passive victims.

Instead, many emphasised resilience: communities organising, sharing resources and supporting one another in the face of extraordinary violence and deprivation. They want coverage that recognises dignity, agency and humanity – not just suffering.

Journalism can, and should, reflect this reality.

The stories coming out of Sudan are powerful

Despite the barriers, some reporting from and about Sudan has had real impact.

Last week, ITV News Political Correspondent Romilly Weeks accompanied the Foreign Secretary on a visit to Chad and the Sudanese border, reporting on the plight of women and girls affected by the conflict.

Last year, BBC Verify produced a series of striking investigations into massacres in El Fasher, relying largely on open-source material. There is far less video emerging from Sudan than from conflicts such as Gaza, but despite these limitations, the reports reached millions across social media platforms.

They demonstrate what is possible.

Media coverage matters

Media coverage is not about getting NGO logos on television.

As everyone in the room agreed, sustained reporting is essential to maintaining political pressure: for humanitarian funding, diplomatic engagement and ultimately a ceasefire. The Minister noted that reporting on El Fasher late last year directly influenced the diplomatic effort.

The conclusion was clear: media attention matters.

As Sudan approaches its fourth year of war, NGOs and journalists must continue working together, finding practical ways to support one another and keep international attention focused on the crisis.

The BBC is fighting for its life. Let’s use our voice to shape the BBC we want

Ritula Shah, former presenter of The World Tonight on BBC Radio 4, understands the importance of the BBC. For our latest IBT Voices article, she explains how we can all have our say in a public consultation as the broadcaster goes into Charter renewal.

I landed in a shocked New York days after 9/11. The dust hung in the air and caught the back of your throat. The city’s irrepressible residents were keen to talk to the BBC and the yellow cab drivers, who almost all described ‘home’ as somewhere outside the US, had their radios tuned to the station I was reporting for – the World Service.

For me, this story illustrates the reach of the BBC and especially the World Service. For decades, it has been the trusted provider of news and information all over the world. But we have a rare opportunity to make our voices heard.

The BBC is facing challenges unlike any in its history

The BBC has always survived criticism and challenges, but now, it faces an uphill battle like never before: attacks from both sides of the political spectrum and a severe funding crisis.

Since the resignation of Director General Tim Davie, along with Head of News Deorah Turness, in November last year following the controversial Trump Panorama edit, the broadcaster now finds itself heading into Charter renewal with unclear leadership.

There are political and commercial actors hellbent on dismantling the BBC as we know it. Despite its outsize influence, the BBC is a minnow in the globalised media world. Many of the broadcaster’s opponents believe this is the moment to strike to ensure the BBC is weakened.

Never has the BBC faced an existential crisis like it does today.

We can all have our say as part of the public consultation

Now the future of the entire organisation is under review as the UK government begins the process of renewing the BBC’s Charter (its constitutional basis).

As part of the process of Charter Renewal, the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) has published a public consultation. This is a really significant opportunity to influence the kind of content the BBC makes and promotes in the future.

Those of us who believe in a diverse and independent media can and should use this as an opportunity to make our voices heard.

Take question 13 for example, which asks what kind of programming the BBC should make more visible on its platforms; one of the options is “Arts, religious and international affairs programming”. Picking this category matters because if the content isn’t visible, audiences won’t watch it, which in turn means there’s less justification for making it.

A little later, the survey asks, ‘what if anything, do you believe would improve the value and relevance of BBC news and current affairs to you?’ And here, ‘reporting more international stories’, jumps out.

And for question 18, the question specifically about the BBC’s international output and the role of the World Service as a news provider, we can all emphasise the importance of the BBC’s global voice. As someone who presented for the World Service for many years, I know how important it is to people’s lives around the world, as well as for those in the UK who want to know what is happening beyond our own borders.

We need to rally round the World Service

The World Service has been particularly impaired due to funding cuts over the past decade. This is a rare opportunity for us to use our voice and tell the government that we want our BBC to play a global role.

Millions around the world rely on and enjoy the World Service output. Papy Kasereka, a local peacebuilder based in Beni, DRC, is one of them: “The World Service plays a crucial role because it regularly disseminates information in several languages, in a context where we often receive biased information from journalists frequently paid by or in the pay of politicians, and where other actors often resort to outright disinformation.”

He goes on, “BBC World often publishes in-depth articles related to politics, social issues, the environment, and health. This freely available information helps us, as citizens, to stay informed, educate ourselves, and develop our skills and abilities. It’s a goldmine of information.”

“The BBC World Service is a unique and precious institution,” Mary Hockaday, a former controller of BBC World Service English and my old colleague, told me. “At a time of great global uncertainty, when China and Russia are spending billions of dollars on state sponsored media, people need fair and independent journalism, made without fear or favour.”

We should therefore remind the government of the political importance of having a properly-funded World Service.

Please, take the time to fill in the survey

The BBC faces formidable challenges at home and globally. Its commercial competitors have deep pockets but few constraints on the content, quality or diversity of programmes they make and distribute.

There is an obligation to speak up by those of us who value a serious, impartial source of information, that isn’t driven by profit but by quality. Make sure you have your say. The BBC needs you.

Ritula Shah is the former presenter of The World Tonight, The World Today and Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio 4. You can fill out the public consultation on the future of the BBC here.

Watch in full: Briefing with ITV News

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: IBT Briefing with ITV News

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

The Battle for the BBC’s Future

The Government’s long awaited Green Paper on the future of the BBC was published last month, as the process of renewing the national broadcaster’s charter (finally) gets underway. Our Deputy Executive Director Gareth Benest gives his response.

At IBT, we take a very active interest in the BBC and its capacity to provide windows onto the world for audiences across the UK. With the future of the BBC more threatened and less certain than at any time in its 100 year history, and as the forces of populism and extremism swirl around us, this Charter Renewal process could scarcely be more important.

We will be participating in the various consultations and striving to ensure the BBC expands its international coverage in all areas (not just news and current affairs). Here are our immediate responses to the Green Paper and some reflections on what’s missing and what we will be pushing for over the coming months.

Positive noises and promises to tackle big issues

There is a lot to like about the Green Paper. The Secretary of State (Lisa Nandy) clearly understands the critically important role that the BBC plays in our national life, saying “I believe the BBC, alongside the NHS, is one of the two most important institutions in our country. While one is fundamental to the health of our people, the other is fundamental to the health of our democracy.” We agree wholeheartedly and will be reminding the Culture Secretary that international coverage is critical to a healthy democracy but often overlooked and under-funded.

Her department (DCMS) have set out their thinking for how the BBC can be more effective in gaining and maintaining public trust and connecting with a broader range of audiences. They have also emphasised the importance of a stable and sustainable funding model for the BBC and the World Service. Again, this is all important and very welcome.

Protecting trust in the streaming age

For several years now, we’ve been pushing the government to increase the transparency and accountability of public service broadcasters (PSBs) as they deliver services through streaming platforms such as BBC iPlayer. Last year, Ofcom accepted our recommendations for new obligations on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to disclose the nature of their algorithms and publish data about how their streaming platforms serve audiences. Ministers at the DCMS said they would consider similar measures for the BBC during the Charter Renewal process.

We are delighted, therefore, to see our concerns about the BBC’s use of algorithms being reflected in the green paper. The government has acknowledged that “…if due care is not taken, increased personalisation could risk the BBC’s ability to ensure people are widely informed about the world around them, and to create the shared narratives”.

The government says it will consider whether “…to bring the principles of ‘prime time’ into the digital world”, which would be a good start but there is much more work needed to address the issues set out in our latest report with the University of Leeds, which you can read here.

Missing the social impact

Whilst the green paper acknowledges the critical importance of the BBC to our democracy and civil society, the government has not prioritised increasing its social impact in its primary objectives. Sustainable funding, commanding public trust, driving growth and opportunities are all vitally important objectives, but so too is achieving social change and democratic renewal.

Closing the door to progressive funding

How the BBC is funded remains one of the most important and vexed questions facing the government, however, the funding options under consideration are disappointing at best. The Green Paper makes it clear that the government is not even considering a household levy, which has replaced the anachronistic licence fee in comparable countries.

Options still on the table include subscription models (which would end the idea of universality), enhanced licence fees (unlikely to turn the tide of people refusing or dodging the current licence fee), and even advertising on parts or all of the BBC (which would destroy commercial rivals and leave the BBC open to greater influence). This might be the most disappointing aspect of the green paper and appears to have slammed the door shut on progressive and universal funding models, before the consultation has even begun.

We will continue to make the case for a progressive public service media levy (also known as a household levy) collected through the council tax system, but we acknowledge this is unlikely to gain significant traction with a government that has refused to even consider it as an option.

Final reflections

The green paper takes several steps in the right direction on issues such as transparency and accountability, citizen participation and engagement, combatting mis/disinformation, governance, protection from political interference, and much else besides. We will be pushing for greater international coverage beyond news and current affairs, adequate and sustainable funding for the World Service, and genuine transparency in the use of algorithms.

We were in meetings with the BBC’s senior leadership when the government’s plans were published, and the overall sense was a feeling of optimism and relief to be working with a government that’s supportive of the broadcaster and willing to explore viable options rather than dictate terms. That was reassuring, as was the BBC’s apparent openness to consultation and collaboration with supportive organisations.

This is a hugely important moment for all of us as the future of the national broadcaster is at stake. We welcome the opportunity to respond to these proposals which we will do in consultation with IBT members so please let us know your views.

Gareth Benest is Deputy Executive Director of IBT

Watch in full: Photography briefing

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: IBT Photography briefing, December 2025

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

How #TeamWater with MrBeast inspired a new generation of fundraisers

With over 450 million subscribers, MrBeast is YouTube’s biggest creator. When he agreed to partner with WaterAid earlier this year, the NGO managed to inspire millions and exceed their fundraising targets, Jennie York, Executive Director of Fundraising and Communications at WaterAid UK writes.

One in ten people don’t have clean water close to home, and extreme weather patterns are making this situation worse. Yet water remains a neglected area of UK aid spending, despite WaterAid research finding that it’s a top area of concern for the British public. To tackle this global crisis, we therefore need funding from all different sources – from governments, to philanthropists, to charities.

In a world awash with causes competing for attention, NGOs are facing an increasingly challenging fundraising environment, but there are always new and exciting opportunities, especially as we become an increasingly digital world. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Instagram are starting to dominate the market with over 1 billion hours of YouTube content watched each day, globally, as it becomes the UK’s second most-watched media service. To reach the next generation of givers, we must meet them where they are: online, engaged and invested in purpose-driven, organic storytelling.

In August, WaterAid was announced as the global partner of #TeamWater, a bold new creator-powered campaign to inspire and engage a new generation and bring clean water to 2 million people for decades. MrBeast and Mark Rober led the charge with call-to-action videos across their platforms, activating a global network of creators with billions of subscribers to raise awareness and drive donations. This campaign was never just about them. It was a global movement, inspiring action around the world.

#TeamWater builds on the success of #TeamTrees and #TeamSeas, two creator-led campaigns by MrBeast that collectively raised over $50 million. Access to clean water is something MrBeast and Mark Rober are both passionate about, and as WaterAid is a trusted organisation with more than 40 years of experience, we were a natural choice of partner.

We worked with the team for a couple of years to plan the campaign and ensure the project was deliverable and achievable.

YouTube creators helped us reach new audiences

Through MrBeast and Mark Rober’s networks, platform outreach and the viral nature of the campaign, content creators from across the globe produced content in support of #TeamWater, helping us to access millions of engaged viewers, that we would not be able to reach otherwise.

We spread the word about #TeamWater online, on TV and radio, and across social media channels, engaging with new and existing supporters. The campaign involved a wide variety of activities, from Fortnite integrations and record-breaking livestreamed fundraising, to sharing stories from communities whose lives have been transformed through access to clean water.

While most promotion took place on social media channels with YouTube, TikTok and Instagram being the primary ones, WaterAid also promoted the campaign on our owned and shared channels, as well as securing media coverage. In the US, MrBeast and Mark Rober were interviewed on influential programmes such as The Today Show and Jimmy Kimmel Live, while we secured a range of radio and print interviews for British influencers and WaterAid staff in the UK.

We wanted to keep authentic storytelling at the heart

Respectful and authentic storytelling is a top priority for WaterAid, and at the heart of the campaign were the communities we work alongside to provide a lasting supply of clean water.

Influencers including MrBeast and UK scientist Big Manny visited WaterAid’s work to help produce powerful content for their channels to engage their audiences in tackling the global water crisis.

We were delighted to work with content creators from across the world, including Ghanaian travel vlogger, Wode Maya, who was keen to join the campaign and speak to his audience about one of the big issues impacting people in his country. Alongside social media star, Gisela Amponsah, they used their platforms to tell the stories of women now growing vegetables all year round, despite drought conditions, and midwives now able to deliver babies safely – all because they have access to clean water

By partnering with thousands of content creators who brought their own perspectives, #TeamWater started a truly global conversation led by a range of voices. By putting communities at the centre of their own stories in this way, we aim to tell powerful, positive stories that inspire action and respect.

The collaboration exceeded fundraising targets

There was a dedicated #TeamWater campaign platform at teamwater.org, where supporters could donate, set up a fundraiser, and see the running total of money raised with their names on the leaderboard. A toolkit for content creators was also provided, so they could promote the campaign on their own platforms. The short timeframe to raise the money kept the campaign relevant and urgent.

Through crowdfunding and an online auction supported by community-driven engagement, the initiative exceeded the target of £30 million ($40 million) in just one month. With globally recognised names helping to open the door to philanthropic and corporate sponsors coupled with WaterAid’s credibility, big donations were also an important part of us reaching our target.

As the global partner, WaterAid provides four decades of global water expertise to accompany the power of creator influence and ensure the money raised will make lasting change. All funds raised will go towards long-term, sustainable water solutions – from solar-powered wells to hundreds of miles of pipes – for homes, schools and healthcare centres

Change starts with water. Clean water means women don’t waste time walking long distances for water, girls can go to school, hospitals can give good care, and communities can thrive. It means people can break free from poverty and build the lives they want, with dignity.

Jennie York, Executive Director of Fundraising and Communications at WaterAid UK.

Watch in full: The Observer

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: The Observer

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Why AI-generated ‘poverty porn’ fake images need to be stopped

AI-generated images of starving children, refugees, victims of armed conflict, and much more, are spreading across the internet.

New research from Dr Arsenii Alenichev, at the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, has uncovered a vast collection of pictures and video clips for sale. They appear to depict the struggles of poor and vulnerable people around the world but they are, in fact, the reductive fever dreams of Generative AI.

They are clearly marked as AI, so purchasers are not being deceived, but that only makes this trend all the more alarming: there is an emerging market for AI-generated poverty porn.

A quick search on stock image websites reveal pictures that are truly shocking. “Asian children” swim in rivers of waste, skeletal infants stare hungrily at the viewer, refugees scream into the void or perch in filthy encampments. And, of course, there are plenty of white Westerners coming to the rescue. Volunteers in baseball caps embracing grateful African children, picture-perfect 20-somethings pose in schools full of smiling students, and foreign doctors in white coats bring modern medicine to the needy.

Some images are just ridiculous. The caption of one reads: “Young mother cradles her child amidst the chaos of war in Africa”, which it advertises as “powerful imagery for awareness campaigns”. The backdrop to this scene of war-torn chaos is, inexplicably, a perfectly intact cafe.

We are in the foothills of AI imagery and so we must expect such obvious mistakes will be ironed out quickly. As the pictures become increasingly sophisticated and photorealistic, the difference between the real and the fake will become impossible to discern and the temptation to use them will increase. But can we ever trust AI to make images that aren’t laden with stereotypes, and is it ever ethical?

Alenichev’s earlier research exemplifies the widely-held concern in computational science: that generative AI models can be highly racialised and this is particularly visible in the images they create. The models are trained on billions of pictures from our past and present; imbibing all of our biases and prejudices in the process.

In recent years, many NGOs have adopted ethical storytelling guidelines that forbids them from using dehumanising photographs of the people they serve. But in light of extreme funding cuts – from Keir Starmer’s slashing of the UK aid budget to the almost complete eradication of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) – many fundraising teams, in charities large and small, are under intense pressure to fill the yawning financial gaps.

Meanwhile, the need for effective visual communication has never been greater; to feed the insatiable social media accounts, websites, fundraising appeals, etc. In these circumstances the use of AI stock images for marketing might prove irresistible.

After all, fake photos of fake people are cheap. There are no photographers to contract and no trips to be arranged. There are no complex consent processes to overcome, no security risks to manage, no duty of care, no obligations. Nobody is being objectified or exploited, right? Wrong. The peoples, places, communities, and issues being represented are being objectified and I believe their experiences are being exploited.

If you believe, as I passionately do, in the urgent need for more ethical and dignified storytelling; made with people rather than about people, then it’s clear that AI’s reductive and stereotypical representations can never be the answer.

The extent to which AI stock images are being used by charities and NGOs is unclear. What we do know is the use of AI to produce images in-house is most certainly on the rise.

There are some excellent examples of organisations using the technology to produce powerful images for campaigns, clearly signposted as the product of AI. “The Future of Nature” campaign by WWF rendered scenes of environmental collapse in a series of AI-generated paintings. Breast Cancer Now’s project “Gallery of Hope” worked with AI to create photographs of women with incurable breast cancer as they imagined their future might be, given more time.

These were carefully managed projects that required significant financial resources and expertise to achieve. The organisations involved were scrupulous in their use of AI, which happened under the watchful eye of photographers, AI specialists, campaigners and communications professionals.

The same care and attention is clearly not taken by the so-called “AI artists”, operating under ludicrous pseudonyms, as they publish images of people and places they have doubtlessly never seen with their own eyes. If they even have eyes. If they are even human.

We must hope that charities recognise the dangers, to the representation of people, to public perceptions, to trust and reputations, and refuse to use AI-generated stock images all-together. Without buyers, the marketplace for AI “poverty” porn will wither and die. As it should.

This article was originally published in The Independent as part of their Rethinking Global Aid project

Watch in full: Climate Change – the media challenge

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

The BBC’s new current affairs show, Global Eye, is bringing investigative journalism to a mainstream audience

Last month the BBC launched Global Eye, a weekly current affairs show on BBC2. For the first time, UK audiences have access to the journalism of the World Service. This programme is very different from anything else that’s available on mainstream TV, writes Liz Gibbons.

The BBC World Service is proud to deliver hard-hitting investigative journalism to audiences around the world, across multiple platforms, in our 43 language services, and as long form documentaries – all made available worldwide in English.

Our investigative documentary strand BBC Eye is critically acclaimed and award-winning. They tell stories no one else does, hold power to account, and investigate injustices.

The World Service doesn’t shy away from tough stories

BBC World Service journalists have delved into some of the most arresting issues on the planet: from international drug trafficking to extrajudicial killings, from Africa’s deadliest migration routes to the use of slave labour.

We put people at the heart of our investigations.

When Kenyan student Eric Shieni was killed in protests outside of parliament last year, we set out to find out who fired the fatal shots.

When we read internet rumours about the death of a young Ugandan woman, Mona Kizz, in Dubai, we sought to reveal the true story.

We have previously shone a light on abuse in the church founded by the late Nigerian pastor TB Joshua, exposed the activities of extremist settlers in the West Bank, and revealed a phone call which indicates a deadly crackdown on student-led protests in Bangladesh was authorised by the country’s Prime Minister.

Our reporting is innovative and impactful

Our award-winning investigative teams work relentlessly in their pursuit of truth. Often working undercover, and in dangerous and harsh conditions. They are at the forefront of using open source intelligence (OSINT) in their journalism.

Our stories often have real world impact too – exposing criminal activity which lead to arrests and prison sentences, and revealing injustices which bring about changes to the law.

Although our investigations feature across BBC News programming, audiences in the UK have less of an opportunity to see our work in peak time.

Global Eye means the World Service is now on peak time TV

Partly to address this, in September we launched a very special new current affairs programme, Global Eye.

For the first time we are bringing UK audiences the brilliance of the BBC World Service in a dedicated peak time format on BBC Two, and BBC iPlayer.

For thirty minutes each Monday evening at 7pm, Global Eye gives audiences a window on the world with the best investigative journalism, combined with original storytelling from our teams around the world.

Our journalism is rooted in the communities we serve

Each episode is anchored from somewhere different by one of our presenters or correspondents.

The first episode saw our Senior Correspondent, Nawal Al-Maghafi reporting from Sudan, with the latest on the escalating crisis. The second episode was anchored by Jean Mackenzie in South Korea.

Last week, we went undercover to expose a Russian backed campaign attempting to influence the outcome of crucial elections in Moldova.

In the weeks to come, we’ll be reporting from Cuba, Kashmir, and from a tiny island in the western Pacific.

BBC World Service has journalists all over the world and our journalism is rooted in the communities we serve.

Global Eye is different from anything available for UK audiences

As well as reporting to our audiences in 43 languages internationally, we provide expertise and in-depth knowledge for outlets across BBC News. It’s mainly through the BBC World Service that we reach 418 million people worldwide each week and we remain the most trusted international news provider.

That’s why we’re in a unique position to make this programme and why Global Eye is different from anything available for UK audiences.

Through our World Service radio network and language sites, we already reach over three and a half million people in the UK every week.

Global Eye will enhance our UK offer by taking viewers to the heart of important international reporting, tell untold stories and showcase the BBC’s global current affairs journalism – from all corners of the world.

I’m incredibly proud of the programme and the teams and journalists who work so tirelessly to deliver first class journalism for audiences. And it’s a pleasure to provide that for audiences in the UK alongside the millions watching worldwide.

Liz Gibbons is Executive Editor for BBC World Service Long Form Documentaries, Podcasts and Investigations

Charities can use AI to shape public understanding of global issues

Charities have something special to offer in the world of AI. They can become a definitive source of information in the authority economy, argues AI expert Suzanne Begley, co-founder, Make Sense Of It.

The way we consume information online is changing rapidly. Gartner predicts that organic website traffic will drop by more than 50% by 2028. Meanwhile, 80% of consumers already rely on AI-written summaries for at least 40% of their search queries.

Why should this matter to NGOs? When someone searches for information about global poverty or climate adaptation, they’re increasingly likely to read an AI-generated summary rather than clicking through to a website. The AI pulls from various sources to create that answer—and if a charity’s expertise is not easily accessible to these systems, then it won’t be part of the conversation.

For charities already battling public scepticism and funding pressures, these developments might seem like another existential threat. But they represent a significant opportunity for the sector.

Charities can help shape public understanding of global issues

In the early 2000s, forward-thinking NGOs like Oxfam built comprehensive websites and bypassed traditional media gatekeepers. These early adopters gained significant advantages. The AI transformation appears to be following a similar pattern, although at unprecedented speed.

What feels different this time is scope. We’re witnessing a fundamental shift in how humans access information. When someone asks an AI system “Is foreign aid effective?”, the response can shape understanding in ways traditional search never did.

Traditional search and news cycles work against charities

International development has always struggled with media bias towards conflict and disaster. Success stories don’t make headlines. Nuanced progress doesn’t fit news cycles. Meanwhile, Google’s algorithms have historically rewarded fresh, trending content over comprehensive, evergreen research.

AI systems might not share these editorial preferences, although it’s still early to say definitively. They appear to prioritise authoritative, comprehensive answers over “newsworthy” or recently published content. If this pattern holds, the ‘boring’ but crucial work of detailed research, programme evaluations, and systematic analysis could offer NGOs a competitive advantage in this information landscape.

This could free development organisations from the traditional constraints of having to make everything newsworthy to gain attention, or constantly publishing new content to stay visible in search results.

Charities can lead the “authority economy”

In the “authority economy”, becoming the definitive source on the issues matters. However, many media companies are blocking AI crawlers to protect their content and subscriptions.

This opens the door to charities. If major news outlets restrict AI access whilst charity research remains freely available, they will have a crucial advantage in this new AI landscape.

Not all knowledge gets documented

There are still challenges around knowledge and AI. Not all knowledge gets communicated or is accessible to AI systems. Important perspectives and voices can be omitted.

This creates an ethical dilemma: do we engage with imperfect systems that might amplify existing biases, or cede the development narrative to already-privileged sources?

What practical steps can charities take?

This transformation is happening whether we participate or not. AI systems are being trained and deployed globally, and they are shaping how people understand global issues.

The question isn’t whether to engage. It’s whether we’ll help shape the narrative or let others shape it for us.

For organisations facing public scepticism and funding pressures, ceding the AI narrative space could make it more likely that hostile perspectives dominate future conversations. But thoughtful engagement offers the possibility of reclaiming public discourse.

In light of these challenges and opportunities, charities should:

Start experimenting and test how AI tools might enhance your team’s capabilities and reach
Consider how AI could help or hinder your mission and public understanding of your issues
Identify what expertise and insights you have that could benefit from wider reach through AI systems
Weigh the benefits of AI visibility against risks like losing control over how your work is represented

Suzanne Bagley is the co-founder of Make Sense Of It and the co-author of the AI Playbook for Charities
https://www.make-sense-of-it.com/

https://www.aiplaybookforcharities.com/

Watch in full: Briefing with BBC News

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: BBC News

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Public service streaming platforms should promote public service content. Why don’t they?

IBT and the University of Leeds recently published ‘Behind the Screen’, a report on how public service broadcasting is changing as we move increasingly towards online viewing. Former BBC editor Roger Bolton was at the launch and reflects on the urgent questions the report raises.

Last month, I attended the launch of a new report on the future of public service media in the age of streaming. Reading the report, listening to the panel, and talking to people afterwards, it’s clear that regulators and policymakers are not up-to-speed as to how broadcasters are using their streaming services – their Broadcast Video on Demand, or BVoDs.

Lack of transparency

How can they be? As ‘Behind the Screen’ makes clear, public service broadcasters (PSBs) are not being transparent as to how their online streaming services recommend programmes to viewers.

Gone are the days when we all shared the same linear line-up of programmes; now, each of us has our different iPlayer, ITVX, and Channel 4. We’re all recommended different things based on our perceived preferences as determined by algorithms.

But this means that we are not being recommended certain programmes that, in the past, would have been given greater prominence on the linear schedules.

Certain genres – such as international content – are at risk

This is particularly true when it comes to programming focused on arts, international issues, and religion and belief – a number of ‘at-risk genres’ that were removed from the 2024 Media Act’s public service remit.

Unlike Netflix and Amazon Prime, BVoDs like iPlayer, ITVX, and Channels 4 and 5 should be public service platforms – although Gareth Barr, Director of Policy & Regulation at ITV who spoke on the panel, claimed that ITVX was not a public service platform.

But surely audiences deserve more than this. Streaming services from PSBs should be accountable to us and be expected to provide their civic duty of informing, educating and entertaining. That means exposing audiences to a wide range of content so that people can find programmes that they might not ordinarily have watched.

Just as when we watch linear television, we often find ourselves watching the next programme in the schedule, BVoDs try to keep us on their platforms by recommending something to watch next.

Public service content is not being recommended

Unlike with linear television, however, these recommendations are based on user-preferences, meaning that important programmes about art, religion and global affairs – that previously would have found a serendipitous audience on the linear schedules – are not being seen by people who may enjoy them, if only they knew such programmes existed.

That we do not know how they are operating behind the screens should worry all of us who care about public broadcasting in the UK.

PSBs need to be transparent about how their streaming services work

At the moment, it is difficult to monitor how BVoDs actually function. We are left largely in the dark as to how and why these streaming platforms recommend certain kinds of programmes to audiences and not others.

This lack of transparency goes against the principles of public service media. In order to redress this, every PSB should make publicly available how the algorithms on their BVoDs work, so that audiences and regulators can better understand how programmes are recommended to viewers on the platforms.

Despite what some argue, these BVoDs should be treated as public service streaming services and, as such, we are entitled to know how they operate.

Regulators need to be clearer on how they will monitor PSBs

What we need from Ofcom is precise details of how they will monitor public service programming in future.

Ofcom needs to be transparent and give clarity as to how it intends to monitor the availability, prominence and discoverability of those genres that were removed from public service remitted by the 2024 Media Act.

At the moment, it is unclear exactly how Ofcom plans to regulate content on the PSB streaming platforms. If broadcasters are not held accountable by the regulators, important programmes may not be given prominence and audiences will miss out on a range of international, artistic and religious content.

The government needs to do more to support public service media

At a time when the world needs access to global storytelling more than ever, the government needs to show its commitment to public service broadcasting.

An obvious way to support the PSBs is through money, for example the FCDO expanding its funding to the World Service. But the government can do more.

What we need from government, as the report says, is for them to “incentivise PSBs to broaden the range of genres and subject matter promoted and recommended to audiences; recognising the civic value of serendipity in public service media and the dangers of creating audience silos”.

Support from the highest-level would be invaluable to the sustainability of public service media. It would create an environment where audiences would see the value of public media, and see television not just as a means of a distraction but as a window to the wider world.

Our public service broadcasting is one of the best things the UK has to offer. We have at our fingertips thousands of hours of quality programming – programmes on the world in which we live and how others see the world.

At a time when the UK is looking inward – and audiences are increasingly looking downwards, towards a phone screen or tablet – public service media offers a brilliant opportunity to counter ignorance and foster understanding and growth. For it to do that successfully, it needs support from the highest-level. It needs to be accountable. It needs to be transparent. It’s what audiences deserve.

Roger Bolton is a former BBC editor and presenter. He now presents a podcast, Roger Bolton’s Beeb Watch.

Young Brits care about global issues. We should listen to them

Far from being apathetic and disengaged, young people care deeply about global issues, new polling for Restless Development suggests. If we want the government to make aid a priority again, we have to do a better job at communicating this level of support, Jacob Wood from Restless Development writes.

The results are in: young people care about global issues. Fresh polling commissioned by Restless Development as part of the Walking the Talk UK campaign, and conducted by More in Common, reveals a generation that is both globally engaged and eager for meaningful communication about international development.

The poll, which explored the attitudes of 18–25-year-olds towards government aid, recent aid cuts, and the UK’s role abroad, offers a clear message to the aid and development sector: young people are paying attention. We as communicators have to meet young people where they get their news and in formats that resonate with them.

Young people care about global issues

Some key findings from the polling include:

78% of young Britons want the UK to play a role in global decision-making
The top values they believe Britain should promote internationally are peace and conflict resolution and environmental protection
Only 23% support cuts to the UK aid budget
63% believe supporting women and girls should be a priority for aid spending, with ending gender-based violence and improving maternal health standing out, particularly among young women.
60% of young women say the Prime Minister is not doing enough to stand up for gender equality on the world stage

This data paints a clear picture: far from being apathetic, young people see global issues as deeply connected to their own lives and values.

Global affairs are just as important as domestic affairs

Among British 18–25-year-olds, 85% believe the UK is affected by international issues, and 78% want the UK to play an active role in global decision-making. Perhaps even more significantly, when asked whether they are more interested in global or national issues, 42% said both equally, with slightly more leaning towards global concerns.

This underlines a crucial point: international development is not niche for young people, it sits squarely alongside domestic issues in their worldview.

In a political context where international development is deprioritised, these findings matter. Just 23% of those polled support government cuts to the aid budget, while nearly eight in ten young people consider the aid budget important.

There is a clear disconnect between government action and the values of the next generation of voters and leaders. These findings suggest that politicians risk alienating a huge block of the population who want the UK to take a more active global role. We as a sector should work more with young people to help make this message clear.

Young people are selective, not disengaged

When asked how international news could better capture their interest, young people were clear:

40% said they want to understand how global issues affect their own lives
37% called for more honest information from politicians and leaders
24% said short, clear explainers make content more engaging
24% also said they’re more likely to engage with international content on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram

These findings offer a blueprint for effective communication. They highlight the need for relevance, transparency, and accessibility. For us working in charity communicators, this means moving beyond abstract narratives or technical jargon. We need to make international development feel personal, immediate, and relatable.

It also highlights the critical role of social media in reaching young audiences. Explainers, reels, interactive stories, that are delivered in a tone that is honest and values-driven will go much further than traditional channels alone.

Young people are not disengaged. They are selective. They want to be engaged on their own terms: through formats they trust, platforms they use, and content that reflects their values and daily lives. Think education, cultural exchange, digital storytelling, and crucially, content that centres young voices themselves.

So what can sector communicators do?

Centre young people in the narrative – not just as recipients of messages, but as co-creators, voices, and partners.
Localise the global – show clearly how international development links to the issues young people face at home.
Lead with values – young people care about justice, equality, and the environment.
Be bold about honesty – communicate with transparency, and be willing to name the political and systemic challenges the sector faces.

This generation is globally literate, morally driven, and politically alert. They care. The challenge now is for our sector to meet their interest with communications that are worthy of it.

Jacob Wood is Youth Power Communications Coordinator at Restless Development. If you would like to see the polling data in more depth email: WalkingtheTalkUK@restlessdevelopment.org

Ethical storytelling can help us fight back against the aid cuts

As the international development sector faces tremendous pressures, many NGOs are in danger of neglecting ethical communications in pursuit of desperately needed fundraising. But as Jess Crombie argues, ethical storytelling isn’t a ‘nice to have’, but rather one of the tactics that will help us to raise money and continue to deliver aid.

Following the recent cuts in foreign aid, the interest in ‘ethical storytelling’ has appeared to wane. Intense pressure on fundraising, particularly from major and individual donors, has resulted in a renewed questioning of why we need to tell stories in an ‘ethical’ way.

I was in Istanbul with 25 leaders from the UN and large NGOs running a week of advocacy workshops when the dismantlement of USAID was announced. The response – other than the obvious horror at the impending impact of this decision – was one of pausing and taking stock. A sensible response, and a necessary one, but one also rooted in caution.

As a sector, we are fact finders, careful decision makers, and balancers of pros and cons. Cautiousness, therefore, is baked into our modes of operation. This is as it should be, but it also means that when things get really challenging, we can fall back on cautiousness when we should be innovating and advocating for forward momentum.

At various points over the past months, I’ve wondered whether advocating for a different model of communication and fundraising was an indulgence or a ‘nice to have’. After all, this is a time of hardship for those our sector supports as well as frontline aid workers. I was cautious myself during this period: like many I also lost work, and attempting to map this new reality – implications, possible outcomes, next steps and more – took a lot of energy.

In May, three months after the initial funding shock, I was invited to Zurich to run a two day workshop with the Swiss NGO HEKS/EPER. Prepping and then delivering that workshop reminded me that ethical storytelling isn’t about ‘doing the right thing’; it’s about power, who has it, and the implications of not being able to communicate what you need and want. Innovation requires courage, and while it is hard to be courageous when everything feels so precarious, if we are to stand by the argument that our sector deserves to exist we need to innovate for equitable change.

And so these are my five reasons why ethical (or, as I prefer, equitable) storytelling is an urgent priority and why the incredible momentum we have made over the past years mustn’t slow:

1. Equity in who gets to tell the stories of lived experience is what the people in those stories are and have been demanding for a long time now (The People in the Pictures is now eight years old). And not listening to them and enacting this demand is to fly in the face of the values we believe that we exemplify as a sector.

2. Narratives that cause long-term harm in the form of stereotyping and othering don’t do anyone any good. Africa No Filter has carried out some groundbreaking research to prove this point, it’s worth a read.

3. Donors are looking and asking for more transparency – and what better way to give it to them than to let them hear directly from an affected person what is and has been going on. Here is proof of the need for transparency – my own research (linked below) backs this up.

4. It works! I’ve trialled and tested this way of working with wonderful partners like Amref Health Africa, UNHCR and UNICEF and the results have been financially positive. If you’re not sure, or need to convince your colleagues, you can check out the Amref report here, and the UNHCR findings here where I detail the cold hard quant financials alongside the qual donor interviews (which are equally positive).

5. Lastly, the intangible but so important point – we are educators as well as engagers. We don’t often think of ourselves in that way, but that is what we are doing, helping to shape the world as our audiences see it – and like all educators we have a responsibility to impart information in the most respectful way that shapes equitable world views.

I had a lot of positive feedback while in Zurich, but the best one was from a senior fundraiser who told me – “I thought this was going to be pointless for me, and maybe even boring, but it really wasn’t. It was a reframing of what I feel passionate about, and a reinvigoration of what we need to do”.

And that’s what I took away. Not praise (although always nice) but instead a reminder to myself that this type of storytelling is exciting and inspiring and also critical to our ability to deliver the aid that the money raised is there to fund. If we abandon the values that underpin our sector by falling back into the old inequitable models of money raising, then we undermine the trust and reputations that we need more than ever to maintain right now. We have made so much progress, and our donors are with us on this journey, which is a really positive thing to remember in this moment of uncertainty.

Jess Crombie is a researcher and scholar working as a Senior Lecturer at UAL, and as a consultant for the development and humanitarian sector – find out more at https://www.jesscrombieconsultancy.com/

You can find Jess’s upcoming courses here https://www.jesscrombieconsultancy.com/our-courses

Watch in full: How Charity Comms are Changing in the Age of AI

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

We need smarter, more focused aid

As aid budgets are being slashed, the sector needs a decisive shift in how aid is delivered, writes Flora Alexander, Executive Director of International Rescue Committee UK.

The global humanitarian system stands at a precipice. Over 300 million people worldwide need humanitarian assistance, yet we face a ballooning funding gap. Presently only 5 per cent of the $44.72 billion needed to meet humanitarian needs has been funded, leaving millions of the world’s most vulnerable people at risk of not receiving critical aid. This isn’t just a shortfall; it’s a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in slow motion.

A new era for foreign aid is upon us. In these straitened times, we must fundamentally rethink where aid is spent, what it’s spent on, how it’s delivered, and how it’s funded. As we lay out in our new report, the IRC is calling for aid that gets back to its primary focus on the most vulnerable communities, and an increased focus on proven, cost-effective solutions. In short, we need smarter, more focused aid.

The paradox of our time: rising needs, shrinking resources

As major donors like the United States, United Kingdom and European countries slash their Official Development Assistance (ODA) budgets, we’re witnessing the devastating impact in real-time.

In Sudan, where famine has been officially declared, aid cuts have forced the closure of 80 per cent of communal kitchens. In Chad, refugees fleeing violence have lost access to critical food, water, and education programmes. By some estimates, cuts to global health spending could cost 25 million lives in the next 15 years – a preventable tragedy that should shock our collective conscience.

Aid has lost its focus on extreme poverty

In addition to the radical cuts, aid has lost its focus on where need is greatest. Analysis in IRC’s report shows that humanitarian needs are increasingly concentrated in 13 fragile and conflict affected states – including Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, and the Democratic Republic of Congo – which are experiencing the devastating convergence of conflict and climate change.

These countries host over a quarter of the world’s population living in extreme poverty yet received less than 10 per cent of ODA in 2023. They are also most at risk from the fallout of ongoing global aid cuts despite facing overlapping crises of extreme hunger, malnutrition, violence, and displacement.

We need to prioritise interventions that work

The international development sector needs to adapt to this new funding landscape. This isn’t just about doing more with less; it’s about doing better with what we have, ensuring that aid delivers the greatest possible impact for people affected by crisis. Through evidence collected in over 400 cost analyses across 37 countries, the IRC knows what works to ensure interventions really deliver:

Simplified malnutrition treatment: With the same financial resources invested in a refined system, we can reach thousands more children suffering from acute malnutrition, cutting treatment costs by up to 30 per cent.
Vaccinations and community health: Disease prevention through vaccination, particularly when delivered by frontline actors, has proven highly effective. In partnership with GAVI, the IRC-led REACH initiative delivered 9 million childhood vaccine doses in East Africa at an average cost of just £3 per dose – immunising previously inaccessible, ‘zero-dose’ children in conflict-ridden areas.
Cash assistance: One of the strongest evidence-based interventions in international aid, cash transfers reduce poverty and create additional value in local economies. The IRC’s Cash First programme delivered $79 million to over 2 million people across 37 countries. Yet less than 20 per cent of the humanitarian aid budget goes in cash disbursements, even before US cuts take effect.
Anticipatory action: Rather than responding after disasters strike, we can act before they happen. In Nigeria, Guatemala, Somalia, and Afghanistan, our “Follow the Forecast” approach uses AI-enabled climate forecasts and local knowledge to provide pre-shock cash support.

Getting aid to where it’s most needed

Prioritising impact means delivering aid to the hardest-to-reach communities, who are often overlooked but most in need. This requires using all diplomatic levers to protect and expand access to affected populations while strengthening frontline humanitarian responders.

Local partners play a critical and effective role in humanitarian response and recovery. Their work is more targeted and tailored to community needs, and often more cost-effective. The IRC’s Partnership Excellence for Equality and Results (PEERS) System partnership model has already helped us channel over 15 per cent of global funds to local partners – on track to reach 25 per cent this year.

A new financial architecture for aid

With ODA projected to shrink by 20 per cent in 2025, we must ensure that every pound, dollar, and euro brings the greatest possible benefits to those impacted by crises. Grant-based aid should be safeguarded for the most vulnerable contexts, while aid quality should be prioritised through flexible, multi-year funding and expanded partnerships that ensure those that need aid most are able to receive it.

We must also explore innovative financing mechanisms like climate insurance and humanitarian debt swaps to bring more money into the aid system and protect grant-based funding for countries that need it most.

The path forward

The decisions made today will determine whether this new era of aid ushers in a period of unprecedented global suffering. An urgent focus is required on the communities facing the greatest needs, alongside a commitment to follow the evidence and prioritise investment in what works, whilst embracing the innovations which can mitigate the worst impacts of the cuts.

The IRC is calling on the public to step forward when governments step back: donate here

Flora Alexander is Executive Director of International Rescue Committee UK

Watch in full: Briefing with The Independent

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: The Independent

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: Podcasts briefing

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Podcasts – where next?

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Sudan – a wake-up call

It’s the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It should be headline news, but it’s not. Sudan’s hunger crisis is a test of international resolve and yet the media remains largely silent, writes Jean-Michel Grand from Action Against Hunger UK.

Today marks two years since armed conflict erupted in Sudan, quietly spiralling into the world’s largest displacement and hunger crises. Over 8 million people are internally displaced, with another 4 million forced to flee across borders.

Nearly 26 million face acute food insecurity, and famine has been declared in five areas, with conditions rapidly spreading.

In August 2024, the Famine Review Committee (FRC) of the IPC system confirmed that Zamzam camp in North Darfur had met the technical threshold for famine – the first formal famine declaration in over seven years, and one endorsed by UN agencies.

More than 3.2 million children under five are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition in 2025. Yet global attention remains limited, despite more than 30 million people now requiring humanitarian assistance.

A crisis of this magnitude should command global attention

Yet Sudan remains startlingly underreported and critically under-resourced. There has been powerful journalism. Anthony Loyd’s three-part series in The Times lays bare the conflict’s devastating toll. Channel 4’s Unreported World exposed the scale of hunger and the near-total absence of aid. But these are exceptions, not the rule. The broader conversation remains near silent.

Conflict, targeted destruction, and economic collapse have gutted basic services with less than 25% of health facilities still operational. Humanitarian access is severely restricted, and, despite being the world’s largest displacement and hunger crisis,

Sudan has fallen into a media blind spot where coverage remains scarce. Part of this is logistical, with journalists facing extreme danger and limited access, while much of the country is under a communications blackout.

Nyibol Mathiang Deng, 27, is six months pregnant and arrived at the border with her youngest daughter.

The complexity of the war defies simple headlines

Unlike Ukraine and Gaza, Sudan lacks geopolitical allies or clear-cut narratives to attract public attention. With a peaceful resolution to the conflict nowhere in sight, the complexity of the war defies simple headlines.

In an era of news cycles driven by immediacy and spectacle, it has become a crisis that is too complex to ‘trend’, too distant, for sustained coverage. In turn, limited coverage and public awareness translates into scarce funding and weak political action.

Conflict and hunger are two sides of the same coin

Wherever conflict erupts, hunger follows. Fields that were once bountiful with crops are now dissolute, markets collapse, and aid convoys are blocked. Food has been weaponised, where starvation is used to punish civilian populations or to force surrender.

Emergency food and humanitarian aid is vital, but it cannot substitute a long-term strategy. Donors must prioritise area-based interventions, cash assistance, support for local markets and investment in climate-resilient agriculture.

These aren’t luxuries, they are the bare minimum. Yet even these basics are increasingly out of reach. Deep cuts to international humanitarian aid from the US, UK and other major donors are already curtailing operations on the ground, just as needs are getting excessively worse.

There is an urgent need for humanitarian diplomacy

Even the best programmes will fail if diplomacy and international will does not catch up. Humanitarian diplomacy must return to the forefront and governments and multilateral institutions should apply pressure on all parties of the conflict and demand unfettered humanitarian access and real commitments to prevent further collapse.

Sudan’s hunger crisis is a test of international resolve and yet the media remains largely silent, with Sudan continuously absent from the headlines despite the large scale of the crisis.

From left to right, Atok, 9, Ackuon,12, Arek Luach Nhial, 15, ( yellow scarf ) and grandfather Kerbino Agany Athien, 60, at the South Sudan border, awaiting screening and emergency food rations from Action Against Hunger.

We need immediate and unimpeded humanitarian access

Aid workers must be protected, and civilians spared. The international community must hold all parties to account and put an end to the needless suffering of millions.

Governments, including the UK, must recommit to dedicated humanitarian aid and take a stronger diplomatic role in pushing for a ceasefire, safe access corridors, and long-term political solutions.

We have the tools to save lives, but what we are missing is urgency.

Without it, millions will continue to starve.

The upcoming Ministerial meeting is a critical chance to push for a ceasefire and boost urgent, flexible funding. We urge the UK to ensure support reaches local responders at the heart of the crisis.

For the media, we urge news editors, foreign desks and journalists to not look away. Sudan deserves that same sustained coverage we’ve seen in other crises.

The reality of life for millions of Sudanese

44-year-old famer, I, from North Kardofan led a stable life with his family of 18 members, but the conflict forced them to flee repeatedly.

“Arriving in Goz Alsalam, marked the beginning of our most vulnerable state. We lost everything – our belongings, our dignity – and we never imagined that we would reach such a critical point, witnessing the death of 30 children and 8 elderly people from hunger and the outbreak of disease.”

With the support of Action Against Hunger, which included dignity and hygiene kits, I and his family found relief from their suffering and renewed hope.

There are more stories like I’s, and it reflects the reality of millions of Sudanese who face the horrors of war on a daily basis. Action Against Hunger and many of the aid organisations working within Sudan are asking for one thing, and that is to bring attention to one of the most underreported humanitarian crises of our time.

The world can’t look away from Sudan — lives depend on it.

Sudan Crisis Appeal: Donate to help

Jean-Michel Grand is Executive Director of Action Against Hunger UK

We need to hold broadcasters to account for their international content

A new report commissioned by IBT tracks international public service content broadcast in 2023 and 2024. The report’s author, Martin Scott, argues that transparent and accountable public service media is vital in an age of misinformation.

I was delighted when IBT asked me to write their latest report, Small World, where I examine patterns of international factual programming on UK public service broadcaster (PSB) channels in 2023 and 2024.

Factual programmes, when done well, offer citizens a chance to understand the world around them, whether those shows are documentaries or entertainment formats.

Ultimately, it’s important that broadcasters, policy-makers and viewers understand how much international content is available to them, particularly as PSBs continue to evolve into digital platforms.

The world is not covered evenly on PSBs

Some of our findings were expected. International factual content on UK public service channels remains very heavily concentrated on a small number of countries – especially the US, Italy and Spain – while certain parts of the world scarcely feature.

34 countries received no coverage at all in 2023 and 2024 – including Chad, the Central African Republic and Burundi, which all experienced humanitarian crises in this period. We found only one factual programme set in Central Asia.

Travelogues dominate coverage

There were also some surprises. International factual programming is now heavily dominated by travelogues. This genre can be very effective at connecting audiences with international issues. My own previous research concluded that, when talking about celebrity-led travel and adventure programmes, UK audiences frequently describe having ‘authentic, proximate and active encounters with distant others’.

However, we also found that, amongst the 10 most frequently appearing presenters of international travelogues, Jane McDonald was the only woman, and Clive Myrie was the only non-white presenter.

This lack of diversity is highly problematic because it is likely to reinforce stereotypes about travel and exploration being predominantly male activities. It is also likely to limit the range of perspectives being offered by such programmes – making it harder for audiences to relate or feel represented.

How the world is presented shapes people’s perceptions

This is not the first report I’ve written for IBT. Between 2007 and 2012, I published several reports with them, looking at international programming by UK broadcasters. In Screening the World, for example, we showed that on UK television in 2007-2008, 40% of coverage of Africa was about wildlife, and 37% of coverage of the Middle East was about conflict and disaster, while Latin America and the Caribbean scarcely appeared on UK television screens at all.

We also showed that these kinds of patterns of media coverage matter because they reinforce stereotypes about certain regions of the world being ‘dominated by disasters and/or extreme poverty, for example, in which little appears to change’.

In The World in Focus, published in 2009, we concluded that ‘while international television content can engage and enthuse all audiences, this can only be achieved if a broad range of relevant connections to the lives of those in the audience is made in all genres of programming’.

International content must survive in a rapidly changing media environment

A lot has changed in the past decade and half. Digital fragmentation now means that UK television channels are no longer the gatekeepers of public understanding of the wider world.

But this digital fragmentation does not make international content on UK broadcasters any less important. The BBC’s requirement to ‘provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them’, for instance, is vital for countering the proliferation of misinformation online and ensuring audiences can access trustworthy and contextualised information.

There is no monitoring of international content by the regulator

One thing hasn’t changed in the past decade: Ofcom still doesn’t monitor levels of international factual programming on UK channels. This makes it very difficult to hold broadcasters accountable to their internationally oriented public service principles.

As the world becomes increasingly complex, unpredictable, and precarious – due to rising geopolitical tensions and the accelerating effects of climate change – public service media will be increasingly important in helping us understand events. We need to hold broadcasters to account and ensure that UK audiences have access to the world through their screens.

Martin Scott is Professor of Media and Global Development at the University of East Anglia

Briefing Notes: Sky News Briefing

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

We need to tell more nuanced stories about refugees

In February, we held a joint event with ODI Global, bringing together journalists and activists to probe deeper into the media’s coverage of migration and refugees. The event was titled Migration – is the media getting it right? Henry Roberts concludes that there are some key lessons for all of us.

There was one overriding point of consensus that emerged from the discussion: journalists need to tell more nuanced stories. Even well-meaning reporters often frame refugees the way they want to see them.

The media should do more to reflect a diversity of refugee voices in their reporting, the panellists and the audience concluded. The public has an image of ‘the refugee’ that has been stereotyped and perpetuated across media platforms. That needs to be challenged.

Journalists often have a narrow view of who refugees are and what they might look like. Reporters portray the “vulnerable migrant” or the “deserving migrant”, ignoring the true diversity of migrants and refugees. As a result, refugees are continually portrayed without agency, or as either the victims or perpetrators of crime.

Nazek Ramadan, one of the panelists and founder of Migrant Voice, said that stories about refugees are too often connected to pity and vulnerability.

Ramadan shared the example of a “respectable, reputable media organisation” looking to speak to Romanian and Bulgarians via Migrant Voice. But when Ramadan offered them “a housing officer, an academic, a dentist,” the journalist asked whether they could offer someone instead who was a care worker or a cleaner.

This preconceived narrative so often goes unchallenged and sustains the stereotypical image of the refugee.

Human-led storytelling often ignores the wider context

When refugees are represented in the media, they frequently feature in human-led stories, emphasising the emotional narrative behind their journeys.

As an audience member from ODI commented, these human stories often minimise the legal framework behind refugee journeys: the cost of visas, or the fact that not everybody can even apply for a visa to enter Britain.

This last point is particularly salient, as so much media coverage in this country concerns “small boats” and the “small boat crisis”, without giving a full rundown of the facts. Jessica Hagen-Zanker, Head Migration and Displacement Hub at ODI, raised that data is often misinterpreted or misused by the media: “In fact, migrants arriving on small boats only account for about 5% per year, but by always referring to absolute numbers the media are making these flows look much bigger than they are.”

This very topic was discussed on the BBC’s Question Time the evening of the IBT/ODI event. As George Monbiot said on that panel, unless you’re from a small number of countries like Ukraine, most people are unable to claim asylum in Britain until they reach British shores. You cannot seek a visa in your home country on the basis of applying for asylum “There is not actually a formal route you can take that would satisfy the government,” he said. “It’s a perfect catch-22.”

We’ve seen this happen in the weeks after the fall of Assad in Syria, with the UK and other European states blocking the asylum claims of Syrians. As an audience member at the IBT/ODI event commented, we saw that sympathetic coverage of refugees is possible after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Why is the same sympathy not extended to those from countries like Syria?

Journalists and NGOs need to be more careful about the language they use

There is plenty of anti-refugee rhetoric out there. Referring to “swarms” and “invasions” of people from overseas reaching British shores – whether by far-right politicians or the right-wing press – clearly frames the story in a negative light.

But as an audience member from the Migrants’ Rights Network reminded the room, even those of us supportive of refugees need to consider our language and be mindful not to perpetuate stereotypes or other discriminatory assumptions when we talk about them.

Both the EU and the UN have argued that we should abandon the phrase “illegal migrants” as it places blame on those who are moving and not on the countries they are fleeing.

Yet even ostensibly positive media coverage of refugees employs language that other campaigners (for instance, disability campaigners) have urged us to abandon. For example, by emphasising the contributions and hard-working ethos of refugees unwittingly ignores refugees who may not easily fit into those categories. As the Migrants’ Rights Network say, stigma around disability means many migrants fear how their disability may affect their application or visa extension.

Channel 4’s reality show divided opinion

The IBT/ODI event was held soon after the release of Channel 4’s controversial reality show, Go Back to Where You Came From. The programme’s executive producer, Emma Young, was on the panel and defended the programme, arguing that we have to be realistic about where audiences are and what they watch. There are plenty of great documentaries on the subject, but these don’t reach the same audience reach as mainstream entertainment formats.

Unsurprisingly, the programme was a source of contention in the room and helped form a larger debate: is it right to use refugee journeys as entertainment?

Several people spoke out against the programme, insisting that the real peril of being a refugee cannot be reproduced in a television format, which had 24/7 security accompaniment. Moreover, many felt that the programme failed to give viewers proper context, focusing instead on the emotional journey of six Britons over the real lives of refugees.

As my colleague, Gareth Benest, has argued, as uncomfortable as much of the programme is, public service broadcasters like Channel 4 have a duty to inform and entertain. One of Channel 4’s mission statements is to “create change through entertainment.” When the original Australian programme aired in 2011, SBS (an Australian public broadcaster) held a televised forum for viewers to express their views and debate the merits of the programme.

If Channel 4 were to do something like that, the programme wouldn’t live in isolation as an entertainment format but could help prompt real discussion among Britons of every opinion.

IBT members can watch the recording on the members’ area of the website.

IBT members condemn the government’s decision to cut foreign aid

The announcement on Tuesday that the government is slashing the foreign aid budget to increase defence spending was met with alarm and dismay across the INGO sector. Henry Roberts looks at some of the reactions from IBT members and considers the next steps for the sector.

The government’s surprise announcement that it would be cutting the foreign aid budget was met with shock and dismay by the NGO sector. Keir Starmer told reporters that UK Official Development Assistance would be cut from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income (GNI) in order to fund an increase in defence spending. The move represents the biggest cut to foreign aid by any British government, crumbling the UK aid budget to its lowest level in 25 years.

The public needs to be informed about the world – now more than ever

IBT’s mission is to work with the media to ensure that the UK public remains engaged with global issues. We advocate not only for greater international news coverage, but also for global storytelling in general – be that through documentaries, podcasts, films or entertainment formats. We want to connect audiences in the UK to the rest of the world.

Our view is that the Prime Minister’s decision to cut aid would not be politically possible if UK voters were more informed about the wider world and had a better understanding of the importance of international development spending. That this is possible at all represents a failure of our media.

IBT members react with anger and dismay

Starmer’s announcement has been met with anger and dismay from IBT members, many of whom released statements shortly after the news broke.

Simply put, the government’s decision “is a betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable children and the UK’s national interest,” writes Moazzam Malik, CEO of Save the Children UK.

The decision “marks a cruel betrayal of people living in poverty globally,” reads a statement from WaterAid.

“Cuts to USAID are already having a huge impact on communities around the world,” a statement from Plan International UK says. “The UK should be stepping up, not adding to the suffering.”

This is an incredibly tough time for the NGO sector. IBT will work to support its members in any way we can through this period.

IBT members in the media

As well as releasing their own statements, IBT members have appeared across TV, radio and print.

Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, spoke on the Sky News programme UK Tonight with Sarah-Jane Mee, arguing that the aid cuts were both morally wrong but also strategically wrong.

Not only will the cuts result in children out of school, women no longer having access to family planning, and babies not getting life-saving vaccinations, Greenhill argued, but they will also threaten the UK’s defence in the long-term.

She said that it’s morally wrong that “some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world are footing the bill for this defence spending”

Speaking on the Jeremy Vine show, Charles Lawley, Director of Advocacy and Campaigns at Action for Humanity, reminded listeners that “the UK aid budget does not just treat the symptoms of conflict and climate change, but it also goes to preventing them. In an interconnected world, the decision to reduce how many lives you save will also make Britons less safe.”

He added: “We’ve gone from a post-Brexit vision of a supposedly Global Britain to Little England.”

Patrick Watt, CEO of Christian Aid, offered a brutally frank analysis in The Independent: “Donald Trump’s race to the bottom on international development has an energetic new entrant in the form of Keir Starmer.”

What are the next steps for the sector?

As soon as the government made its announcement, the aid sector started to strategise and consider how to respond.

On Thursday, an open letter was sent to the Prime Minister signed by 138 leaders from the INGO sector (including IBT). The letter calls on the government to tell parliament whether other funding options were explored before committing to slashing the aid budget. “No government should balance its books on the backs of the world’s most marginalised people,” it reads.

As the letter makes clear, instead of framing the discussion as a trade-off between international aid and security, there were alternative funding options which could have been explored, such as a polluters’ tax or accessing the frozen funds from the Chelsea Football Club sale.

However, the mood in the sector is one of pessimism. This was not what was expected from a Labour government that was elected with a manifesto pledge to bring aid back to 0.7%. There’s also recognition that public messaging should focus on the communities that will suffer the most from these cuts, rather than the impact on the sector itself.

In the meantime, IBT will continue to advocate for greater coverage of global issues, bringing the world to UK audiences, in the hope of achieving a better public understanding of the importance of funding for international development.

Watch in full: Migration – is the media getting it right?

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Channel 4’s Go Back to Where You Came From is shocking. I’m glad it was made

Channel 4’s controversial reality show has been criticised for downplaying the lived experiences of refugees by turning their lives into an entertainment format. But Gareth Benest, Advocacy Director for IBT, argues that public service broadcasters like Channel 4 need to be realistic and engage wider audiences on sensitive topics.

Channel 4’s new reality series Go Back to Where You Came From may not please either side of the debate around refugees and irregular migration, but I’m very glad it was made. From its title onwards, the series doesn’t treat its subject matter with the sensitivity that many would hope for. The first episode opens with a participant saying, as he looks out over the white cliffs of Dover: “What I’d do is, I’d set landmines up, and then any boat that comes within 50m of this beach, they’d get blown up.”

Add to that the spectacle of Brits trundling through a war-torn city in armoured cars repeatedly describing it as a “shithole”, and you have enough toxic bigotry to send my blood pressure soaring. But the point of the programme isn’t to platform extreme views: it’s to force those spouting them to face the reality of irregular migration and to challenge their preconceptions.

When the trailer was released earlier this month, it ignited a predictably furious response online, and stinging criticism from leading human rights and refugee charities. But what this fails to take into account is the relative lack of in-depth coverage of migration and the urgent need to foster greater understanding, even if that means resorting to unorthodox methods.

In four parts, the series follows six participants with very strong opinions on the plights and rights of refugees. Small groups, each including two people with virulently anti-refugee opinions and one much more sympathetic, are taken to Mogadishu in Somalia and Raqqa in Syria to witness the devastation of war and what faces those who remain. The participants gradually make their way back to the UK, learning about the dangers refugees face along the way, including a simulation of a “small boat” crossing.

Several highly respected charities condemned the programme’s “sensational” approach, which one described as “A Place in the Sun meets Benefits Street”. The seriousness of the subject, they said, requires a more educational treatment and they urged broadcasters to invest in documentaries instead. Another raised fears that it would perpetuate racist tropes and could fuel the kind of disinformation and dehumanisation that sparked riots in 2024.

The charities up in arms would prefer to hear the voices of people with direct experience. So would I. I have spent more than 20 years delivering community video projects around the world, working with underrepresented communities to amplify their voices on key issues. I work as an advocacy director for a charity dedicated to ensuring the media tells more and better stories about our world, its people, cultures, communities and concerns.

I want broadcasters to produce more serious programmes about many issues; and honestly I would prefer it if reality TV was not the answer to any question. But we need to be honest about the challenges facing public service broadcasters such as Channel 4 as they continue trying (with dwindling incomes) to inform, educate and entertain audiences that have countless alternatives to watch.

Documentaries don’t regularly find large audiences, particularly not among people unsympathetic to the subject matter. The smaller the audience, the less likely it is to achieve a positive impact. I wonder how many people watched the outstanding BBC documentary Dark Waters: Africa’s Deadliest Migration Route about those risking their lives to escape extreme poverty and conflict in west Africa. It was presented by Mame Cheikh Mbaye, a Senegalese reporter who had spent a decade supporting migrants landing in the Canary Islands. Not many people will have heard about it, given that BBC One only broadcast a truncated version at 2.30am.

The reality is that contentious issues need alternative formats to find a mass audience. In 2023, the country obsessed over whether Rwanda was a safe country to send asylum seekers to. Yet I couldn’t find a single programme (outside news bulletins) about Rwanda – its people, society, government – and I carefully monitor the public service broadcasters’ international coverage. It was not until a month before the “stop the boats” general election, on 5 June 2024, that the BBC smuggled the subject into a celebrity-fronted travelogue, The Misadventures of Romesh Ranganathan on BBC Two. The programme did manage to touch on Rwanda’s recent human rights record and internal suppression, but it speaks volumes that it falls to a comedian to tell us about the place where our asylum seekers were to be sent.

Likewise, ITV could have commissioned a documentary about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, but it’s unlikely to have been as effective as the drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office. It’s worth noting that despite its success, ITV made a loss of about £1m on the production.

Yes, Channel 4 has a long history of controversial reality shows that purport to shed light on topical issues but fail badly. Benefits Street became a byword for crass and exploitative television, while The British Tribe Next Door (in which a Gogglebox participant lived alongside an Indigenous community in Namibia, in a replica of her suburban home) remains hard to forget, and harder still to fathom how anyone thought it could contribute anything. But these (and other) failures from the past should not dissuade Channel 4 from being brave and trying new approaches. That is what it is meant to do, after all.

Go Back to Where You Came From is based on an Australian series that became the broadcaster SBS’s highest rated programme in 2011. It drew large audiences, blew up on social media, and prompted a live televised discussion on the issues.

No, the participants cannot possibly experience the real dangers and privations of irregular migration and, yes, it’s uncomfortably voyeuristic at times. But then the participants listen, open mouthed, as refugees tell them their stories, or a participant says “This is the shit you don’t see on telly”, and I remember why it is important. I believe Channel 4 is making a genuine attempt to shed light on the experiences of refugees and it has given it a primetime slot: 9pm on Monday evenings. I’m grateful to them for trying.

This article originally appeared in The Guardian.

Watch in full: Briefing on Investigative Journalism

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: Briefing on Investigative Journalism

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Sudan – the media challenge

Last week, we hosted a discussion between journalists and charity directors with the aim of increasing media coverage of Sudan. IBT Director, Mark Galloway, gives his assessment of the challenge.

One subject is top of mind at the moment for many charities working in international development: Sudan.

It is the world’s worst humanitarian disaster and yet it is not getting the aid or the public attention that it deserves.

Many development agencies believe that the key to changing the status quo is media coverage. Yes, there has been some coverage. For example, just in the past few days, The Times has published an excellent series of articles by Anthony Loyd. But the coverage has been sporadic.

Lack of public awareness of the crisis in Sudan

As a result, there is very little public awareness in the UK about the severity of the crisis in Sudan. Anthony Loyd spelt it out: in the last two years, there has been a death toll of 150,000 and 11 million people have been displaced from their homes.

A couple of months ago, IBT was approached by three leading development charities – Plan International, Christian Aid and CAFOD – and asked to facilitate a discussion with journalists. The aim was to explore ways in which we could all work together more effectively to increase media coverage of Sudan.

Earlier this week, that discussion took place. Around the table were journalists from The Financial Times, The Economist, The Daily Telegraph and the BBC. All were there because they had a strong interest in covering Sudan. What the journalists told us was a painful reality check for us all.

The humanitarian situation is very bleak

But first we heard from humanitarians with direct experience of Sudan. Waseem Ahmad, CEO of Islamic Relief Worldwide, told us about his trip to the country in September. He was based in Port Sudan and visited four camps around the city. What he witnessed was, he said, ‘heartbreaking’. ‘The situation on the ground was unimaginable’ he told the journalists, ‘with refugees arriving every day, selling their belongings, trying to flee the country. There was chaos everywhere, eyewitnesses spoke of violence, mass murder, rape, forced marriages. What we heard was horrific’.

Ahmad’s comments were echoed by Mohammed Qazilbash, country director for Plan International. ‘This is a war against women and children’ he said. ‘Adolescent girls are being raped and abused by all factions.’ And the famine that has resulted is, he said, ‘war-induced’.

Both Ahmad and Qazilbash spoke about the difficulty of delivering aid with extensive banditry, extortion and blockade of supplies. Both also praised the dedication of local teams of aid workers who were continuing to deliver medical and food supplies against the odds.

Why journalists struggle to cover the story

After hearing about the extent of the humanitarian disaster we wanted to understand from the journalists why this was not headline news every day. The discussion that ensued focused on three key factors:

Logistics – access to Sudan is extremely difficult. It’s hard to move around the country, security is a big challenge and journalist visas are in short supply.
The static nature of the story – since there appears to be a stalemate in the civil war, with no settlement in sight, there is little sign of movement in the story. The journalists emphasised that they could not keep reporting the same story. They needed a fresh angle.
Lack of audience interest – this was particularly painful for the charity directors to hear. All the journalists told us that Sudan was a hard sell to their editors. When they did run stories, there was little audience interest. This didn’t mean that they would not cover the story but it did limit their ability to cover it on anything like a regular basis.

So where does this leave us going forward?

There were some signs of optimism. It appears that it is now easier to get journalist visas. The two-year anniversary of the start of the conflict is coming up in April and there is likely to be more coverage to mark that event. And the BBC told us that they would continue to report on Sudan at different points in the year.

How journalists and charities can work together

There were also some suggestions from the journalists about how charities could work more effectively with the media to promote Sudan:

Find an angle – keep looking for a new angle to pitch to editors.
Access – this is key. Journalists want to feel confident that, if they travel to a location with a charity, then they will definitely have access so that they can see and tell the story at first hand.
Provide a filming/reporting facility – this will help to overcome some of the safety and logistical challenges.
Charities should work together – the journalists felt that charities could be more effective if they co-ordinated their approaches to journalists.
Provide more detailed logistical information – there was also a suggestion that charities should prepare a detailed brief for journalists, showing which agencies were operating in which parts of the country and what kind of reporting facility they could offer.

In the meantime, we will continue to make the case for more coverage of Sudan and share the insights from this event as widely as possible.

Slides: NGOs on TikTok

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

We must shine a light on Sudan and bring an end to this misery

Tufail Hussain, Director of Islamic Relief UK, has been at the forefront of calls for more media coverage of Sudan. Here, he reflects on his recent visit to the country.

I’ve been a humanitarian for 20 years now and have been on the ground during humanitarian crises in places like Afghanistan after the Taliban take-over, Yemen during the food crisis, and more, but nothing has shaken me to my core than what I saw in Sudan this autumn.

I visited refugee camps in Port Sudan and Gedaref, supposedly the safest areas of the country. What I experienced I will never forget. Gedaref province neighbours the capital Khartoum, the epicentre of violence, and is the frontline of the worst IDP (Internally Displaced Person) crisis in the world, becoming a city of tears.

At one camp in Gedaref, the stench alone knocked the wind out of me. I saw 20,000 people living in one warehouse. Sleeping on the cold floor, no beds, no privacy, very little sanitation facilities. There was a single water point where women, children and men queued for hours to get whatever little water they could. The risk of disease being spread was so high I was forbidden from walking around the camp.

The community leaders pleaded with us for whatever support we could provide

Their gaunt faces told the story of the countless people who now relied so heavily on them, whilst the leaders themselves were suffering from the same hunger, receiving just one meal a day. The generosity to the newly arrived displaced families from both local government and families in the community was astounding, but they had been simply overwhelmed by the numbers and their own lack of resources.

The local and international NGOs who are present are doing everything they can too, but the lack of funding and the restriction of aid and food trucks by the warring parties are simply too severe, leaving them to face impossible decisions.

This conflict has torn the country apart

The conflict between the Sudanese army and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has torn the country asunder. Stories of human rights abuses are rife; I heard harrowing reports of the brutal killing of civilians and the rape of women.

Khartoum, the historic capital, has been all but destroyed, few homes are left un-pillaged, entire villages have been wiped out, and over 11m people have been forced to flee. This is the equivalent of the entire population of London and Birmingham losing their homes and being driven across the country.

Sudan faces a huge healthcare crisis

Aisha, a mother who was now living with just three of her children in a tent bare of possessions told me of the terrifying heart defect she was facing. There was no healthcare to be found on site, leaving her in fear of dying and orphaning her children.

She had already endured a perilous journey over hundreds of miles to Port Sudan from Khartoum, leaving behind her eldest son and her husband, whose severe asthma prevented him from making the journey.

She later learnt that the RSF house arrest on Khartoum’s remaining residents meant her husband had no access to healthcare – he died as a result. She has had no news of her son since leaving Khartoum. The violence she witnessed in the capital was horrific. Her neighbours’ homes were destroyed, she saw people killed, her family’s possessions were pillaged in front of them.

Hunger and disease run unchecked throughout Sudan

The conflict has created the world’s worst hunger crisis, which has stripped Aisha’s access to food to feed herself and her family. The whole family had just a small bowl of lentils and half a plate of pasta to share between them, twice a day (for families in camps in Gedaref, they only had half of this). Hauntingly the early signs of malnutrition in some of the children in the camp were brutally visible.

Hunger and disease now run unchecked throughout the country, killing even more than the brutal violence of war. 25.6m people, half the population, are now food insecure, meaning they do not know when their next meal will come, if it comes at all. Worse still, famine has reared its ugly head in Sudan’s Darfur region.

Families are forced to make perilous journeys to save their lives

I met a disabled man who fled Khartoum under the cover of darkness alongside his son with severe learning difficulties who was also physically disabled and in a wheelchair. In the capital, armed men did not allow people to leave their homes, meaning many starved once food ran out. Rather than choosing to stay home and starve, he had made the hazardous decision to risk violence and broke house arrest to save his family from hunger.

He travelled for over 1,000 miles on makeshift crutches, little more than sticks, to safety in Port Sudan, leaving him in severe pain. Along the way he told me he was arrested and detained by the RSF for six days, during which he was not given a single morsel of food. Nothing.

We must shine a light on Sudan and bring an end to this misery

Sudan has been embroiled in a brutal civil war for 18 months now, and with pitifully little international intervention, there are no signs of cessation of violence. The world may have decided to ignore Sudan, but that does not mean the conflict will go away. Future generations will not forgive us if we leave the Sudanese people to their intense suffering. I will never forget the desperate and hungry faces I saw but it’s the lack of international response that shocked me like nothing else. The Sudanese people must not be allowed to suffer in darkness, we must shine a light and help bring an end to this misery.

Tufail Hussain is director of Islamic Relief UK

This opinion piece first appeared in The Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/sudan-war-international-community-failure-to-help/

Watch in full: Decolonisation – the media challenge report launch

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

New Report: Decolonisation – the media challenge

Charities are increasingly trying to decolonise their storytelling, finding more ethical ways to communicate their messaging through language, imagery and video. But has the media caught up with the sector? And should charities compromise their principles in order to secure media coverage? Henry Roberts explores these questions and more in our new report.

This work started as a question. I had seen lots of stories in newspapers featuring charities, and these stories often portrayed disempowered communities in need of western-style saviours. The charities themselves would likely not use sensationalist imagery and language in their own communications, but were being featured in articles that did. I couldn’t help but wonder: do the benefits of media coverage outweigh concerns over ethical principles of language and imagery?

Cut to several months later, and we’re ready to publish the findings in a report entitled Decolonisation: the media challenge. The report is based on a series of interviews I conducted with editors, journalists, media officers and practitioners. Rather than offer any new theory of decolonisation, I wanted to record where the two sectors sit when it comes to these ethical questions. Of course, there is a great diversity of opinion within both sectors, but the report offers a useful snapshot of current thinking.

The report is divided into two sections: the first examines some of the challenges facing charities and journalists trying to decolonise their storytelling and the second offers some solutions going forward.

CHALLENGES

Who tells the story? The standard model of charity fundraising gave agency to the donor rather than to the person in need. Many charities want to see a change in emphasis, with people empowered to tell their own, more nuanced, stories.

Who reports the story? For their part, the media too are rethinking who they should use to report stories from around the world, hiring more people with backgrounds in the regions they report on. But there will always be a role for British foreign correspondents, and editors will always prioritise telling a story in a way that’s accessible and understandable to UK audiences.

Language matters One of the most important ways in which charities and media organisations embed decolonisation principles into their storytelling is through language. However, most of the journalists we spoke to felt that they did not have a responsibility to reflect the language favoured by NGOs.

Informed consent When NGOs and journalists talk to people overseas, participants should have a clear understanding of why they are being interviewed, where their content will end up, and have the right to withdraw consent at any time. However, journalists are very often reluctant to engage in a protracted consent process, often preferring verbal rather than written consent, citing the speed needed to report stories.

The risk of losing editorial control Despite all the benefits to be gained from media exposure, charities always take a risk when engaging with the media as they will rarely, if ever, have editorial control. Editors we spoke to emphasised that charities should make their preferences around language and imagery clear at the beginning of the process.

The media’s distorting lens The way the mainstream media reports the world is influenced by a colonial legacy. There is an implicit geographical hierarchy that assumes UK audiences are more interested in some parts of the world than others.

WAYS FORWARD

Newsrooms and NGOs need to diversify Both newsrooms and charities need to diversify further in order to avoid the same perspectives being overrepresented and outdated assumptions being perpetuated.

Charities should use photography in more innovative ways Charities can use photography in different and creative ways that preserve the dignity of participants without diluting its emotional impact.

NGOs can embrace co-creation Co-creation involves the bringing together of ideas from the NGO and the lived experiences and skills of affected communities. This is ultimately about NGOs sharing and returning power.

NGOs should engage with a range of media Many NGOs are turning to different kinds of news outlets that reflect their values better than mainstream outlets, such as smaller titles and the diaspora press.

Relationship building is the key Successful partnerships between charities and media can’t happen without strong relationships. Journalists are much more likely to engage with someone they trust, and so charities should not underestimate the importance of having a genuine relationship with those from the media.

We will be launching the report on December 4. You can register for the online launch here.

Henry Roberts is Comms and Membership Officer for IBT.

Briefing Notes: Should your organisation leave X/Twitter?

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Should your organisation leave X/Twitter?

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Charities are falling out of love with X

Elon Musk’s transformation of Twitter into X has left many NGOs confused and dismayed. What was once a platform for sharing news and staying up-to-date with the sector has now become a site of hate speech and misinformation. Melissa Ezechukwu, a digital strategist and IBT trustee, writes about how X’s algorithm disadvantages NGOs trying to reach their audience.

For NGOs, social media has become an indispensable way of communicating their messages and mobilising their community. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) are vital for amplifying campaigns, growing reach, and showcasing impact.

However, as NGOs increasingly rely on social media for communication, they face a challenging reality: what if these platforms and their algorithms no longer work in their favour? In light of recent changes to X, charities now find themselves questioning whether the platform still holds value for them.

Elon Musk made radical changes to the platform

In October 2022, billionaire Elon Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter, with a supposed mission to convert the platform into a channel for unfettered free speech. He renamed the platform ‘X’ and implemented several controversial changes, including:

Locking verification and analytics behind a paywall
Reducing content moderation
Restoring accounts previously banned for hate speech and misinformation
Altering the algorithm to seemingly favour right-wing and Musk-led content

This final point is one that has caused particular confusion and despair among those working in the charity sector.

X’s algorithm makes life difficult for charities

X’s algorithm is basically a system that recommends and curates content for users’ feeds, using machine learning based on user behaviour. The recommendation engine code is freely available online, so in theory anyone who understands code can dig into it and see exactly how it works.

Engagement, in the form of likes, retweets and replies, is the key to how tweets are ranked. The more engagement a tweet attracts, the more likely X is to surface that tweet to a wider audience. Tweets are also much more likely to get engagement if they contain multimedia content, such as images and video, and they also get a boost if they’re sent from a verified account.

This raises several challenges for NGOs.

Firstly, it means that viral and attention-grabbing content is prioritised, making it difficult for smaller and more measured voices to be heard. Smaller NGOs for example often lack the resources to craft the type of content that appeases the algorithm, and so will likely find it harder to stand out on X.

Secondly, since verification has now moved from being a badge of authenticity to simply a paid feature, it means that anyone can have their messages amplified as long as they’re willing to pay. Again, this makes it an uphill battle for NGOs to stand out amongst the noise and counter the spread of misinformation.

Thirdly, tweets are likely to perform less well if they contain links to external sites. Basically, X doesn’t want you to leave the platform, so the algorithm will suppress the reach of tweets that have referral links. Again, this is problematic for NGOs who often want to link back to things like blog posts and campaigns on their website, where complex topics can be discussed in more detail.

NGOs have noticed a change in their feeds

Organisations I’ve spoken to have seen a notable decrease in their tweet impressions and share rates, an increase in bot followers, and a surge in misinformation – some amplified by X’s owner himself. Recently, a British MP raised alarm about Musk manipulating the X algorithm to further his own interests.

NGOs have also noticed that the ‘For you’ column has become more politicised, with recommendations not tailored to their interests. For example, they report seeing more far-right and Musk-led content (despite never interacting with his account), and little third sector content.

Scrolling through X while researching this article, I found myself despairing even more. Whether it was stumbling upon racist slurs under a Weetabix advert; finding multiple ads and unrelated memes junking up replies to any conversation, or reading the vile comments flooding any tweet written by a black female MP.

All this means that NGOs are finding it increasingly difficult to be associated with a platform that is so highly politicised, and the risk of reputational damage that this can bring. Many report a marked decline in the user experience; that X now feels like someone else’s space, rather than a helpful resource.

Some charities are reluctant to leave the platform

Many NGOs have invested years in building large followings on Twitter/X, and are understandably reluctant to abandon these audiences. While some have left to explore alternatives like BlueSky or rekindle underused channels like LinkedIn, others have remained and stayed quiet, taking a ‘wait and see’ approach.

There’s an argument that NGOs should stay and fight: if X is indeed the ‘digital town square’ where everyone’s included, then surely it’s right that NGO voices remain there? The flaw with this argument is that the algorithm ensures it’s not a fair fight, because although it’s not restricting what can be said, it is controlling who sees what. Basically, it’s like a town square where certain people get to hold the mic more than others.

However, charities should not give up hope. Ayesha Aleem, Communications Manager at One World Media, argues that we should use the transformation of Twitter as a catalyst to explore alternative strategies to engage with audiences:

“As a comms manager looking at various social media channels, sometimes I do wonder if we might be at the cusp of ‘the death of social media’,” she said. “Our time and resources might be better invested in building more direct relationships with the charity’s stakeholders or building our own online networks instead of relying so heavily on digital platforms.”

The reality is that as long as NGOs rely on these platforms, they will always be subject to the whims of their billionaire owners and algorithms. By investing more in digital properties they can control – like websites and email – NGOs can create sustainable strategies and foster more personal and meaningful engagement with their audiences.

Melissa Ezechukwu is a digital strategist and consultant. She is also an IBT trustee.

Briefing Notes: ITV’s On Assignment

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in Full: Briefing with On Assignment

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

The battle for the future of public service media – a view from the Labour Party conference

We attended the Labour Party conference in Liverpool last week, where we met Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and urged them to back our Public Service Broadcasters (PSBs) and reinforce their obligations to international coverage. Our Director of Advocacy, Gareth Benest, reflects on what Ministers told him.

Public service media in the digital-first era

The Media Bill was passed by the last government in the final moments before the general election began. The Media Act, as it is now, establishes a new regulatory framework for Public Service Broadcasters (PSBs) as they fight for survival in the world of digital media. The legislation was rushed through with cross-party support which meant many of the amendments that we, and others, were pushing for (e.g. naming of genres that PSBs must provide) fell by the wayside.

Nevertheless, we are relieved that an updated framework is in place. It is far from perfect, but we hope it will strengthen the position of PSBs and ensure their survival, for the time being at least.

Ofcom needs to be a more effective regulator

Attention must now shift to the regulator, Ofcom, as it begins to monitor the performance of our public service media and enforces the new rules. For example, PSBs are now allowed to deliver their obligations through online platforms such as iPlayer and ITVX. Ofcom will be looking to see whether they continue to deliver the breadth and depth of programming we have grown to expect.

We are urging the regulator to go further and monitor the prominence of genres that embrace public service values: international coverage, current affairs, culture, social issues, the environment, etc. It is not enough for Ofcom to know that such socially valuable content is available; they need to monitor whether it is being recommended and promoted to audiences.

Only then, will the regulator be able to ensure that audiences are provided with the rich tapestry of content that characterises public service media, and reassure us that audiences are not just being fed the most popular and commercially-viable programmes.

Meanwhile, we are working with the University of Leeds to undertake our own, independent research into the availability and prominence of international coverage across the PSB’s platforms. We hope this will help to raise awareness of the risks inherent in online public service provision and contribute towards the ongoing monitoring of this space.

What can the new government do?

We believe that the government needs to make radical changes to the governance and funding of the BBC, set a new tone, champion public service media, and send clear signals to all the PSBs and the regulator. Here are some key changes we would like to see coming from the government:

Champion and don’t attack

The BBC and Channel 4, in particular, would be more successful and productive given five years (ideally, many more) free from being undermined and bullied by our political leaders. We believe that our PSBs work hard to deliver on the ‘Reithian Principles’ (to inform, educate and entertain), are genuinely committed to serving audiences across the nations, and truly strive to achieve due impartiality across their news and current affairs.

They should be supported to achieve their missions without politicians questioning their integrity at every moment. So far, the tone from the new Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and her Ministers has been very positive and supportive. Long may this last.

Provide sustainable funding

The BBC urgently needs a sustainable and predictable funding arrangement to ensure its long-term viability. Without an adequate and reliable income, the corporation cannot deliver the services that audiences expect, and which it will need to provide if it’s to rebuild support amongst the population as a whole, and nurture new audiences of children and young people.

There are strong arguments against the continuation of the licence fee but alternative arrangements need to protect the principle of universality (everyone must be able to access the services), be equitable in terms of costs, and ensure the continuation of the BBC as a cherished institution. The government needs to be a champion of the BBC, making the case for resolving its long-term funding challenge.

Protect the World Service

The BBC World Service urgently needs to be returned to direct funding from central government. The much-loved international service must be shielded from the swinging cuts facing the wider BBC, if it’s to continue to uphold principles of democracy and freedom of expression around the world in the face of competition from well-funded Chinese and Russian state broadcasters, among others.

Overhaul BBC governance

Recent events such as the controversy surrounding the appointment of former BBC Chair Richard Sharp have underlined the need for new governance at the corporation, and a shift away from government appointments. The new Culture Secretary has expressed interest in mutualising the BBC, which might provide a mechanism for greater audience representation in its governance and control over its future direction.

Whilst much more discussion and clarity is needed in this area, we are encouraged by the government’s willingness to explore radical and (potentially) progressive ideas.

Give clear signals

For many years, IBT has observed and called out the steady decline in the production, prominence, breadth, and quality of programmes about the wider world on our public service media. We are calling on the government to send a clear signal to PSBs that this decline must be halted and reversed. Legislation isn’t required but new direction and clarity about the important role played by international coverage. PSBs need to be reminded that they are a window onto the world for mass audiences, and it is through that window that citizens understand the world and forces that shape our lives in the UK. We want Lisa Nandy and her team to champion programmes about the world beyond our shores, and remind the media as a whole how important they are to our democracy and civil society.

Impressions from Liverpool

We spent our time at the Labour Party conference rushing between fringe events on important subjects such as the vital role of the BBC World Service in an age of disinformation, the myriad challenges facing investigative journalism, the need for politicians and the media to stop the culture wars, and how the government views international development. There were fascinating discussions happening across the conference, involving many of our members like Islamic Relief, MAG, Save the Children, and Bond.

We attended several events at which the new Culture Secretary set out her priorities for the UK’s creative industries, as a whole, and the PSBs in particular. Lisa Nandy said the Conservative government had engaged in “cultural vandalism” – that she linked to the rise of the far right – and deliberately “trashed our PSBs” which she described as providing the “drum beat by which we live our lives”. It was very encouraging to hear such a positive endorsement of public service media and a recognition that strong PSBs provide a crucial bulwark against extremism and social division.

Our interactions with the DCMS team, and MPs deeply engaged with international development and foreign affairs, provided some reasons for optimism. There was widespread acknowledgement of the need to support PSBs to strengthen their international coverage, and understanding from senior parliamentarians such as Emily Thornberry (Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee) of the urgent need to protect the BBC World Service in these uncertain times. These were reassuring encounters but IBT knows it will need to continue to maintain pressure for years to come.

Gareth Benest is IBT’s Director of Advocacy

Briefing Notes: Associated Press

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in Full: Briefing with Associated Press

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Climate emergency – the media challenge

The media has spectacularly failed to engage the UK public with climate change and the urgent need for action. Where has coverage gone wrong? Helen Palmer, IBT Trustee, argues that the media needs to move on from ‘climate doomism’.

From companies to campaigning organisations, communicators are grappling with how to engage people around the climate crisis, in the face of evidence that many are increasingly feeling overwhelmed and switching off.

As part of London Climate Action Week, Weber Shandwick gathered businesses, communications agencies, think tanks and sustainability strategists to discuss the challenge, alongside Kris De Meyer of UCL Climate Action Unit, an expert on how our brains process information about climate change.

On a sweltering June afternoon — the irony lost on no one — we sought to understand the context we’re in and the actions we can take. Here’s what we collectively learned:

Concern does not equal action

At a macro-level, there are clear drivers for climate conversation in media and social media. Major moments such as UN (COP) climate meetings, reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and extreme weather events such as heatwaves drive spikes in climate discussion. However, as De Meyer pointed out, these spikes tend to disappear as soon as they’ve emerged.

As well as being short-lived, these story drivers have shown minimal discernible impact on public behaviours. According to IPSOS Mori polling, concern around climate change in the UK has been steady since 2019, tracking at 77 per cent in 2024. But there is a clear value-action gap: this concern does not translate into meaningful action.

Why is this? De Meyer says conventional wisdom on how to effect behaviour change got it wrong. It held that raising awareness of a crisis, giving people information, and pulling emotional levers around fear and anger would lead to action.

“The challenge is it doesn’t work this way,” he says. “Psychologists have known this since the 1930s: there are often huge gaps between what people think, say, feel and do.”

Fear is switching people off

While well intentioned, climate crisis media coverage has had serious side-effects, De Meyer says. The well documented rise in climate anxiety, especially among younger people, is combining with a wider sense of hopelessness, the feeling that, in the face of such an overwhelming problem, the individual has no power to make a difference.

De Meyer says that a psychological defence mechanism against these feelings of overwhelm is denial. This, combined with online disinformation, led to the January 2024 finding that one third of UK teenagers think the risks from climate change are exaggerated.

Another way to deal with the enormity of the problem is by switching off. Weber Shandwick data analysis shows that consumers at large are focusing on topics that may feel closer to home — the cost-of-living crisis, crime, healthcare, and tax. This suggests communicators need to work harder to reconnect disconnecting audiences by forging more personal connections with the issue.

Tell stories of doing, not of concern

How do we address this? De Meyer advocates for a paradigm shift in climate communications.

“The issue is that people don’t feel they have agency — they don’t know how to overcome the barriers to action they face. We need to focus on action because in real life, actions drive beliefs far more often than beliefs drive action.”

For communicators, this has major implications for how we shape narratives and stories. De Meyer is clear: start with the inspiring positive action being taken and the people taking it.

“Most agency is social: people need to see others solving problems. We need to help people — in all walks of life, from politicians to the public — understand how to change, not just tell them what to do.

“Stories of action build that sense of agency, and action inspires more actions. Self-persuasion is the only reliable form of persuasion.”

For communications professionals, it means flipping the narrative: not opening in the traditional way with a problem statement, but starting with the success story, the implications for the wider effort towards progress, then weaving in the problem further down, if at all.

Put people first, cut the jargon

Participants at the roundtable agreed on the urgent need to humanise communications. As De Meyer says: “All factual debates are social debates, about people. Your brain is thinking about other people as a default. That’s why stories of people work so well, rather than abstract debates.”

The misconception is that human-led stories are just ‘fluffy, hopeful stories’, when in fact they can be serious stories about meaningful action.

Innovation was also raised as a source of strong storytelling. Participants discussed how increasing regulation is sparking a new wave of innovation, providing stories about exciting technologies. As well as playing well with media, these can also inspire audiences, if they are told from a people-centric, rather than a technical perspective.

This article first appeared on Weber Shandwick’s website. Helen Palmer is a Trustee of IBT and Senior Vice President, Social Impact at Weber Shandwick. You can follow her on X @helenlpalmer

The world’s most vulnerable need an ambitious UK government

Expectations are high for the new UK government. With ongoing violence in Gaza, global poverty and the climate emergency, there’s no shortage of issues for Keir Starmer’s government to focus on. Sophie Powell, Chief of UK Advocacy and Campaigns for Christian Aid shares what she hopes will be in the King’s Speech.

King Charles will deliver the King’s Speech on 17 July as part of the State Opening of Parliament.

The speech will give the country the clearest signal yet of Labour’s ambition in government. It is rumored the government will come forward with at least 30 new Bills, making for an action-packed legislative programme to come.

We cannot forget the global challenges that this Labour government will be tasked to meet. The world has now reached the first year-long breach of 1.5 degrees of global warming, one in ten people in the world live in extreme poverty, the wars on Gaza and Ukraine are having devastating humanitarian consequences, and there’s a huge financing gap that must be bridged for lower income countries to advance the Sustainable Development Goals. If there was ever a time for ambitious legislation, it’s now.

We should build genuine partnerships with the Global South

At Christian Aid, we are not party political, but we know that the injustices we see reflect political choices. Global poverty is the result of unequal access to power and resources, rooted in a long history in which the UK has played a significant part and has a crucial role in helping to repair.

The new government’s commitment, re-affirmed by Anneliese Dodds MP, the new Minister for International Development, to rebuild the UK’s development reputation based on genuine partnership with the Global South is hugely welcome, so we look forward to seeing the actions that need to flow from this.

If change was the theme of the election that took Labour into government, urgency is the measure by which it will need to govern.

In Christian Aid’s pre-election manifesto, created alongside a global movement of people, churches and local organisations, we set out bold action to tackle the biggest challenges of our time. The good news is that the new government has important tools at its disposal to grasp this moment and make an outsized difference.

Finances need to reflect the scale of the problems

We are urging the new government to show how it will raise the finance needed to tackle the climate crisis and deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals. With the UN General Assembly and then COP29 around the corner, time is of the essence in setting out plans that will be seen by the Global South as a litmus test of this government’s ability to lead.

Specifically, the new government should take a bolder approach to taxation, including increasing tax on the wealthiest individuals and the most polluting companies, to generate resources for providing our fair share of climate finance as well as for tackling significant domestic needs.

The government could also secure debt cancellation for lower income countries in debt crisis so they can instead invest in public services and climate action. Our latest report – Between Life and Debt – calculated that African governments spent over 50 times more on external debt payments than the entire UK aid budget to the continent in 2023, with 32 spending more on debt than healthcare and 25 spending more on debt than education.

In response, the former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, questioned if the “world will ever forgive us for failing to deliver urgent debt restructuring.” There is no reason to fail, because the UK government has significant powers to compel action from private creditors through introducing new legislation.

The public supports these aims

Neither of the measures we are talking about here would impact the average UK taxpayer. Indeed, the public is with us. Polling last year by Savanta, commissioned by Christian Aid, showed over half of the British public (54%) believe the UK Government should introduce legislation to cancel debt while 4 in 5 (82%) believe it is wrong for oil and gas companies to make record profits without taking responsibility for the climate damage caused.

With that support, the false choice of responding to poverty at home and fulfilling our responsibilities to the poorest people should be firmly put in the dustbin of history. We can do both.

We must try to put an end to the violence in Gaza

Palestinian Children’s Council President, Mais Abdel Hadi, warns children in Gaza live in a “constant state of fear and anxiety, with shells accompanying us around the clock…”, and asks, “why must we children pay such a horrendous price?”

Only an immediate ceasefire, the respect of international humanitarian law, humanitarian access and the release of hostages can stop the suffering across Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. The former government has placed the UK at risk of complicity in serious violations of international law due to its failure to halt arms sales to Israel. We urge the new UK government to right this wrong, including denouncing the de facto annexation of large parts of the occupied West Bank.

The King’s Speech can and must be a clear signal of what a Labour government will deliver. Over the coming weeks and months, we urge Ministers to champion the above measures with the urgency that the global challenges we face require.

Sophie Powell, Chief of UK Advocacy and Campaigns for Christian Aid

Slides: How can charities do better at engaging young audiences?

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: The challenge of reporting neglected crises

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Social Media Masterclass with Jeremy Skeet

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

The challenge of reporting neglected crises

Earlier this week, IBT brought together a panel of journalists and NGOs to talk about how to improve media coverage of some of the world’s neglected crises such as Sudan, Myanmar, Syria and Yemen. IBT Director, Mark Galloway, reflects on the discussion.

Sorcha O’Callaghan, Director of the Humanitarian Policy Group at ODI and our co-host, kicked off with a stark statement. ‘Neglect has become the new normal’ she told us. And there is much evidence to support Sorcha’s conclusion. A recent article in The Economist, Sudan: the war the world forgot, highlighted the lack of media coverage of Sudan, currently the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Data provided by Chartbeat, an analytics firm, showed that news coverage of Sudan from the past year peaked in April 2023, at the start of the civil war, with approximately 7,000 new articles published by around 3,000 media companies in 70 countries. Since the beginning of 2024 it has averaged just 600 per month. By comparison, coverage of the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine has not dipped below 100,000 stories per month.

The Chartbeat data also showed that in the same period there had been virtually no coverage of Myanmar or Syria. Yemen had some coverage when the Houthis started attacking ships in the Red Sea. But coverage has now fallen sharply.

The media says it is working hard to cover neglected crises

The journalists on the panel refuted Sorcha’s claim. They were working hard, they said, to ensure that neglected crises received coverage. Tim Singleton, head of international news at Sky News, spoke about the huge logistical difficulties – and expense – of sending his correspondent Stuart Ramsay to Myanmar last year. And he reminded us that Sky’s Africa correspondent, Yousra Elbagir, had made several reporting trips to Sudan. ‘There’s very much a commitment to go to these places’ he said. ‘It can be done but it’s tough’.

Tracy McVeigh, editor, global development at The Guardian concurred. However, a major challenge, she said, was engaging audiences with this content. She gave the example of a series of articles on Myanmar that she had commissioned which failed to generate any audience interest. Whilst she remains committed to covering Myanmar, the lack of audience interest is clearly a source of frustration.

The panel: (left to right) Simon Murphy, Tracy McVeigh, Tim Singleton, Sara Pantuliano, Patrick Gathara, Halima Begum and Mark Galloway. Photo: Henry Roberts

One solution is to use more local journalists

One solution to the challenge and expense of access is to use more local journalists. Tracy described how she is working with a group of female journalists in Somalia. They are able to report on the humanitarian crisis in a richer and more authentic way.

Both Tracy and Tim talked positively about the benefits of working in a much more globalised media environment. They could now reach global audiences and this gave them more scope to report in different ways. ‘We’ve got a big duty’ Tracy said ‘to look at things through a more international lens’.

Critics say the media must do better

A counter view came from Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive of ODI and a former head of the humanitarian policy group. Sara was clear that the media must do better. The crisis in Sudan needed sustained coverage to engage audiences. Only with this sort of coverage and engagement would politicians feel pressured to act. She contrasted the crisis in Darfur in 2003-4 which had been headline news day after day with the present crisis which is receiving virtually no coverage. ‘The problem goes much deeper’ she told us. ‘There’s a responsibility on journalists and humanitarians to show the complexity of the crisis and to give it sustained attention’.

Patrick Gathara, senior editor, inclusive storytelling at The New Humanitarian, was also critical of mainstream media. He called for a ‘different kind of journalism’. Simply reporting the facts was not enough he said. ‘What we have now is not working. The western model of journalism is not valid for a global audience’.

The New Humanitarian is committed to highlighting stories that do not usually get the media’s attention and, for those that do, it focuses on aspects that are not being reported. He agreed with Sara that the goal of journalism should be to have impact in the real world.

How can NGOs and journalists work more effectively together?

One of the aims of this session was to explore how NGOs and journalists could work more effectively together. Simon Murphy, senior news reporter with The Sunday Mirror, spoke about his trip to Somalia in September 2023, which was facilitated by Save the Children. The charity provided security and managed all the logistics; Simon was left to write the story as he saw it.

He wrote an emotive piece which ran across several pages of the paper, under the headline Tragedy of a baby who can’t even cry. His focus was the story of two-year old Nasro, who was so dehydrated as a result of hunger that she couldn’t even produce tears. Shaima Al-Obaidi from Save the Children told us that the Sunday Mirror story had a major impact, raising money for the charity and alerting politicians to the need for action.

Media coverage can give NGO campaigns much greater impact

Our final speaker, Halima Begum, Chief Executive of Oxfam GB, told us that the media was an important ally for charities, particularly in their campaigning and advocacy. She gave the example of Oxfam’s campaign to stop the UK government selling arms to the Saudis for use in the war in Yemen. Media coverage kept this issue in the spotlight and helped Oxfam to mobilise public support for its campaign.

But Halima, like several speakers, felt that the partnership between the media and NGOs could be improved. ‘There is great potential for a much better partnership’ she said. She wanted to see the media doing more to humanise stories and becoming much closer to people on the ground.

A video recording of this event will be available to IBT members shortly.

Documentaries can help shed light on neglected stories

Earlier this month, we hosted a screening of the Unreported World film, Haiti: Pregnant and On the Run at Channel 4. Ayesha Aleem from One World Media watched the film and the debate that followed.

‘Documentaries don’t change the world’ Nevine Mabro, Channel 4’s Commissioning Editor for News and Current Affairs told us. ‘I wish they did’ she said. ‘But they can have real impact’. That’s why the channel remains committed to Unreported World, its prime time global current affairs strand. Its brief is to shed light on neglected stories. The plight of pregnant women in Haiti is a good example of what the strand does best.

The terrible dilemma faced by pregnant women in Haiti

In Haiti: Pregnant and On the Run, reporter Guillermo Galdos tells the story of expectant mothers in Haiti and the terrible dilemma that they face: whether to stay in Haiti or flee to the neighbouring Dominican Republic, as their country is overtaken by gangs, the government is crumbling and the healthcare system is on the verge of collapse. In the Dominican Republic, they are at less risk of violence, but, without proper documentation, they cannot access local health services.

Early in the programme, we meet Meme, a 23 year old woman who fled Haiti and now lives in the Dominican Republic. She was nine months pregnant at the time of filming and had decided to leave the poverty and threat of violence of Haiti, to save her life and that of her unborn baby.

But, as she told Guillermo, she did not have the proper Dominican documentation and so could not access adequate healthcare. ‘I went to hospital three times in one day and they didn’t let me in’. For women like Meme, the fear of deportation on top of the struggle to access healthcare means that life is equally difficult on both sides of the border.

In the film, Guillermo speaks to young mothers who were forced to deliver their babies in their homes without medical supervision.

Haiti has a troubled history

Apart from a declining economy, Haiti has also suffered greatly following an earthquake in 2010 and a hurricane in 2016. According to The International Organization for Migration, more than 360,000 people have been displaced across the country. Some families pay traffickers to cross the border illegally into the Dominican Republic.

Although they manage to flee violence, Haitians who arrive in their new home and avoid being deported don’t escape poverty. This is despite providing essential labour to the Dominican Republic’s agricultural sector.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy chairing the panel discussion

There is a growing humanitarian crisis in Haiti

In a panel discussion chaired by Krishnan Guru-Murthy, the lead anchor of Channel 4 News, the audience heard from Guillermo who said he was surprised not to see more NGOs in the border region. ‘I was expecting a bigger presence. I didn’t know the humanitarian crisis was as bad as it was,’ he said.

Russell Gates, Regional Director with Concern Worldwide, said there are many NGOs that have been working in Haiti for a long time, including Concern. ‘There are some amazing people doing amazing work in Haiti despite the conditions’ Russell said. He described his own experience of the country. ‘Haiti is a failure of humanity’ he said. ‘Children dying from dehydration and diarrhoea – it should not be happening in this day and age’.

The media and NGOs can work together to bring important stories to light

The panel discussed the challenges of filming in Haiti, but there was an undeniable optimism in the room by the end of the event. Andy Lee, the series producer of Unreported World said that his team frequently relied on the intelligence and guidance of NGOs when reporting humanitarian stories. The NGOs, for their part, recognised that they need programmes like Unreported World to bring the issues they work on to public attention.

The event showed that the two sides – the media and the charity sector – can work together to bring global stories to British audiences – stories like Meme’s.

Ayesha Aleem is Communications Manager at One World Media. This event was hosted by IBT and One World Media.

Sudan – a wake up call

Sudan is rapidly becoming the world’s worst humanitarian crisis but few people in the UK are aware of this. As Anil Ranchod from IBT member CAFOD writes, this must change.

In recent weeks, Sudan has emerged as “the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis” in the words of Barbara Woodward, the UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

With 28 million Sudanese people, almost half the country’s population, in desperate need of aid, suffering such acute hunger that they’re resorting to eating grass and peanut shells, one would expect Sudan’s humanitarian crisis to be headline news.

It led to an international funding conference in Paris last month. But sadly, all I saw was a few small, random articles; nothing that spelled out the gravity of Sudan’s plight. How could such a looming catastrophe receive such scant attention?

The lack of coverage of Sudan is shocking and troubling

Conflicts such as Israel-Gaza and Russia-Ukraine understandably dominate media headlines, but the apparent indifference towards Sudan is perplexing. As someone new to the realm of international aid and development, I found this disparity both shocking and troubling. Were my expectations too high? Or is the reality that Sudan and its humanitarian crisis are not as newsworthy as I thought?

At the Paris conference, Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, underscored the severity of the crisis, labelling it “the worst child displacement crisis globally.” Yet, as she noted, Sudan remains conspicuously absent from daily news cycles in many parts of the world.

Despite the best efforts of the Sudan Humanitarian Conference, which provided a platform for global leaders to address the crisis, the response has fallen woefully short. Only half of the required funds were pledged, leaving millions vulnerable to hunger, disease, and violence.

We wanted to find out how aware people in the UK were about the Sudan crisis

Seeking to understand levels of awareness in the UK about the Sudan crisis, we commissioned and published a YouGov poll. Unsurprisingly, only 5% (that’s one in twenty) of British adults correctly identified Sudan as currently the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

Yet the numbers speak volumes:

Nearly 9 million (8.8 million) people have fled their homes, including over 3 million children.
With five consecutive failed rainy seasons worsening the conflict, up to 8 million people – almost the population of London – are (as described by the UN) on the brink of famine.
Over 650,000 refugees and returnees have fled into South Sudan, nearly 580,000 into Chad, and over half a million into Egypt.

But beyond the statistics, it’s the first-hand accounts that truly resonate. Telley Sadia, CAFOD’s country representative for Sudan, painted a harrowing picture when he told me: “Children are succumbing to starvation, soaring food prices, and millions are without access to urgent aid. The scale of this disaster is staggering, yet still largely unknown to the wider world.”

Why the lack of interest in Sudan?

Perhaps the Sudanese journalist, Zeinab Salih, being interviewed on BBC Radio 4 was onto something when she commented, “Despite all the suffering, people don’t know anything about what’s going on here. I don’t think it’s less than any other crisis in the world. But I don’t know, is it because geopolitically we’re not very important? As a country? Or because we’re African and Black people, so nobody’s interested?” But it’s not that simple.

Yes, there is a danger that what is unfolding in Sudan could be seen as a problem for the Sudanese themselves to solve, and that, whatever the outcome, it will have little impact on the UK or its markets. Or it could be that for the media, there is nothing new about a story that has already been covered. Possibly everyone is overwhelmed by the sheer number of humanitarian crises unfolding (or very likely to unfold soon) across the globe.

Maybe we, as aid agencies, are not doing as good a job at convincing the media to cover the story. Our poll also revealed that 77% of the British public were not aware that the United Nations has warned of a potential famine in Sudan and 37% of UK adults thought there should more news coverage about the situation in Sudan. I personally believe that it’s a combination of each of those theories that make this a forgotten crisis.

If we don’t act now, this could rapidly become a regional disaster

But despite the challenges, we remain steadfast. I am determined to try and get some substantial coverage of the crisis in Sudan. If every life truly counts, we must ensure Sudan receives the attention and support it so desperately needs. I urge you to join us in making a difference. Spread the word – start or contribute to a conversation on your social media channels and follow CAFOD’s accounts on X-Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. And if you’re inclined to, visit cafod.org.uk/SudanAppeal to donate to our emergency appeal.

Together, we need to shine a light on Sudan’s plight and prevent further devastation. Every contribution, no matter how small, can make a world of difference.

Anil Ranchod is Head of Media at CAFOD (Catholic Agency for Overseas Development)

Briefing Notes: Meet the Editors

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Meet the Editors

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Briefing Notes: Global Health (BBC News and The Telegraph)

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Briefing on Global Health (BBC News and The Telegraph)

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Explosive weapons are destroying Gaza. It’s time to stop using them on civilians

IBT member Humanity & Inclusion has worked in Gaza and the West Bank for almost 30 years, providing rehabilitation care, psychosocial support and access to education for disabled and vulnerable people. Their Chief Executive, George Graham, has been campaigning for more than a decade against the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. He outlines the devastating effects of bombing towns and cities and the horrific impact this is having right now on civilians in Gaza.

The bombardment of Aleppo, Syria, in the summer of 2016 felt like a defining moment. Over three long months, a government air force relentlessly pounded a city of 2 million people, overwhelmingly civilians, who had nowhere to go. Yet the international community felt unable to stop it. Was this the world we now lived in, one where civilian lives could be destroyed on a shocking scale and nothing could be done to protect them?

Those of us who had campaigned for years for states to stigmatise, curb and eventually end the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas felt defeated. Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, was clearly not listening to our advocacy, and he was never going to.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, a concerted bombing campaign against its key cities began. Mariupol was one of its unlucky targets, and the attack on that city became a cause celebre. This time, as other Ukrainian cities suffered similar treatment, the international response was different. Not only was the Ukrainian army supported and reinforced, but public and political outrage suddenly made our fight against urban bombing both relevant and urgent.

The campaign to stop the use of explosive weapons in populated area finally yielded results

In November 2022, 83 governments – including the US, UK and most of NATO – met in Dublin and signed a new Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.

It felt like the game had suddenly changed. At the ceremony to launch the Declaration, government after government publicly recognised that the bombing of urban areas always and predictably causes massive civilian harm – lost lives, injured bodies, traumatised minds, broken infrastructure, blocked aid and contaminated land.

They emphasised that they were not introducing new law, but the Declaration exists because the use of inherently indiscriminate weapon systems where civilians are concentrated pretty much always contravenes not just moral sense but also the Geneva Conventions and the international humanitarian legal framework that they underpin.

The destruction of Gaza means we must continue campaigning

But despite the Declaration and all those governments’ stated opposition to a form of warfare that should have died off decades ago, the familiar grim tape is being played again in Gaza.

At least half the buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. Over six long months, 32,000 civilians have been killed, more than 13,000 of them children. Some 75,000 people are reported to have been injured, with the number that will be left with permanent disabilities massively increased by the destruction of hospitals and systematic impediments to safe humanitarian access.

An unprecedented level of amputations and spinal cord injuries

Due to the type of explosive weapons used, we are seeing unprecedented prevalence of amputations and spinal cord injuries. 70 to 80% of admissions to the few hospitals that are still just-about functioning are patients who have lost limbs or suffered nerve damage that will cause their muscles, senses or internal organs to dysfunction.

Many of the 10,000 people we have assessed have had to undergo amputations, including hundreds of children. Thousands of prosthetics and assistive devices are urgently needed yet are being denied by the delays and blockages at Gaza’s militarily controlled borders.

The long-term danger of unexploded ordnance

The use of so much explosive ordnance is also storing up trouble for years to come. HI’s experts have been able to enter the territory to assess the situation. We approximate the failure rate of modern weapons at around 10% – that means 10% of weapons fired do not function as they were designed to. If around 50,000 items of ordnance have been dropped, we would assume 5,000 left on or under the ground.

Some of these – probably several hundred – are huge air-dropped weapons, which, if they explode, can destroy whole neighbourhoods. 90% of those killed and injured by explosive weapons in populated areas are civilians. Until we can bring in equipment to defuse these lethal threats, the best we can do is just mark them off with tape and warn people living in the area not to go near them.

The people of Rafah await Israel’s much-anticipated assault

Right now, the majority of the population of Gaza is concentrated in Rafah, the one area that so far hasn’t been attacked. The population there has multiplied by six. They are living in harrowing conditions, without enough food, clean water, sanitation, medicine or shelter.

This includes HI’s own team members, who have fled their homes further north – they are living in fear and many haven’t had a proper meal this year. It also includes tens of thousands of people with disabilities, suffering multiplying challenges and indignities in such awful conditions. Everyone is awaiting the expected assault.

A ceasefire should have been called months ago. Now the lives of hundreds of thousands of people depend on the negotiations to avert an attack on the south. So much damage has already been done, but now every possible step must be taken to prevent weapons that were designed for open battlefields being used against the exceptionally densely populated and already-ravaged people of Rafah. If the dropping of bombs and the devastation of trapped civilians in Aleppo and Mariupol were abominations, then they are in Gaza too.

George Graham, Chief Executive, Humanity & Inclusion UK

Why humanised media coverage of Gaza is so important

Since the attacks of October 7 last year, the violence in Gaza has dominated the headlines. For IBT member Medical Aid for Palestinians, that’s meant an unprecedented amount of media attention. But, as Communications and Campaigns Manager Max Slaughter tells us, media reporting that portrays Palestinians as less than human makes their killing more acceptable.

How do you feel about the way in which the UK media has covered events in Israel/Gaza?

Overall, UK media reporting has been widespread but largely pretty poor. Much of the media has presented the situation as starting from 7 October 2023, disregarding the hugely important context and root causes that led to these events – including the displacement, dispossession and discrimination against Palestinians for more than half a century, the military occupation of the West Bank, and the 17-year illegal closure and blockade on Gaza.

Many of the biggest outlets in the UK have been producing daily live blogs and have sent their most senior international correspondents to report from southern Israel and Jerusalem. Interestingly, these steps were not taken before 7 October, in a year which was the deadliest for Palestinians in the West Bank since records began, and where attacks on healthcare have skyrocketed.

Pervasive terminology like the ‘Hamas-run’ health ministry dehumanises the patients lying injured in hospitals and treats them as less worthy victims. This also casts doubt on the data coming out of the Palestinian Ministry of Health – despite no evidence on the contrary – and implies that these healthcare facilities are not run by healthcare professionals. Media reporting that portrays Palestinians as less than human makes their killing more acceptable.

As with every war or humanitarian crisis, media fatigue has become more of an issue in 2024. There is significantly less coverage in UK media outlets of the situation in Gaza, live blogs are no longer being produced on many of the mainstream outlets, and international correspondents are moving elsewhere.

How balanced has media coverage been?

The fact that Israel has prevented journalists from entering Gaza and, at times, created a total communications blackout, getting information out of Gaza has been extremely challenging – even for us at MAP. This makes it difficult to reflect the realities and the sense of uncertainty leads some media reporting to doubt the credibility of information coming out of Gaza. It also creates more of a reliance on Israeli sources and information.

In the majority of the UK’s broadcast coverage, even when the focus of the interview is meant be to the humanitarian situation, Palestinians interviewed are routinely asked to condemn Hamas. Whereas Israeli vox pops are rarely, if ever, asked to condemn the actions of their government and/or military.

Are there specific examples of media coverage that you’d like to highlight?

First and foremost, the excellent and incredibly courageous Palestinian journalists on the ground in Gaza are shining a light on the crisis and are constantly reporting the realities live, despite when they have lost loved ones. Many will have followed the remarkable work of Motaz Azaiza, Bisan Owda, Noor Harazeen and Wael al-Dahdouh. I think UK media outlets can learn from the humanity demonstrated in their reporting.

Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic have been leading the way in their coverage on the ground – they are often the first places I would go for up-to-date news from Gaza. Some of the BBC’s early coverage was strong, with reporting from Tom Bateman and their correspondent in Gaza Rushdi Abualouf.

There have been examples of poor coverage. One particular report erroneously claimed that a hospital was empty of patients but, at the time, MAP spoke to medics at the hospital who provided photos and testimony confirming that it remained filled with patients and staff, and was still providing services despite severe shortages of medicines, equipment and fuel. This irresponsible reporting can endanger the lives of civilians and undermine the protection of healthcare.

5 March 2024—Rafah, Gaza. Emergency medical team staff work in the surgical theatre at the European Hospital in Gaza. ©The International Rescue Committee Photo by Belal Khaled for the IRC

Are there aspects of the story that have been neglected?

The context that led up to this crisis has largely been neglected from UK media coverage. This includes the fact that even before Israel implemented a total siege on Gaza following 7 October, Gaza was under a crippling blockade for 16 years. The consequences this 16-year blockade has had on the health system have been catastrophic and precipitated the dismantling of the health system which has taken place in the last four months.

Another neglected aspect is the rising Israeli military and settler violence in the occupied West Bank, as well as increased settlement expansion. Towns and cities are being raided almost daily, particularly in the north in areas such as Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem. The intensification of air strikes and drone attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank have also been a new development. It is really important for the media to report on the West Bank as events there are so closely connected to Gaza, despite the systematic fragmentation that Palestinians experience across the whole of the occupied Palestinian territory.

How Palestinians will recover both physically and psychologically, and what Gaza will look like when this war ends has also been a neglected element of the story. Palestinians in Gaza have lost everything, including their dignity, and it is vital that a dignified process of rebuilding – including the health system – is prioritised when there is a ceasefire. Alongside this, there must be accountability for the indiscriminate attacks on civilians and infrastructure, including healthcare personnel and facilities. The media can play an important role in promoting both of these aspects.

You’ve been interviewed during the crisis – have you been given a fair hearing?

Overall, MAP’s spokespeople have been given a fair hearing. We have tried to ensure that we do our due diligence before accepting an interview request, both on the journalist/presenter and the interview topic, as well as ensuring all of our spokespeople are briefed before giving an interview. There have been times when our spokespeople have been thrown off with more political questions, but, as a health and humanitarian organisation, we cannot answer these questions.

Although we have given an unprecedented number of media interviews, there have been occasions where these are limited to very short (sometimes 60-second) soundbite contributions, which has not allowed our spokespeople to get the depth and context of their messages across.

Briefing Notes: Sophie Berman, GB News

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Briefing with Sophie Berman – Executive Editor of News at GB News

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Charity advertising – time for change?

Deborah Adesina and David Girling from the University of East Anglia, recently published an important piece of research, Charity Representations of Distant Others, looking at the images used in charity advertising. The research raises some important issues for charities working in international development. We invited Deborah Adesina to reflect on her findings.

Our research set out to explore whether charity adverts have changed in recent years and what kind of characters are represented in their fundraising campaigns. We analyzed 541 images, collected from 363 charity adverts placed in 17 UK national weekend newspapers over a 6-month period in 2021. We then compared this data to an earlier similar study done in 2005/6.

Images of women and children traditionally dominate charity fundraising

Previously, children and women have dominated charity images as the main characters for their fundraising appeals. Several studies across academia and in the development sector have shown this tactic to be problematic for its contribution to misrepresenting developing countries as infantile or feminine.

Our study found a significant reduction in the dominance of women and children in charity messaging from 72% in 2005/6 to 50% as of 2021. Also noteworthy is the inclusion of more images depicting leaders from the developing world: 20% of all images depicted majority world leaders compared to 15% developed world leaders.

Charities are beginning to broaden the range of images that they use

Slowly but surely, INGOs are beginning to use images that offer a more nuanced representation of their beneficiaries in ways that highlight their agency and portray them as capable and complicit in the story of development and progress.

Yet the images also show that stereotypical narratives remain, as women/girls continue to be depicted in roles and responsibilities that reiterate traditional expectations of their confinement to domestic spaces.

Christian Aid insert in the Guardian, 11/4/2021

Images from rural Africa continue to feature prominently

We found that over half of the images (56%) supporting international causes focused on countries in Africa. Many of these images are set in villages and feature children, women and children, in passive modes. This constant spotlight on African countries in charity fundraising appeals, inadvertently reinforces historical stereotypes of underdevelopment that equates Africa with poverty.

Number of images from across the world

The importance of captions to contextualise images

Our study also examined the general practices of British INGOs. Regarding captioning, out of 541 images, 399 (74%) included the name of the country within the supporting text. The specific city or village was mentioned in 32% of the adverts and the region in 26%.

Contextualising the location used in charity images is not only a matter of geographical information. Proper captioning guarantees that any use and re-use of images is appropriate to context, thereby minimising risk to contributor as well as any reputational risk resulting from inappropriate re-use of images.

Many charity adverts fail to name the people who feature in them

Similarly, we found that 55% of characters are named, leaving 45% nameless. Although there are practical considerations/limitations e.g. images including large number of characters where it is not possible to name every single person, or where the character has deliberately not been named to protect their identity.

Even so, naming is encouraged as it humanises people, helping to create intimacy and attachment rather than rendering them as mere props for charity messaging.

Charities have made significant changes – but there is more work to be done

Overall, charities have come a long way from heavier critiques of using shock tactics, dehumanization, and employing images of suffering to evoke emotions. As evidenced by ongoing industry-wide discussions, publication of codes of conduct, and updating of ethical guidelines and policies, the sector is making strides to decolonize narratives and address damaging stereotypes.

Yet, there is even more work to be done, and the subject of (mis)representing distant others remain relevant. It is important that communications professionals continue to consider the potential damage of the stories they tell in fundraising adverts. Although the results of this study show some positive changes there is still scope for more significant improvements across the landscape of charity communications.

Contributor-led storytelling can help to reset unequal power dynamics

Many charities have used participatory or contributor-led storytelling in some of their longer form communications such as videos on YouTube. Contributor-led storytelling is one practical approach to resetting unequal power dynamics by fostering a sense of ownership and agency over beneficiaries’ narratives on their terms.

Centring the perspectives and voices of those with the lived experience of the issues at hand promotes authenticity and provides supporters a more nuanced understanding of complex issues from an insider view. It humanizes cold data, putting faces and voices to abstract concepts and drives more meaningful engagement.

While doing so though, communication professionals must remain wary of participatory communications activities that merely tick the ‘looking good’ PR box without actually empowering beneficiaries in the decision-making process.

Our published report only presents initial findings. We welcome scholars, researchers, and practitioners to engage with this dataset available at www.charity-advertising.co.uk, to challenge our findings, and to uncover new insights that will enrich our understanding of charity advertising representations.

Deborah Adesina is co-author of the report, Charity Representations of Distant Others

Briefing Notes: David Pilling, Africa Editor, FT

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Briefing with David Pilling – Africa Editor, FT

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Ukraine – the devastating cost of landmines

As the war in Ukraine enters its third year, it’s clear that landmines have become one of the main weapons of war. Ukraine looks set to become the most mined country in the world. IBT member MAG is at the centre of efforts to raise awareness and to clear the mines, as Millie Bruce-Watt writes.

It’s two years since Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Some 730 days of relentless fighting, with a severe human cost, too devastating to fully comprehend.

According to the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, at least 10,000 civilians, including more than 560 children, have been killed and over 18,500 injured since the first day of the invasion, although the Monitoring Mission acknowledges that these numbers are significantly under representing the reality of the position.

With the conflict ongoing, there is no empirical way to determine the degree of landmine contamination, but the World Bank’s current estimate is that it will cost some US$37 billion to demine Ukraine. Each day that number grows due to the continued use of mines and munitions and the stubbornly high failure rate among certain types of explosives.

The importance of raising awareness amongst children

MAG joined the emergency response in April 2022, in partnership with the Ukrainian authorities and other humanitarian agencies, delivering life-saving messages about how to identify and report explosive remnants of war to children in schools and to communities via social media and state TV and radio.

In 2023, we trained dozens of deminers and, this year, clearance work is set to begin in Mykolaiv, Kherson and Kharkiv – the three regions with the highest amount of civilian casualties. An additional 150 deminers will soon be trained to bolster the teams’ efforts.

As an organisation that is committed to saving lives and easing suffering by finding and destroying landmines and unexploded bombs, MAG advocates for communities directly impacted by the grief and chaos of war. That’s why we do everything we can to keep all conflicts – from crises unfolding largely out of the international spotlight to the biggest armed conflict in Europe since the Second World War – at the forefront of people’s minds.

To do so, we have tried to raise awareness in different ways, on a variety of plaftorms.

Media coverage is vital in drawing attention to this issue

Since 24 February 2022, we’ve worked with journalists from The Kyiv Independent, Reuters, Washington Post, ITV, and Sky News, among others, to provide analysis on the malign presence of explosive remnants of war and stress the urgent need for humanitarian aid in too many areas.

To keep Ukraine in the hearts and minds of MAG audiences and supporters, we’ve worked hand-in-hand with our Ukrainian staff, who have been able to provide insights into the realities of war, and its devastating impact on their lives and their communities.

As the first Christmas approached, and thousands faced brutal conditions with no or limited electricity, water, and heating, we spoke to Kateryna, a Project Manager for MAG’s Ukraine response. She spoke powerfully about how the ongoing attacks, critically damaged infrastructures, and severely contaminated land coupled with the then sub-zero temperatures were exacerbating challenges.

Street art highlights the hope of the Ukrainian people

In March 2023, over a year on from Russia’s invasion, we partnered with Ukrainian artist Aleksey Postulga to develop a number of murals reflecting the struggles and hopes of the Ukrainian people. We included in the murals a QR code linking to a Facebook page with vital safety information and details on what to do if someone were to come across unexploded ordnance.

In November 2023 – 21 months on from the invasion – MAG launched its annual digital and postal Christmas appeal, calling for donations to help save lives in Ukraine. Supporters could donate to cover the costs of risk education materials needed for a full class of children; a pair of boots for a MAG deminer; food for a mine-detection dog; or a first-aid kit for teams working on the minefields.

Throughout the Christmas period, the appeal was punctuated by stories from MAG staff and their communities, all of whom looked back at their lives before the war, working as teachers, nurses, or doctors, now as translators, drivers or deminers. Their stories were illustrated by Ukrainian photographer Julia Kochetova, who poignantly captured just as much of their strength as their unjust suffering.

The Christmas appeal allowed us to continue to raise awareness of the severity of the situation, and invite MAG supporters to take action.

As the war enters its third year, casualties continue to mount

Within the first two months of war, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described Ukraine as “an epicentre of unbearable heartache and pain”. Two years on, his sentiments are still very much relevant today. Casualties are still mounting; cities, and lives, are in ruins.

Even when this conflict eventually comes to an end, its legacy will continue to have a devastating impact for years to come. That’s why it’s essential that we continue to raise awareness and support affected communities for as long as it’s needed.

Learn more about MAG’s work in Ukraine: https://www.maginternational.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/ukraine/

Millie Bruce-Watt is Communications Coordinator for MAG

Briefing Notes: Al Jazeera

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: briefing with Ben Rayner from Al Jazeera

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Lessons from my first COP

Esther Trewinnard from Tearfund was one of the thousands of delegates who attended last year’s COP28 climate summit in Dubai. Here, she offers some advice to media officers who will be attending future COPs.

While global leaders may have flirted with the idea of a flourishing future world at COP28, many left December’s United Nations Climate Summit in Dubai still battling with ‘commitment issues’.

As a COP first-timer, I’ve learnt that playing Cupid – urging world leaders to fall in love with a cleaner, fairer, more sustainable, renewable energy future – is surprisingly complicated.

Here are a few reflections for green-hearted press officers making the journey to Baku this year.

Start planning now

The journey to Azerbaijan, where COP29 will be held, is just one leg in the race across the world to climate justice. It’s wise to play the long game and pace yourself mentally, physically and emotionally.

Investing early in your ideas for coverage, research and media engagement in 2024 will improve your chances of making your message stick when it comes to decision making ‘crunch time’ at the end of the year.

Despite a mixed outcome, COP28 saw unprecedented support for the clean energy transition. The science is clear, the solutions exist and the momentum is growing. Leaders and negotiators publicly recognised – with greater honesty and clarity than ever before – the vital need to end the fossil fuel era.

This is a rung on the ladder that we need to hold on to, but it’s slippery as many of the very same world leaders (including our own in the UK) continue to look towards expansion of oil and gas interests.

No conference or organisation alone can deliver the full weight of climate justice in one sitting, so holding leaders to account between summits is important so as not to lose the precious ground gained.

Find a natural space in the media

Tearfund’s ambassador and COP28 spokesperson Laura Young is a climate scientist and activist who regularly contributes to UK radio commentary on environmental issues.

Her relaxed manner and ability to translate policy jargon into plain-speaking was a real asset for us. We first worked with Laura at COP26 in Glasgow, her hometown.

Laura travelled to Dubai as an observer and a member of Tearfund’s advocacy team. Her familiarity among UK radio broadcasters at BBC 5 Live and Times Radio opened up media space to explain to UK audiences what progress at the talks would mean for people living in poverty around the world.

Laura’s experience observing previous climate talks meant that she was able to put COP28 into a wider context and comment on the crucial nuancing of little words like ‘unabated’.

Get to know your network

A climate summit is a beast of a conference and inevitably requires good footwear and a burst of initial energy when you first arrive.

Having a network of familiar faces and contacts can help bring a little enjoyment to the endurance of security checks, queues, deciphering programmes, schedules, maps and understanding what’s happening when.

You need to be able to tap into the collective hive-mind because the news cycle moves very quickly. For Tearfund, an international development agency, working in coalition with our networks, including Climate Action Network and Renew Our World was key to our approach.

Attending events in the lead up to COP28, such as the one hosted by the International Broadcasting Trust, were also super helpful to make connections with journalists and colleagues across the sector who were planning to be in Dubai in person.

Know your niche and spheres of influence

Tearfund is a Christian development agency, so the introduction of a Faith Pavilion provided an exciting space to meet with people from other faith based organisations, as well as religious communities and spiritual leaders.

Eight out of ten people around the world belong to a faith community, so how, as people of faith, we choose to respond to the climate crisis has massive potential. A core part of Tearfund’s work is inviting churches around the world to connect, speak out together, hold the powerful to account and actively care for creation.

The Faith Pavilion became a hub for our network to meet and share ideas. We took part in various discussions; from addressing religious resistance to climate action; to building youth-led climate justice movements; to highlighting the importance of indigenous voices in the summit negotiations.

Working alongside influential Christian activists, like Unicef Ambassador Vanessa Nakate, helped to widen the reach of our resources, such as Making a World of Difference, a book launched by the Renew Our World network at COP28. These collaborations left our team feeling encouraged, inspired and hopeful.

Through connections made at COP28, we continue to share other new resources, including bible studies that have been created to help Christians and churches explore the role they can play in addressing rising poverty, inequality and environmental destruction.

Celebrate the small victories along the way

The progress made at UN Climate Talks can feel slow and incremental, so it’s essential to celebrate the high points and not get lost in the disappointment of the low points.

Reflecting on COP28, we can applaud that countries have pledged to triple renewables and double energy efficiency by 2030, but unless coal, oil and gas are phased out at the same time, we’ll continue to fuel climate disaster.

The longer we delay decisive action, the greater the cost of our inaction will be for all of us and people living in poverty most of all.

News stories covered by the BBC and the Guardian were particularly influential in holding leaders to account and compelling them to acknowledge the scientific consensus at COP28, so in the run up to COP29, let’s keep building momentum and sowing the seeds for a progressive narrative in Azerbaijan.

The conversations NGO press officers have with journalists over the course of the next few months will help to keep the wider media well informed and ready to call out conflicts of interest and any shortcomings, so that COP29 can be a meaningful and decisive summit for committing to climate action.

Esther Trewinnard is Senior Media Officer at Tearfund.

PowerPoint Slides and Jamboard: Photography Masterclass with Jonathan Perugia

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

Watch in full: Photography Masterclass with Jonathan Perugia

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

The power of photography in a changing world

Our recent masterclass on NGO photography was led by photographer and facilitator Jonathan Perugia. Henry Roberts, our comms and membership officer, highlights some key themes.

Photography teaches us about the world. Even with rolling news coverage and instantaneous video streaming on social media, a single image can still be the most effective way to highlight an issue. A moment is frozen in time and a single expression can speak to millions of people across the world.

Yet, the context in which photographs are perceived is forever changing. The power imbalance between the photographer and photographed is now more widely understood, particularly in the international aid sector. Expectations around consent, dignity and protection have increased in recent years, in line with a broader cultural shift towards greater decolonised practices and localisation with the INGO sector.

There’s still a double standard in photography

The ethical standards of taking and publishing photographs has come a long way in recent years. Yet it’s clear that individuals and communities from ‘developing’ states are often seen through a different lens than individuals from the UK. They are more likely to be photographed without dignity and through a colonial lens.

Lynsey Addario / Getty Images
Daniel Berehulak / New York Times

A clear illustration of this can be seen when comparing images from the 2013 Ebola outbreak to coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Whilst British citizens are photographed respectfully, the same dignity is not afforded to those from African countries. A photographer from Europe photographing overseas will inevitably bring their own biases and internalised perception of people. Charities should be mindful of these internalised biases and try to not to reinforce unequal power relations when commissioning and publishing photographs.

Norms around consent have changed

The biggest ethical issue in photography concerns consent. There’s a difference between editorial and informed consent. The former, favoured by newspapers, means that photographers don’t need to get informed consent from those they photograph. In the past, many charities worked along the lines of editorial consent, but in recent years, NGOs have largely adopted the standards of informed consent, whether when working via the media or their own staff.

Informed consent means that both photographer and subject know who they’re talking to, where and how the images will be used and that the subject can say no or withdraw consent at any time without fear of consequences. (For a more detailed description of informed consent, see BOND’s guide.)

The challenges of informed consent

We were joined for part of this session by Tammam Aloudat, President of MSF Netherlands. His organisation has been grappling with these issues. These increased standards do not automatically equal ethical photography. Rather, they represent, to use Tammam’s words, “a very problematic consent.”

Even with the best intentions, there is still an unavoidable power asymmetry between photographer and those being photographed that complicates the rigour of informed consent. For instance, individuals may not fully understand what they are supposedly consenting to or may feel reluctant to refuse a charity worker’s request. Informed consent therefore needs to be in the local language and clearly laid out in layman’s terms. People need to fully understand what they are consenting to, where their image will be used and, crucially, the fact that once their image has been published, it is no longer in the charity’s control.

An important point to keep in mind is that not all photographers will be fluent in informed consent, and many will be used to working under editorial consent conditions. When hiring a photographer, NGOs need to explain their expectations around informed consent, with direct instructions as to what agreements need to be put in place before an image is taken.

There’s room for creativity

A lot of images that come from charities look the same. They show distress, hunger, and pain. In some ways, the logic for these photographs is obvious. They show the situation ‘as it really is’ and help connect UK audiences to the harsh realities of war, famine and drought.

Yet these kinds of images are not without criticism. Though many charities have progressed from using the dehumanising ‘fly in the eye’ shot of people, images of suffering can still reflect and perpetuate colonial notions, particularly of dehumanised Africans who are without agency and who need to be saved by white charity workers. Moreover, images of suffering where the subject is easily identifiable are unlikely to have gone through the process of informed consent.

Using photography to reach new audiences

However, in light of this, some charities have adopted a more creative approach by commissioning photographers to create more artistic images that tell a story in an expressive way without resorting to traditional images of suffering. WaterAid, for instance, did just this when they commissioned Ethiopian photographer Aida Muluneh to create a series of images exploring water scarcity.

These sorts of images may not be as useful for fundraising purposes than more traditional images that show need and urgency for donations. Yet charities may wish to invest in such creative images as they may offer longer-term benefits for the charity’s brand. These images from Save the Children, for instance, by Maheder Haileselassie Tadese, won the 2023 Contemporary African Photography prize and the above image from WaterAid is currently on display in the Tate Modern. Such images can be exhibited in places other than the usual fundraising materials, thereby offering charities the chance to reach new audiences.

Local photographers come with their own challenges

The complex problems of power and the colonial gaze can be solved by hiring a local photographer, rather than flying a foreign photographer into the region. This approach has many advantages: the photographer is more likely to have a better understanding of the local language and culture, and there will be a reduced carbon footprint (and travel costs) for the commissioning charity.

However, hiring local photographers is not without its own challenges. There can still be local language/cultural differences between a local photographer and the communities being photographed. Plus, on a practical note, local photographers may have difficulties sending and receiving large file sizes, particularly on a tight deadline.

A key point raised in the discussion was around payment. Charities should not be tempted to offer local photographers a reduced fee to what they would offer a foreign photographer. The ethics of photography should be extended to the photographer: NGOs need to be honest about their budget and always credit the photographer’s name.

Most photographers will want to retain copyright of their work, but agreements can be made between both parties to ensure that the photographer and the charity can continue to use the images in ways that mutually suit them. By respecting the work of local photographers, charities are more likely to forge a long-lasting working relationship with a valuable contact.

There’s work to be done after the shoot has finished

Ethical photography doesn’t stop once the shutter has been clicked. There are still considerations NGOs need to take into account about the processing, transferring and sharing of the final images. Again, clear communication about expectations and capabilities with the photographer in advance is needed to avoid any disappointment or misunderstanding.

Once the images are ready, it’s important that they are not used out of context. A photograph of a man in Tanzania cannot accompany a webpage for a project in Ethiopia, for example. The easiest way to do this is for NGOs to keep consistent and comprehensive Digital Asset Management systems.

Categorising images with accompanying metadata (included names/ages of subjects, locations, contextual information, etc) is the easiest way to avoid accidentally misattributing images or inappropriately publishing them out of context.

Charities should also ensure that communities are followed up with and receive copies of their images. This will help build a relationship between the NGO and the community and will help them feel included in the photographic process.

Discover more about Jonathan’s work with Gaia Visual and be sure to follow him on LinkedIn. You can read an earlier blog written by Jonathan here.

Fighting for Space

On Monday night, we launched our report on the future of public service media and the threat to international content. We were joined at the Palace of Westminster by many IBT members, together with senior representatives from the nation’s newsrooms, foreign correspondents, current affairs commissioners, and Members of the House of Lords.

Gareth Benest, author of the report and IBT’s Director of Advocacy reflects on the evening’s discussion.

Baroness Bonham-Carter warmly welcomed the report in her opening address, praising its vital contribution to the debate surrounding the government’s Media Bill, which is currently making its way through parliament. Following a short presentation of the report findings and our concerns surrounding the legislation, we held a fascinating panel discussion led by veteran broadcaster Ritula Shah (former presenter of The World Tonight, BBC Radio 4).

On the panel were Esme Wren (Editor, Channel 4 News), Jonathan Munro (Deputy CEO BBC News & Director of Journalism), Gareth Barr (Director of Policy and Regulation, ITV), and Catherine Johnson (Professor of Media and Communications, University of Leeds).

The Media Bill – areas of concern

The discussion started with the Media Bill and the negative impact that IBT fears it will have on the enduring presence of international storytelling. In particular, we are concerned about three aspects of the Bill:

The freedom for the public service broadcaster (PSBs) to meet obligations online, leaving linear schedules unburdened and open to further commercialisation
A lack of transparency around how public service media will operate online
The simplification of the remit which has stripped-out obligations to international content beyond news and current affairs.

Our advocacy has achieved some significant changes to the Bill but there’s more to do.

The Media Bill – broadly welcomed by the broadcasters

Jonathan Munro told us that, whilst the Media Bill doesn’t affect the BBC as much as the other PSBs (ITV, Channel 4, S4C, STV, Channel 5), it welcomes the changes it brings to the overall system. He said there is always a balance to be struck, between regulation and giving the media the space to innovate, which the BBC believes has been found in the legislation.

Gareth Barr praised officials at the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) for consulting widely, properly understanding the key issues, and taking time to carefully craft a Bill (the first in 20 years) that goes a long way towards meeting the challenges of a rapidly-changing media landscape.

Professor Johnson shared her concerns surrounding the simplification of the remit and recent changes to the Bill that requires PSBs to deliver ‘an appropriate range of genres’, which she contends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. “We don’t realise how lucky we are in the UK. There is so much choice that is not available in other countries, and that is thanks to regulation.” Professor Johnson echoed IBT’s concerns around how PSBs deliver their obligations online, insisting the Bill “has nothing to say about algorithms. There needs to be more transparency in how prominence will work on personalised devices, and how Ofcom will regulate this space”.

International news and current affairs is thriving say the broadcasters

The discussion also focussed on international news and current affairs, with all the broadcasters mounting a robust defence of their performance in recent years. Esme Wren told us that Channel 4 News is reaching huge audiences for its linear broadcasts and also online. She said that audiences were watching the whole programme (one hour) millions of times on YouTube, and they are achieving significant prominence on Channel 4’s own streaming platform.

Whilst Esme recognised IBT’s concerns around the dominance of particular new stories (such as Ukraine) squeezing out coverage of other countries and issues, she told us there is massive interest in global stories which Channel 4 News is covering with a smaller budget than others enjoy. She said that, far from diminishing, international news coverage is at its strongest, at least on Channel 4.

The audience contributed valuable insights and comments, reflecting a range of experiences and concerns. Sarah Whitehead (Director of Newsgathering and Operations, Sky News) told us that people are really engaged with news right now, particularly stories from Ukraine, which drive audiences to other international news. She told us that Sky News is committed to delivering international content to audiences where they are, and where they want to be.

Tom Giles (Controller of Current Affairs, ITV) said the broadcaster is making twice as many international current affairs programmes as ever before, which is a trend he detects across the wider sector. He pointed to his experience as a judge for the RTS Awards which receives so many submissions of international current affairs that they have to limit the viewing time. “In terms of international current affairs, it could be argued that we are super-serving audiences,” he told us.

A digital-first environment gives the broadcasters more flexibility

Gareth Barr said current affairs should thrive within the digital-first environment. He said ITV would be able to commission across a wider range of genres because they will no longer be bound by having to develop content for particular slots on linear channels.

Foreign correspondent for Channel 4 News, Secunder Kermani said that whilst news does perform well in today’s environment, international current affairs does continue to struggle to find an audience. He pointed to Vice News, which was heralded as an example of how reporting a breadth of stories could be commercially successful, but then went bust.

Finishing the debate on a positive note, Secunder said the advantage of switching to a digital environment is the ability to reach a global audience. He told us, “Tapping into new audiences, particularly in the Global South that are underserved by their own media, feels like you are having an impact in the societies you are reporting on”.

We would like to thank the panel, chair and the audience for a fascinating and challenging discussion. Please download and share the report ‘Fighting for Space’.

What would success look like at COP28?

Practical Action has been attending the UN climate talks for a number of years, to highlight the needs of people on the frontline of poverty and climate change. We asked Oliver Arnold-Richards to tell us what success would look like at this month’s COP.

With the impacts of the climate crisis disproportionately impacting low-income countries and communities, Practical Action will once again be attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP) at COP28 in Dubai. For the 8^th consecutive year, we will be there to hold the process to account and ensure that the voices of the people we work with are heard as global leaders take decisions about all our futures.

We know it’s an ambitious task and I have seen for myself that this comes with several challenges to overcome.

The current state-of-play

One of the main highlights of COP27 was the agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, which will provide finance to nations experiencing devastating climate impacts but who have contributed the least to the problem. Practical Action have been directly contributing to the discussions, providing evidence to a range of organisations and key negotiators at COP to build the case, including reports on the realities of climate-induced Loss and Damage in Nepal and Bangladesh.

However, this positive news was balanced by a failure to agree on sufficient funding for adaptation to climate change for billions of people around the world who are already having to change their lives and livelihoods.

Big questions about how the Loss and Damage Fund will actually work

So for countries like the ones we work with, whose people are on the frontlines of poverty and climate change, COP27 delivered a historic win with the Loss and Damage Fund. But, there are still big questions of how this will work and where will the new, additional, predictable funding to make this a reality come from? Meanwhile, developed countries still have not delivered on their decade-old promise to deliver $100 billion in climate finance annually starting back in 2020. In addition, the influence of the fossil fuel lobby was felt as commitments to limit warming to 1.5 °C, a cornerstone of the Paris Agreement, was seen as weak in the final decision.

Trust in the process hangs in the balance as we head towards COP28. At Practical Action we will be asking alongside climate vulnerable countries – where is the finance, where is the action? And demonstrating what proper loss and damage funding looks like in reality.

Stories from the frontline

Central to our climate advocacy is building support for participatory approaches that deliver climate action for people on the frontlines. Climate action must be inclusive, build women’s leadership, empower voices from the global south, and deliver the bigger systems change required. However, the UN Climate Change Conference is a stark reminder that inclusion and equity are not the same. Just because the people most vulnerable to the climate crisis are represented by parties at COP, which does not mean their voice is heard as loudly as it should.

We need so much more if we’re to see justice for people living in poverty across the world, who are the ones counting the cost of inaction for a crisis they didn’t cause.

The process needs to even the playing field by reigning in the fossil fuel lobby and avoid outcomes that benefit the most powerful at the expense of the most vulnerable. At COP28, we will continue to amplify the voices of the people we work with and emphasise that decisions taken at the global level should lead to national actions with local communities’ active participation.

What would success look like at COP28?

We’ll be working in coalition with allies in government and civil society to deliver positive outcomes in four key negotiating areas – the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), Loss and Damage (L&D), the Global Stocktake (GST) and the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). We focus on these because collectively they can help shape global policy to enable effective climate action in the countries where we work.

GGA – The agenda needs to be wrapped up at COP28. We will aim to ensure that the GGA incentivises and includes measures for actions that help communities on the frontlines of the climate emergency to adapt.
Santiago network for Loss and Damage (SNLD) – This must operate in a way that is accessible to developing countries and specifically, the most vulnerable communities around the world. It must focus on where needs are greatest and deliver technical assistance that is suitable for local contexts, utilising local community knowledge and resources and not flying in needlessly technical experts.
Loss and damage fund – Must be housed and made accountable to the financial architecture of the UNFCCC, making it accessible to developing countries who are overwhelmed by climate disasters. The option of the World Bank, which has been proposed as an interim measure will need widescale and overdue reform if it is the meet these needs.
GST – The global stocktake of progress to deliver the Paris Agreement which will be agreed in Dubai, needs to recognise that Loss and Damage is the collective failure to respond to the climate emergency. To protect more people from this failure we need to rapidly increase support to help communities adapt to changing climates, and the GST will be important to help us collectively understand the scale of those needs.
NCQG – We need to ensure that the negotiations, which are not due to complete until COP29, include Loss and damage. Serious considerations are also needed on how to shift the climate finance target, which is currently based on what countries are willing to pay rather than based upon what investment is needed, to avoid the climate emergency.

Taking action now

For the people who are already adapting because they have no choice, they need support, now.

Growing resilience will be a key factor to the success of the Loss and Damage Fund and organisations like Practical Action are already working with communities to build preparedness before catastrophic events arrive. By anticipating impacts and finding new approaches that protect the environment, damage to local communities can be mitigated.

An example of this is our work as part of the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance in Latin America, Asia and Africa, where we’re collaborating with local committees to train, identify risk zones and develop early warning systems. With the right tools and information, communities can be better prepared for climate-related emergencies and help prevent disasters.

For the Loss and Damage Fund to be a success, it’s about identifying solutions, like our work in Peru, which is already delivering at the local level. It’s about building local capacity to be able to respond and react to these disasters.

We know that negotiations don’t always move at the pace that is necessary. That is why we will also be calling on forward-thinking allies from all sectors– public, private, and civil society, to make adapting and thriving in the face of climate change a reality around the world. When it comes to protecting lives and livelihoods, hope can’t wait. Hope needs action.

Oliver Arnold-Richards is External Engagement and Communications Manager with Practical Action

Watch in full: COP28 Briefing

Sorry, this content is only accessible to registered members.

Register to become a member or existing members can login here.

COP 28 – the media challenge

Earlier this week, IBT co-hosted a debate on media coverage of climate change and the forthcoming COP summit. IBT’s Director, Mark Galloway, was in the chair.

There was a consensus amongst the journalists present that reporting on COP was indeed challenging – but also necessary and important. The global conference provides a moment when the world’s attention is focused on one issue and a chance to hold governments to account for delivering on their promises.

This means that the annual COP summit provides an important opportunity for our members to pitch their stories to journalists and a chance to have the issues they care about highlighted by the media.

Media coverage makes a difference

There’s no doubt that mainstream media coverage plays a hugely important role in informing UK audiences about climate change and about how well their Government is doing in tackling the issue – and what they themselves can do.

But there’s a long way to go. There has been extensive polling of the UK public and although the majority of people say they are concerned about climate change, that concern does not necessarily translate into a willingness to take action. More often, people expect the Government to act rather doing something themselves.

The challenges of covering COP

It was fascinating to hear from our panel of journalists about the logistics of covering COP. There are certain key moments. They all plan to report on events at the beginning of the summit when world leaders including the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, attend. And they will be busy in the concluding days, as an agreement is reached. But there’s a relatively quiet period in the middle when they will be actively looking for stories, interviewees and quotes to run on their live pages.

The journalists advised IBT members to get in touch in advance of COP and provide information about key contacts and any new research, insights or data that they have access to. This will prove an invaluable resource in the quiet moments of the summit.

The stories journalists are interested in

Matt McGrath, environment correspondent with BBC News, will be running the BBC’s live pages, which reach a big audience. They are also actively trying to reach new audiences with their coverage. There is a strong audience appetite for explainers and for positive stories. Audiences respond when they feel a personal connection and this is a priority for BBC reporters.

Victoria Seabrook, climate reporter with Sky News, told us that audiences wanted to see journalists holding world leaders to account for their action or inaction. They wanted Sky to provide thoughtful analysis so they could understand the implications of decisions being taken at COP. Victoria, like Matt, is keen to show how the climate crisis impacts on the UK public and is always looking to make connections with the cost of living crisis, the weather and the global food system.

Patrick Greenfield, biodiversity and environment reporter at The Guardian, will be part of large team attending the summit, a sign of the paper’s longstanding commitment to reporting the climate crisis. He told us that there was massive audience interest and his job was to bring the summit alive. Loss and damage was a key issue for him, and he was also keen to write more about carbon markets.

Adam Vaughan, environment editor at The Times, told us that he would be doing a series of set piece interviews and explainers in the run up to the summit. He was keen to find young people who could offer a distinct perspective. Readers of The Times are well informed about climate change and want to understand how it is going to impact on them. This is a key focus of Adam’s reporting.

How best to pitch to journalists

All the journalists told us that they were open to being pitched stories by NGOs and they are particularly keen to hear about any investigations that are underway. They singled out Global Witness for praise for its investigation into lobbyists from the oil and gas industries who were attending COP. This was reported by BBC News and The Guardian.

They advised NGOs who were planning new reports or original research to make contact early and to work with the journalists to ensure that material is of a sufficiently high quality to report.

This was a joint event with the think tank, ODI. We were fortunate to be joined on the panel by Emily Wilkinson, a senior fellow at ODI, who will be attending the talks as an adviser to the small island developing states. She gave us a fascinating insight into what it’s like being in the room as the talks take place. She said that she would like to see the media do more to explain to audiences why different countries are adopting different positions at the talks. Her hope – and that of the nations she’s working with – is that COP 28 will deliver a set of targets on adaptation. This all-important issue lacks the profile of mitigation but she is optimistic that the talks will deliver some tangible progress.

Mark Galloway is Executive Director of IBT.

We took the media to see our work in Laos. Here’s how it went

Earlier this year, the Mines Advisory Group (MAG) were featured in BBC’s Crossing Continents, in an episode focused on the deadly legacy landmines have left in Laos. MAG’s Communications Manager Jonathan Kyle tells us how the story came about.

We initially set out to raise awareness on an important historical event – 50 years since the last US bomb was dropped on Laos. Our focus was on showing how the deadly impact of explosive devices does not end when a conflict does. War’s effects are far-reaching and longstanding and, while it takes mere minutes to plant a landmine or drop an explosive device, it can take years, decades even, to find and safely clear them.

This is particularly true in Laos, the most bombed country per capita in the world, where 50 years on, people are still killed or injured by explosive devices. For us, it was important to tell that story – that even after a conflict ends and drifts away from international attention, families still have to live with the consequences on a daily basis.

Finding the right journalist

We reached out to Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent, an experienced freelance journalist who knows Laos and the wider Southeast Asia region extremely well and has a clear passion to highlight and document stories that are often overlooked. MAG had worked with her in the past on reports and documentaries about the region and we knew she would be the right person to tell this story, so we were delighted when she accepted.

A documentary format was important to us all. We felt we needed the time and space to tell the story from different angles – something a short news report would not allow. Antonia thought Crossing Continents – a widely respected series on BBC Radio 4 – would be a good match and reached out to them to gauge interest. Having secured an episode for their upcoming new season, we set out to Laos.

Antonia travelled alone, equipped with a microphone, headset, and an audio recording device. MAG also recruited a locally based photographer to join us on the trip and arranged for one of our colleagues to help us with any translation needs.

Over several days last April, we travelled extensively with Antonia and met with a variety of people and places – community members who had been injured by explosive devices, a school where MAG teams were providing explosive ordnance risk education classes, or following a MAG Emergency Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team – to name a few.

Antonia also set up interviews with country experts such as the World Bank Representative to gain a wider perspective on where the country is at economically, 50 years on from the conflict.

The challenges of the audio format

The main challenge was linked to the medium. The sound quality for a podcast is paramount so interviews, often conducted outdoors, cannot be interrupted, or derailed by sounds such as other people talking in the background, music, cars on the road, etc. Finding the right space and ensuring the right conditions were met so an interview is perfectly captured is not always easy in a context you can’t control.

At the same time, since there is no visual element to a podcast, it was important to capture the atmosphere and the environment of the context we were in and, if you listen to the episode, you will notice specific recordings of different sounds – such as birds, driving in a car, etc. – as well as Antonia’s detailed descriptions of her surroundings. The idea was to take the listener on the journey with us, even from afar and through a non-visual medium.

Among other challenges were issues you can never fully anticipate when on such trips – for example, accompanying a team searching for explosive devices when it just so happens that on that morning, and quite exceptionally, they do not find anything. That is good news of course, but not ideal for a report on that subject. You have to adapt quickly and provide alternative options to ensure the story can still be told in full.

Overall, however, the trip was successful, and Antonia was able to capture different angles, resulting in a strong and well-rounded episode that highlighted Laos’s deadly legacy from a variety of perspectives.

Making the most of the media moment

The episode was broadcast about a month after the trip, both on the BBC World Service and BBC Radio 4 (several times).

We received overwhelmingly positive feedback from different groups of stakeholders – our own staff (including in Laos), MAG supporters, donors, social media followers, as well as from friends and family that knew very little about the situation previously.

Antonia also successfully pitched the story to the Guardian, which published a lengthy article, as well as features in other podcasts such as BBC Radio 4’s Pick of the Week and the BBC’s From Our Own Correspondent. BBC in Spanish also published a detailed article on its website.

Of course, it’s always difficult to pin down the exact impact (communications is rarely a precise science!) but it was clear that we were able to achieve the goal we’d set out initially: raise awareness to mass audiences (both in the UK and abroad) on this situation and put back in the headlines, at least for a time, Laos’s ongoing fight against the consequences of a decades-old conflict. It was a timely reminder also for our UK and European audiences, at a time when war is back in Europe, that conflict and war sow destruction and pain not just as it happens but over many generations.

The report however also showed that there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful and that our colleagues in Laos – the vast majority of whom are local staff – and communities across the country are pulling together to rid their land of these deadly devices, however long it may take. Each landmine or item of explosive ordnance found and safely detonated saves lives and gives previously unusable land back to communities where they can grow crops and feed their families. Amidst tragedy and death, real progress is being made towards a future where families can live free from fear.

In terms of format, we would gladly work with Crossing Continents and similar podcasts in the future. As previously mentioned, the stories we feel are important to share often require space, nuance, and time for listeners to have a clear and fully-fledged picture of an often very complex situation. Collaborating with journalists and producers committed to that same vision allows us to give the story the respect and dignity it deserves.

You can listen to the episode in full here

The furore over the BBC’s Israel-Gaza coverage shows how strong and independent it needs to be

As the violence in Gaza continues, Pat Younge argues that we need a strong, independent and modern BBC to report the events properly.

The BBC operates under the most intense scrutiny of any media organisation in the world. This has never been more apparent than over recent days, as the world comes to terms with an unimaginable massacre in Israel and the aftermath for Gaza and the wider Middle East. Some accuse the corporation of cowardice in the face of acts of terrorism by Hamas, others accuse it of cowardice in the face of alleged state terrorism by Israel. A number of politicians and media outlets, most with not well hidden agendas, have chosen to see the BBC as the issue on which to concentrate.

They are right.

The BBC is the issue because a strong, well-funded and editorially independent BBC has never been more important for an informed democracy than it is today. But during the past few years government policy on the BBC’s future has focused on marginalising or weakening it, including questioning its impartiality and significantly eroding its funding. This policy of attacking the BBC and starving it of funds has proved to be a strategy of national self-harm.

That’s how we find ourselves, in the middle of two major international conflicts, with the BBC having to make further cuts to news and current affairs budgets when it should be investing in next generation factchecking services such as BBC Verify. This is happening alongside output being slashed on television, the World Service and the decimation of truly local BBC radio, all a direct consequence of 30% cuts to the BBC’s budget since 2010.

So, even though the BBC is still relied on and envied by much of the rest of the world, there should be little wonder that the people who fund it, the British public, increasingly question its ability to deliver on its historical mission.

It is time for a new course. A group of us are proposing ways to restore the BBC to its proper position as one of our country’s great institutions, uniquely placed to project Britain and its values on a global scale. Our past calls in defence of the BBC’s public broadcast legacy have been supported by many, including David Attenborough, Lenny Henry, the late Hilary Mantel, and others who believe in the BBCs unique contribution to the cultural and social fabric of this country. Here is what we must do.

First, we need to re-establish the independence of the BBC, taking it out of the realms of short-term and partisan party politics. It must be clearly and fully insulated from political influence. Obviously, the prime minister should not personally appoint the chair of the BBC; there should be a genuinely independent public appointments process. And there must be greater public participation in BBC decision-making, through mechanisms like citizens’ juries and people’s assemblies.

Second, the charter renewal process likewise needs greater public engagement and a wholly independent funding mechanism, which should protect universal access to all BBC content, but take account of income when determining fees. Given today’s levels of inequality, the flat rate licence fee has had its day.

Third, we must change the British Broadcasting Corporation to make it fit for the world of today. BBCiPlayer, the news app and Sounds are good, as far as they go, but social media channels have now become a major global source of news discovery, consumption and debate. These channels are owned and dominated by predominately foreign, mainly American, tech moguls. They have no obligation to protect or promote British culture and cultural values, while their business model promotes division and conspiracy. Meanwhile Twitter’s (now X) descent into a cesspit of misinformation and disinformation shows these channels cannot be relied on for factual accuracy either.

The Nobel peace prize winner, Maria Ressa said: “Without facts you can’t have truth. Without truth you can’t have trust. Without all three, we have no shared reality, and democracy as we know it – and all meaningful human endeavours – are dead.”

The rich have always had access to good information, but if our democracy is to stay healthy it is essential that everyone has access to free, trustworthy, accurate and impartial information. We believe the BBC is the one British institution with the scale, global reach and editorial authority to create and protect this new and necessary, trusted digital public space. Such a space should be open to all of the UK public service broadcasters, and could come under the regulatory purview of Ofcom – a more achievable objective than policing the entirety of the web.

Facts. Truth. Trust. Independent from party politics and properly funded for the future. We believe these are the calling cards of a revitalised BBC, recognised as an element of critical national infrastructure, for an age in which an informed citizenry is the crucial bulwark against a descent into chaos. To achieve this we propose a genuine debate about the kind of BBC we want. A BBC backed by its citizens is a powerful and achievable idea.

This article was originally published in The Guardian.

The enduring importance of public service broadcasting

Following the publication of Ofcom’s report on news consumption, Gareth Barr, Director of Policy and Regulation at ITV, shares his view on the importance of public service broadcasting and why it should be protected.

Earlier this summer, Ofcom published its latest report on news consumption in the UK. “Light-hearted news on social media drawing Gen Z away from traditional sources” was the headline in the accompanying press release. Choosing to lead with this angle is not entirely surprising – anything about the growth of social media (and the inevitable ‘death of TV’ narrative that follows) are a guaranteed route to headlines.

But something else in Ofcom’s report caught my eye – something which should interest anyone who cares about how we continue to reach audiences at scale with stories about the world we live in: the enduring importance of public service broadcasting (PSB).

The enduring importance of PSB

And the importance of PSB is not just a BBC story. Ofcom’s research shows that ITV1 is still the second most-used news source in the UK, behind only BBC One across all TV, radio, print and online sources. Group these services together and ITV News as a whole is the second most-used cross-platform source, again behind only the BBC and still ahead of the likes of Facebook and Twitter.

Perhaps even more interesting, Ofcom’s report shows that ITVX – our new streaming service – is already used by more people than TikTok for news. No mean feat given ITVX was only 3 months old when Ofcom’s research was in the field.

Even among teens, where you might expect so-called traditional media to struggle, ITV1 was used by 21% for news, only just behind the likes of TikTok (28%), YouTube and Instagram (25%).

And it’s worth thinking about what people mean when they talk about social media platforms as ‘sources of news’ anyway. Because, really, they’re just platforms for other people’s news, including the PSBs. According to Ofcom, ITV was among the top 4 individual news organisations followed on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. In August, we had over a quarter of a billion views to ITV News videos on TikTok alone.

So, despite the radical changes in our industry, the PSBs continue to engage with audiences at scale with trusted, accurate and impartial news.

ITV has invested in its audiences

ITV’s success in engaging people with news across a range of platforms is no accident.

Most obviously, this success takes significant, sustained investment in news – well over £1bn over the last decade – and an enormous operation of talented people to make it happen.

This huge commitment from ITV is reflected in our output. Last year we extended our evening news bulletin from 30 minutes to an hour, giving us more space to bring the best of ITV News to audiences of the UK’s biggest commercial television channel. Broadcast news on ITV1 remains a key way in which we bring stories of international significance to massive audiences – nearly 75% of viewers have watched ITV News over the last year. Whether that is live on-the-ground reporting, like our award winning broadcast of the storming of the US Capitol building in 2021, or ongoing in-depth reporting of the war in Ukraine and broader geopolitical tensions, ITV News is able to engage people right across the UK with stories from right across the world.

Success also requires continuous ambition and innovation. Take ITVX, launched late last year with much fanfare and a string of brilliant exclusive shows. A lot of the focus has, quite rightly, been on the sheer scale and quality of the content offer – including dramas with an international twist, like A Spy Among Friends or Litvinenko – and on the clean, modern user interface.

Less talked about, but just as notable, is how central ITV News content is within the ITVX experience, particularly compared to other streaming services. There’s a news ‘rail’ on the homescreen, offering the very latest stories from ITV News in bitesize form. There’s a ‘news’ tab alongside more obvious categories like ‘drama’ and ‘film’. You can live stream ITV1 to watch our news bulletins live. It’s this centrality of news that’s driving the result of Ofcom’s research. It’s why ITVX users are streaming nearly 2.2m short-form news stories and 6.1m long-form news and current affairs programmes a month.

ITV’s international offer is about more than news

Whilst ITV’s extensive news output is the main way in which we inform people about the world we live in, it’s not the only way.

This year, David Modell’s brilliant, RTS award-winning documentary The Crossing looked at the very real human consequences of people trafficking across the English Channel. The jury “agreed it was a stupendous piece of film making, displaying great bravery and compelling storytelling. The topic itself was not new but this treatment offered an original insight into the migrant journey and the evil forces behind people smuggling.”

This was not a one-off. Between 2020 and 2022, ITV’s Exposure strand won the Best Current Affairs Bafta three times in a row: for Undercover: Inside China’s Digital Gulag, America’s War on Abortion, and Fearless: The Women Fighting Putin. This year’s Afghanistan: No Country for Women and The Crossing were also nominated.

Elsewhere across ITV, Waco Untold looks at the stories of the British people who died in the notorious siege in America in the early 90s, DNA Journeys sees dancers and sisters Oti and Motsi Mabuse journey across South Africa, Gordon, Gino and Fred go to Spain, Bradley and Barney Walsh go to South America for Breaking Dad, Joanna Lumley explores the Spice Route, and we have a brilliant global natural history programme, A Year On Planet Earth.

The enduring role of PSB should not be taken for granted

The success of the PSB system over the years – and ITV’s ability to engage mass audiences with content looking at international issues – is something to be celebrated. But we should not take continued success for granted. The economics of free-to-air, commercial PSB are becoming ever more challenging, and global competition is transforming our industry.

The draft Media Bill offers the chance to update British law to help ensure that PSBs can continue to thrive in a world dominated by global online platforms and powerful gatekeepers. It strikes a sensible balance between ensuring the long-term sustainability of commercial PSB, and what obligations it is reasonable to expect in return. Everyone who believes in the power and importance of PSB to tell international stories with a uniquely British voice should actively support this crucial piece of legislation.

Register to become an IBT member and get insider access to events and media figures here.