From Passion to Politics: What Moves People to Take Action?

Starting point of discussion - 1938.  Hitler conquer Czech.  Chamberlain said faraway country with people we know nothing about.  Chamberlain thought that distance and security of Czechs would make it OK to sacrifice to Nazis.  This was language of moral UNconcern.

Premise of human rights movement is that fate of other is on equal level to our own.  Task is to bridge the miles to shrink the distance.  Today's panel do that for a living.  Try to make suffering of people in distant lands as real as that of those in this room.  Romeo Dallaire, who was in charge of UN mission in Rwanda once said a reporter with a line to the West is worth a battalion on the ground.

Barbara Demick:  As foreign correspondents we find ourselves part of humanitarian aid operations.  Always work closely with aid workers.  Often best sources of info and tell their story.  We suffer from a lot of the same problems.  Donor fatigue and reader fatigue kick in around the same time.  

Start with Bosnia, 1993, in Zagreb walking into UNHCR office, and they changed channels whenever Bosnia was mentioned.  Already 2 years into the fighting and people were sick of it.  We developed techniques to get our readers to identify.  We had a rule:  can't start story with a foreign name.  Everybody had to be identified by what they were.  

At the beginning of the war, had "bad serbs vs good muslims".  But story got muddy, and fell off the map when had muslims vs serbs vs croats.  then got worse because bosnian muslims started doing bad things too.  I have found as a foreign correspondent, if you do not have good guys vs bad guys, our story falls off the map.  This is a real challenge for us because sometimes victims are not so pure and villains have their side of the story too. 

For a foreign story to have "legs" (staying power), has to make people feel good about themselves.  

Another situation is covering tsunami.  I was in Banda Aceh, even those of us in the business for a long time did not anticipate how much public interest there would be.  Death toll was huge, but there was a novelty about it.  Wasn't earthquake, concentration camp, flooding.  Something else about the tsunami.  Victims were Muslim, and US marines were helping to distribute aid.   Had been about to deploy to Gulf when rerouted to distribute aid.  Marines were pleased because instead of going to situation where feel bad about themselves, could go to a place where do good.  Drive around, lean out of car, children cheer them.  Aid kept coming.  Americans could feel good about themselves.  Tsunami really did touch people.  Was huge outpouring of aid.  Too much.  Not as many injured or homeless as you might think.  If you were hit, you were dead.  If you were inland, you were OK.

Third case is current work involving North Korea.  North Korea is ultimate in annoying victims.  Not grateful, hostile to donors.  3 million people have died of famine.  North Koreans very tough on the aid workers.  Don't admit workers who speak Korean, because might talk to people.  Don't let out of hotels.  Don't allow visitors to see famine.  Highly controlled tours of Pyongyang.  If you try to get off beaten path, your minders would get very angry.  North Koreans dont have much, but have pride.  I have covered China/NK border.  Those North Koreans very malnourished, young people lost hair, suffering.  But in North Korea don't see that.  Last ime in Pyongyang, Chinese Pres. Hu Jintao was visiting.  Decided to turn on every light in the city.  

Stories that get sympathetic coverage:  Clear narrative, identify good vs bad guys, a single image that carries the story, novelty value, and timing and location, has to be a place you can get to.

Peter Maass:  Covered war in Bosnia 92 and 93.   In Sarajevo.  The story that got most reader reaction was not about refugees at all, but about horses.  Lipizaner stallions were hungry.  Got a flood of donations to feed the horses.  This was a consistent problem.  Trying to get people interested in what was going on in Bosnia.  Particularly in Bosnia, journalists try to personalize a story.  Focus on one person.  Instead of writing about statistics.  Wrote a story about a young girl who had been raped. 

Limit beyond which newspapers won't go.  Don't publish pictures that upset readers.   

Downside in terms of trying to get readers attention:  Even when you succeed in getting compassion, it often doesn't translate into action that is necessary.  Problem is that the reaction time for humanitarian efforts, home, shelter, aid, in some ways worsened the situation because it allowed the genocide to continue.  But turning it into a humanitarian issue rather than political, the situation continued.

12-year-old girl injured.  BBC picked up story.  This story had impact in the UK.  Became an issue.  She was airlifted out, everybody congratulated themselves because they had done this action. But it wasn't the action that was needed.  It gave the impression that if we remove these people the problem is solved.

So eventually although the US intervened with bombing, it wasn't because of humanitarian concerns but because of other factors.  NATO coming apart, etc.

Afterward I wrote a book proposal about the war.  Felt need to make sense of Bosnia.  Advice was, need to have one person at center of the book and that person has to be an American.  So I wrote a book that was essentially a memoir.  My work in Bosnia.  Readers identified with me and through my experience, learned about the war.  Needed a channel, and I was the channel.  One of the consequences of journalism of that sort, especially in TV, is that the story becomes more about the reporter's reactions than about the war itself.  

Also reported about North Korea.  You are controlled from the moment you arrive.  You can't go anywhere without your minder.  So have to negotiate with minder about what you do.  Wanted to talk to North Korean.  Went with minder to apartment complex.  Minder pointed out the person to whom he could talk.  Had no choice.

15 years later, based in NY and wanted to do a story about North Korea.  Called up North Korean office in the UN.  Talked to a lot of others and assembled a lot of info about Kim Jong-Il.  That kind of work around the edges can sometimes get more information than you can get in North Korea.

Kenneth Roth:

I'm going at this from different perspective.  Journalists don't have to change policy.  At some level, what Human Rights Watch does is similar.  Have people in same places, reporting on what's happening.  Challenge is keeping people interested and engaged.  Then other half of staff has to take info and get something done with it.

The premise of this conference has been that the way this policy pressure takes places is through public engagement.  How to avoid compassion fatigue, etc.  But it doesn't sum up what Human Rights Watch does.  There's a feeling that when you're successful, you've mobilized the public.  That's not the way it is 99% of the time.

To mobilize effectively, have to have a problem that relatively set.  Something that people can understand.  Some issues lend themselves to that mobilization, but most do not.  e.g. HRW involved in getting Charles Taylor to trial.  When his regime about to crumble in Liberia, he fled to Nigeria.  Spent about 2 years trying to convince Obasanjo to turn him over.  Tried to mobilize... went to Nigeria and tried to get publicity about this.  What got Charles Taylor surrendered was not publicity, but because Obasanjo wanted to visit Pres. Bush and get his blessing.  To do that he needed a meeting at the White House.  We went to White House and said you can't meet this guy until they turn Charles Taylor over.  And they did.

Another example:  Uzbekistan.  Most important of Stans in economic and political terms.  Also most ruthless leader.  Respond to demo by killing hundreds of demonstrators.  How to respond?  At the time, did news conference and it was packed.  Smuggled someone in to get info and got the story out.  But then how to put pressure on Uzbekistan?  Key was EU, which has aid and trade relationship that Uzbekistan cared about.  Germany was key, but wants energy relationship with former Soviet bloc.  Last week, started trial of our interpreter and revoked accreditation of our rep.  Now in middle of conversation, but interesting thing is it has nothing to do with public pressure.  Its all about having the contacts.

Not to say we don't need to involve the public.  We do.  There is unwritten understanding between activists and politicians that we're going to treat press coverage as pulpit.  What matters to people is if LA times is writing about it.  So don't want to act in a way that is different from what people are reading about.  Surrogate mobilization, not real mobilization.  Sometimes you don't need public mobilization.  All you need is good press coverage.

If all you hear is that things are terrible, but there is no sense of responsibility on part of politician, nothing will get done.  What's required is not simply description of what is going on.  Sent own TV crew in and gave footage to news organizations.  Get story our, people think it's terrible, but then what do you do about it?  Have to find some way to bring distant problems home.  And make it clear that policymakers can do something about it.

The biggest problem about Bosnia is the "age-old hatred" line.  That was the typical reaction.  Similarly about Rwanda.  Some basic explanations had to be done.  Have to cut through age'old hatred line and explain reasons why this is happening.  Once you explain the rationale, you can start to ask what are the incentives to do something.

Darfur as an example.  Probably saw in NYTimes, moving ads from Save Darfur Coalition.  Cost a lot of money, but not effective.  Said must stop but didn't explain how.  Contrast with one Op-Ed in WSJ by Mia Farrow.  She pushed idea of genocide Olympics.  China is largest purchaser of Sudanese oil, protects it on Security Council.  If any country has influence in Sudan it's Beijing, and they're not doing it.  And have been providing money to make it possible to arm the Jamjaweed.  So it's fair to say China is behind the killing.  Made appeal to Speilberg.  That little Op-Ed was a roar in Beijing.  Within days there was a Chinese delegation to Darfur, saying you have to let the UN in.  Bashir now allowing UN in.  And this didn't cost anything.  It was smart intervention, because not only talk about what's wrong, but explained what can be done about it.  Shows that it's not enough to expose and to shame, but find a way to tie it with something else going on.   That kind of connection is not something we expect journalists to do.  That is the essence of effective mobilization.  

Open up for questions

Q: from Bill Frist:   Is there a saturation level where you see tragedy all over the world constantly, do editors recognize saturation level where you simply can't reach people with too much education?

Maass:  As a journalist on the ground you do have to keep pushing the limits.  I remember death camps.  Big focus on it, and after a few weeks, it was like "what have you got now?"  I remember interviewing a refugee, and I began to realize I had to step it up.  Just writing another story about the atrocities that were committed wasn't going to make it into the paper.  

Roth:  The struggle for all of us is to find new ways to talk about things that are the same.  Sometimes new angle is policy-based... like what happens in Security Council, etc.  Not so much compassion fatigue is that this is the news business.

Demick:  It's a business that's under an extraordinary amount of pressure.  If people want to hear about Anna Nicole Smith, how much are they going to read about Darfur.

Q:  Have ever been in situation where you were concerned that information you get would endanger contacts or worsen the situation?  

Demick:  Happens all the time.  My recent work is with North Korean defectors.  If they are identified, their relatives will be taken away and killed.  I have a huge responsibility to hide their identities.  All responsible journalists put the lives of their sources ahead of the story.

Maass:  I remember in Sarajevo I had 2 interpreters.  One of them a woman with 2 children. Always mindful of her safety.  That situation become much more acute in Iraq.  Drivers who work with us in danger.  We have our passports.  They have to face tremendous problems working with us.

Roth:  recently had to take one of our people out of Afghanistan.  It's a real problem.  Idea of protecting sources is totally routine.  Not naming names, etc.  the real grind is when there is a situation where if you could expose it you would improve it, but can't expose it without putting someone in danger.

Q: what would happen if you had info which you could print but would cause a problem with national security.  How would you strike that balance?

Demick:  What would you do if British hostages were in fact spying?  Would you print that?  information generally held for national security reasons. 

Roth:  About 1 year ago, Wash Post wrote about secret detention facilities.  In article named countries involved.  ABC had story in that site for 1/2 hour, then CIA got to them and they pulled it off the site.  

Sometimes inappropriate use of national security argument.  For example, blacking out of testimony from Guantanamo detainees describing their torture.  Real national security is one thing, but overextension of that is another.

Gary Bass:  I think government is in violation on regular basis of national security argument.  The amount of stuff that is classified secret and shouldn't be is ludicrous.  I could compare what was secret and what wasn't.  

Q: (intro self as Sri Lankan Tamil, left country in 1977).  Most of the problems around the world is where government is not same as the people.  No outlet for disenfrachised people around the world.  That means always a significant amount of population whose voice not heard.  Tremendous amount of frustration amount people who are not part of established governments.

Demick:  Often something gets reported as humanitarian issue that is really a political issue.  As reporter, we are not supposed to take sides.  Facts don't make sense without outrage and passion.  But if get too outraged, get dismissed as a flake.  We are reporters, not activists..

Maass:  I think reporters try to find the people who are not represented.  We really do try to get out there.  The problem is when there are fewer readers.  In the future there are fewer people who are going to be overseas.  But other groups are going to have to get on board with the new technology (blogs, whatever) because there are going to be fewer foreign correspondents.

Roth:  There is a tendency of governments to identify with governments.  With human rights movements it's the opposite.  It would be a real loss if we just handed a megaphone to different groups.  It's a real problem.  If you look at economics, the institutions that have to survive on publishing newspapers are in trouble.  the ones that are working are NPR, living on contributions,  BBC.  But commercial enterprises are suffering.  Don't know the answer, but it's a huge loss.  

Dean Slaughter closing remarks:

Started out listening to Bob Putnam, and then evangelicals on demands of God, and Paul Slovic.  The morning was all about more is more.  what it takes to get active participation on issues of concern.  Putnam said it's about connections.  Religious citizens most involved because most connected.  Richest friendship networks.  But Slovic and this panel is about less is more.  Too easy to overwhelm people.  take it down from statistics to the one story that will somehow allow people to wrap their minds around it.  Moving it way down to the one connection. 

I take away from that, is that it's about making the political personal.  Taking what are very complicated political situations and bringing them to the point that you can make a personal connection.  It is easier to make a personal connection wtih one than with hundreds.  But it has to be the right story.  That allows us to make the connection, and that says we can do something about it.  We have to believe that we can make a difference and if we hand people the tools, that ultimately is the power of individuals to influence the policy.