Whose house is that? The MSF video
Yesterday’s blogosphere storm of criticism on the MSF video hit a soft spot in the humanitarian aid crowd. MSF wanted to change the way they’re showing what they’re doing. Some links to where the discussion took place: Osocio, The Road to the Horizon, Duckrabbit, Aidwatch and Aidthoughts.
MSF was aware of the change in portaying their work and asked for feedback, which they dealt with through engaging in the blogosphere. I myself largely agree with the criticism that MSF has crossed a line towards cheap tearjerking, but I especially like the point made in Aidthoughts that this is not the way we should talk about crisis zones.
Although I am critical towards the video, as far as I am concerned the real criticism should not target MSF alone, but also those who decide to donate to MSF because of cynical videos like these. After all, listeners and senders tune in to each other.
We talk about a video that only shows a bullet ridden house, while hearing a child’s constant crying. During the video some is said about what is happening and who is crying, and then comes is MSF’s message: donate otherwise can’t operate. Here it is. You don’t have to click it… it is not for the faint of heart.
Many fundraisers will tell you that the only thing drawing money from their pockets is a child in the picture (or a sound for that matter). Picturing a bad situation draws more attention (and money) than a positive message of how an organization’s support helps people overcoming the situation and doing something about it themselves.
But I think the video has more impact than just reinforcing our own cynicism.
Let me start by asking what the video means for the context it was filmed in. What conflict parties are there? Who caused the bullet holes? Who is the crying child? Who were its parents? Whose house is it? Is this the place they use as ER? Is it the place the sisters were raped? Or is it the place where the attack came from? Is it the attacker’s hide-out? What were the reasons for chosing to save this kid and not another? Is there a village nearby? Where are the neighbours? Who else could have helped on the scene? And so on… Questions like these blur the meaning of the video.
And yet, we mostly look at it from a victim’s perspective. That’s where most fundraising tends to be targeted. The video tells more about the potential donor’s perspective on the world than it does about the situation in itself.
Trying to see what it means for MSF’s work from a local perspective, I pick up even other possible interpretations:
- ‘we will help the victims’
- ‘because they can’t help themselves’
- ‘the situation will not change, if we don’t intervene’
Not saying anything about supporting local players, or about empowering those to create a better life for themselves, it rather conveys an idea of local apathy and weakness. There’s no word about what can be done, by working with victims, with perpretators, with society structures, or by with local organizations and activists. And it does not say what happens after MSF is leaving that bullet ridden place behind.
Granted, MSF is not known for their support in sustainable development, as they focus on emergency assistance. I certainly do not deny the need for emergency help, but it must be seen in a wider context. In not focusing on longer lasting impacts of your actions (including portraying your target group), you may forget that the way you represent a situation in the media has an adverse effect on the local people you wanted to help in the first place.
MSF, you can certainly do better than that!
If your going to debate the advert at least do it sensibly and based on facts. MSF did not disable any comments, so you should correct that in your blog post. They genuinely sought comment.
Can you explain how on earth MSF is supposed to do all the things that you suggest in your blog post in 45 seconds? Its an ADVERT and should be read in the language of advertising, not documentary.
Finally to criticize those who decide to donate seems arrogant beyond belief. Its the kind of attitude that leads to intolerance and totalitarianism, that denies plurality of action and thought. I’m not a fan of this advert but my wife is and she decided to donate. I’m glad she did because it shows that she cares and that makes for a better world.
Just to add to duckrabbitblog’s first point as this seems to be a common mistake made in a lot of blogs covering this issue. The MSF web site has never had the functionality to receive comments – it would be an impossibuility for me to ‘disable’ it. From the very beginning I have asked people to comment at the Osocio blog ( http://osocio.org/message/msf_we_cant_operate_without_your_help/ ) and that request and link is still present on our site. For a week we offered people the chance to comment by email to the MSF UK head of communications but the response was so massive that we took it down and referred everyone to the blogs. I would really appreciate it if you could correct this in your post as I have engaged with this debate as much as time has allowed (which has not been as much as I would have liked) and to try to suggest that MSF is ducking out of it is a little insulting, especially the way it seems to be gathering such momentum that it is the first thing many bloggers refer to.
I respect the opinions of the people who have written about the ad and the issues that surround it – it is valuable feedback that we don’t get enough of normally. That is why I am here (and on many of the blogs you list in your post), commenting.
Dear Pete Masters and duckrabbitblog,
Thanks for your reactions and feedback. I stand corrected on the point of MSF disabling the possibility to comment. And it’s also true that MSF entered the debate on the Oscocio blog and published the link on the MSF web site. Pete describes it well, I will edit the post accordingly. My apologies.
As to the points duckrabbitblog addressed,
A 60 second message is short yes, I don’t want to say that all that I have written should be part of the message. I want to say that some interpretations may be prevented. I do heart and support the work that MSF is doing. And I wouldn’t want to see it spoiled by one-dimensional adverts. As an alternative, I would in some way add some message about what MSF actually does to help and change the situation in such places as where this bullet-ridden house stands. I’m sure there is a lot to tell, and I’m sure the advert making pros can make something out of it.
As to arrogance beyond belief and the kind of attitude that leads to intolerance and totalitarianism… that sounds like hitting me with a base ball bat after I stepped on your toes.
My point was that in commercials – as in all communication – there is a sender and a receiver that are both part of the same system. Criticizing the sender (in this case MSF) is just one part of the picture. We, as consumers, are all responsible for the fact that these kind of adverts do actually work. I myself am part of it as well. I edited my remark in the post a little to reflect that thought.
Kees,
first off great blog, really interesting work … will add to duckrabbits links.
Secondly I’m afraid I misinterpreted what you originally wrote, apologies. I think I got a bit narked with how a few bloggers were trying to hit MSF over the head when they had genuinely encouraged debate. I can’t say that of any other NGO and I think whilst some of us might not like the advert we should applaud MSF’s openness, otherwise they will just take a closed stance. Has any other NGO engaged so much in a debate about their communications?
You are spot on we can’t separate sender and receiver. But even if we disagree with how the receiver responds I think its dangerous to criticize them.
Benjamin
Hi Benjamin,
Many thanks for your answer and your compliment. ‘Sparks may fly’ as you say on your blog :)
I completely agree with your remark about MSF’s openness. I think I jumped on the criticism wagon without forgetting the basic fact that MSF opened up the discussion themselves. I certainly wish more NGOs would do that.
As for the sender/receiver issue: I suppose any advert reflects a vision of society, and although I’m not completely comfortable in addressing the donor side of the picture, I do think we have to look at it. In any case, I edited my remark to be a little more diplomatic (I hope).
Kees