By Kristie Drucza
As a CEO I rarely find the time to attend webinars but with all the fake news surrounding Israel and Gaza, this one caught my eye: “The Truth is in the Telling: Shifting the Power in Communications” (See #GlobalPerspectives2023 #EthicalStorytelling #shiftingPower #InclusiveNarratives). The webinar asked some thought-provoking questions: What change potential does the very activity of storytelling have on the ‘storyteller’? Are we possibly too focused on audiences when the very process of storytelling could bring a change to the storytellers as well? I love these types of conversations and must admit that I have not done enough introspection on inclusive communications, apart from using inclusive language and images.
Shalini Moody (CEO MetroGroup SA) discussed the fear of storytelling in the Congo because of mistrust of the government. A client may come to her with a narrative but it may be different to the one the team and partners on the ground want or are willing to tell. A less top-down approach to choosing the narrative is required for inclusive communications.
Clare Spurrell Director of Strategy and Communications at Care International was the second panelist. She explained that obtaining informed consent with photos should be a 30-minute process (yes 30!) to make sure the photographed individuals are clear about how the photos will be used and how the story will be told. There is a real need for international development organisations to focus on a “do no harm” approach in storytelling.
David Verga Head of Brand and Creative at PATH emphasised the need to shift the narrative away from saviours and helpless victims in international development. There is also the need to focus on colleague’s and team journeys to enable them to tell their stories of empowerment and changes in awareness.
Levis Nderitu Global Head of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion PATH began by discussing unequal figures in international development: only 35% of CEOs in development are women; 60% of senior managers and leaders are international staff; less than 2% of humanitarian funding in Africa goes to African-led organisations. Development needs to value the lived experience more than the training and qualifications when choosing staff. The lack of DEI within organisations reinforces stereotypes because it shapes who owns the story, and who has a seat at the table. Therefore, it perpetuates half-truths and a mistelling of the story.
The general discussion was fascinating and touched on topics like throwing out photos that did not dignify the storyteller, the need for ethical storytelling toolkits (see here and here and here), different ways to build trust with communities such as having the ‘power to revoke’ and that this involves going back and checking again and again even though it is time consuming and costly.
Culturally appropriate storytelling was also discussed and how it can change over time. There is a need to contextualise story gathering as well as the meaning behind the story for the teller. An example from Afghanistan was given to illustrate how difficult this can be. Inclusive communicators were struggling over the conundrum of removing stories and pictures of empowered women in post-current-day Afghanistan, which then protects them, but also erases their voices. The option of contacting the woman in the photo is no longer possible. The ethical pathway is not always clear when stories and representations change over time.
Whose truth and what truth and for what reason was asked? A chat comment pondered: Constructing a collective story can be an amazingly empowering activity – but the truth does not always come out in the final product. The editor or someone else controls the final product and thus the framing of the story. Given the mainstream media is controlled and managed by powerful, vested interests, how can a powerless person ever completely tell their story?
The disconnect between the storyteller and the audience was also discussed. For example, there is the moral case and the business case. INGOs need public support and funds to continue to operate. Hence, they want the audience to stay engaged. So the question becomes, how to frame stories authentically and effectively but usually in a time-sensitive and cost-effective manner that appeals to an external audience educated in a different culture. These questions and conundrums are not easily solved.
All cultures have embedded values in their stories. Some stories are simple and when repeated emphasise their basic truths. However, if told by other cultures, the meaning can change in subtle but different ways. Today’s stories are even more complex and multi-faceted which clouds the essential truths (or myths) embedded in stories that are told to enrich a culture or acknowledge a person. Today’s stories do not always enrich – they entertain, collect followers, indoctrinate and generate revenue. With self-interested motives that may not align with the storyteller, there is a need for more ethics and checks and balances in communications – especially communications for international development where power relations are inherently unequal.
As international development is amidst a paradigm shift, where power is front and centre, rather than the elephant in the room, more discussions and spaces for reflection and debate are warranted. The media (and communications departments) have an important role to play in this shift, which is not limited to international development and aid. The situation in Gaza, the social media debates and the need for certain groups to control the narrative resonate, even outside aid debates. Who is telling the story, about whom and why remain very important questions.
Includovate (innovate for inclusion) began in 2019 with a vision for inclusive markets, businesses, states and institutions that provide all people with power, aspiration and the ability to innovate for their development and advancement. In 2023, international development is being decolonised, and we welcome this shift with open arms, no matter how painful and complex.