Can Human Rights Watch, the NGO that’s eyeing a significant role in the world of journalism, muster the credibility needed to deliver the news even as it acts as advocate for human rights?
That’s the kind of question journalists sometimes ask when they hear that NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others are aspiring to fill some of the void created by the shrinkage of news operations. But it’s not a question that concerns Carroll Bogert.
“I would say that in general, we do much more than journalists do to assure we have the facts right,” said Bogert, Human Rights Watch’s associate director.
As Human Rights Watch ramps up a strategy to use its vast, worldwide research to fill growing gaps in news coverage, Bogert’s concern is a different one – and it’s something that might surprise journalists. The fact is that some of the nonprofit’s 75-80 researchers aren’t thrilled with the idea of seeing their work translated, in-house, into journalism.
“Journalism to a lot of people means sloppy, it means fast,” said Bogert. “People are worried about whether that would change what we do.”
Not many approach this question from a better position than Bogert, who was a foreign reporter and then editor at Newsweek before joining Human Rights Watch. And not many NGOs are better positioned to test their ability to morph into a news-providing role than this one, with staffers monitoring rights violations in 80 countries worldwide.
Bogert has hired a small group of journalists (mostly video and audio editors/producers) to convert the organization’s typically long, dry reports into video clips aimed at news consumers. A recent report documented how Hamas used the recent battle in Gaza as cover for attacking political opponents there.
While video reports such as this, which rely on the group’s in-depth research, are on the rise, Human Rights Watch had envisioned adding on the journalism component at a more rapid pace. But the economic collapse has slowed things down. “The world I envisioned, in which NGOs took over more reporting responsibilities, I think it’s still the overall trendline. But it’s not going to happen as quickly.”
When I called Bogert to talk about the issue of NGOs expanding into a kind of news organization, I started out with this question of credibility. Can Human Rights Watch, with its blend of research and advocacy, be a trusted news source?
Her answer: In the credibility game, it’s likely to surpass traditional news organizations with the quality of its fact finding and ethic of transparency.
Then she turned the tables, talking about how the bigger question for HRW staffers is whether its research powerhouse can reside successfully with journalism.
In fact, at Human Rights Watch she steers away from the word “journalism” altogether, opting for the acronym DIPS (Digestible Information Products) to describe the process of turning in-depth research into news.
Human Rights Watch’s reports of abuse around the world are “deliberately dry, sober, unemotional because we’re chronicling some of the most catastrophic developments.” So we use a kind of legalistic, downplaying style.”
That’s not exactly the tone most journalists strive for.
Another concern among Human Rights Watch staffers is that the journalism operation could end up driving research and advocacy decisions.
“That’s not going to happen,” said Bogert. “The people who create the (news version) are not going to go to the research staff and say you should be researching this or that.”
In one way, Bogert says Human Rights Watch has long been in the news business, but at one edge of the spectrum. It provides deep research and analysis, but in a form that is “just way too boring to read,” she said.
Translating that research into a “digestible” form, as opposed to a “dumbed-down” version, might accomplish two things: contribute to the public pool of news and information, and help Human Rights Watch get the word out about its work.