Pack up the parachutes. It’s time to rethink the work of foreign correspondents.

Images from Shutterstock; composite illustration by Rishad Patel

When I first became a journalist, I wanted to be an international correspondent. I was excited by the idea of travelling from country to country, reporting story after story.

Foreign correspondents were among the most visible, and coolest, role models. I was awed by reporters whose conversations were peppered with mentions of “when I was in Syria…”, “that reminds me of that story I reported in Moscow”, “that time in Mongolia…”

Staying in one country and reporting locally felt like something rookies did; “making it” as a journalist meant going abroad and showing up wherever the “biggest” stories were.

Cracks revealed

It was only after gaining more experience that I began to see the cracks in the international correspondent model. Observing coverage of Singapore, I saw how unfamiliarity and lack of context led to caricatured characterisations, simplistic conclusions, or susceptibility to being wined and dined by powerful people with PR messages to push.

I've watched foreign writers imbibe everything my government pushed out because they didn't have enough background information to push back, or recognise bullshit in the first place. I’ve seen TV correspondents hop into the country and do interviews that were really just about getting the right soundbites (the segment will only be six minutes long anyway).

I came to realise that, while globe-trotting is very cool, this correspondent model often fails to produce stories that enrich our understanding of other countries and contexts, and regularly reproduces the colonial gaze and power imbalances that others are struggling to dismantle.

CNN fumbles

This subject has surfaced again in the light of CNN’s decision to fly their chief international correspondent, Clarissa Ward, into Myanmar to report on the coup and ongoing protests. The organisation has since been slammed for dealing with the Myanmar junta’s hired lobbyist, erasing the work of journalists already on the ground, and putting people in harm’s way, for little purpose other than their own bragging rights.

There was simply no good reason why Ward had to be flown into Myanmar, why she had to be the one to be on camera. The ability to say that they were the first international media organisation to be allowed to enter Myanmar during this period served no one except CNN itself—and wasn’t even true, since a Southeast Asia Globe journalist reporting on behalf of Al Jazeera English was also on the trip. At least eleven people were arrested just so CNN could have things we already knew reported out of a white woman’s mouth.

TWEET

The current correspondent model reproduces the colonial gaze and power imbalances that others are struggling to dismantle.

Clarissa Ward’s trip to Myanmar sparks criticism in the industry over CNN’s arrangement for access with the military.

Rethinking parachutes

This whole sorry situation is a perfect exhibit of how the international correspondent model needs to be massively rethought, perhaps even got rid of.

I’m not making some nativist claim that only born-and-bred locals can report on their own countries. Not all foreign journalists are parachutists, and there are many who produce excellent work from and about countries other than their own. Some are so embedded within a country or a region, so deeply informed, that sometimes even locals defer to them for knowledge and analysis. Others might be newer arrivals, but approach their work thoughtfully, with self-awareness, humility, and respect for those whose experience far outstrips theirs.

There are also examples of how the presence of foreign journalists can help. When I was chief editor of New Naratif, I had a dream of running a Southeast Asian platform with only Southeast Asian bylines. I wanted to directly commission local reporters in every Southeast Asian country, because so many Southeast Asian stories published in English are written by foreigners.

Then I noticed that pitches coming to us from countries like Cambodia were almost always sent by foreign-local duos. I learnt that this was a common arrangement, with each side playing to their strengths: the local reporter would do interviews in Khmer and provide background and context, while the foreign journalist would edit/rewrite copy to fix English grammar and syntax, finesse the piece into the styles and structures preferred by English-language news publications, and deal with English-speaking editors. Bylines and fees were shared to reflect the teamwork that went into bringing the story to light.

This seems like a fair arrangement to me. Even within this formulation, the most thoughtful foreign reporters I’ve met have talked about how the ultimate goal is to build local capacity; to get the journalism industry in countries like Cambodia to a place where more and more Cambodian journalists can report for regional and international publications without the mediation of foreigners.

Language skills can be learnt and networks can be built. There’s no reason why foreign reporters should be the gatekeepers of contacts to editors of international publications.

CNN’s mess of a Myanmar trip is the latest reminder that we should scrutinise how the English-language journalism industry functions: whose voices/faces/perspectives are valued, and how the rush to say “we were the first” or “we were there” can overshadow more important questions about purpose, responsibility, and intentionality.

The practice of dispatching white reporters to “exotic” climes to report on the natives has always been problematic, but now there’s no excuse. There are many more options and many more ways in which we journalists can work together to inform and amplify.

But first, it’s time to pack up those parachutes.

TRANSPARENCY

We co-wrote a petition calling for transparency around CNN’s negotiated access into Myanmar. Sign it here.