A leading UK newspaper recently reported a warning by Britain that lives are being lost because of a lack of U.N. leadership in responding to humanitarian crises. It sounds like a strong story, doesn't it? While not exactly inaccurate, it's a striking example of the problems humanitarians face in dealing with a story-hungry media.

The report was based on a speech given by Gareth Thomas MP, the UK Secretary of State for International Development, to the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) in Geneva in October. In it he set out five key changes necessary to deal with humanitarian crises in a world being buffeted by climate change, rising food prices and financial meltdown. His points covered stronger in-country leadership from the U.N.; better coordination across all agencies with more support to the U.N.; more and better humanitarian funding, especially from the USA; greater accountability to aid recipients and sustained political commitment from all quarters. He highlighted how these issues were ever more important in a world facing rising numbers of disasters.

These are good suggestions and - if backed with political will - have the potential to make a real difference for disaster affected people around the world.

But the article didn't mention any of this. Its report instead focused on one particular element: that the key problem with the humanitarian system was a lack of properly trained or appropriate U.N. humanitarian coordinators to oversee disaster relief in operational settings. By positioning the story as a "warning" from Britain, the sense of drama and tension in the story was heightened.

While not incorrect or false, it was hard not to see this is as yet another example of the media absorbing a nuanced, complex narrative and broadcasting a partial and over-simplified message. From a humanitarian perspective, this process usually results in one of two stories. Story 1 = passive victims of disaster being helped by heroic aid agencies. Story 2 = passive victims failed by incompetent, slow or - at worst - culpable aid agencies. The second was certainly the prevailing message in the recent coverage.

I work in a sector that is in many ways reliant on the media (and increasingly interdependent with it - see Glenda Cooper's excellent work on this), and so I am aware of the hypocrisy of nipping at the hand that feeds me. It goes without saying that editorial independence is paramount. And many journalists are genuinely dedicated to 'telling the real story' and 'making a difference' and yet when it comes to humanitarian issues still they frequently fail to give a balanced and rounded picture.

Why does this happen? Is it because of the corporate or editorial interests that shape and control media? Conor Foley has suggested that maybe we are all just tired of conflicts and disasters. Or is it because - as Nick Davies says - "the ethic of honesty has been overwhelmed by the mass production of ignorance"? Or is Nik Gowing of the BBC right in attributing the flawed nature of media reporting around humanitarian issues to the 'tyranny of real-time'? In addition to limited budgets, this leaves journalists with a perennial choice between speed and accuracy. Just as it is important not to automatically see aid agencies as angelic do-gooders, it is equally important not to view news agencies as purely cynical.

But the context matters here. Over the summer, the Financial Times ran a series of editorials on the topic of aid transparency among UK NGOs. A big play was made of the lack of openness around evaluation reports. The editorials took the Disasters Emergency Committee - the British humanitarian NGO fundraising umbrella body - to task for not doing independent evaluations; for not putting these evaluation reports in the public domain and for leaving responsibility for evaluations down to individual NGO members. They called for more transparency and external scrutiny of the way that monies had been spent. Mike Walsh, Chair of the DEC, has in turn defended the new DEC approach to transparency and accountability.

While this debate is important, I think the key point here is about the perception of aid agencies. Lack of independent scrutiny and openness fosters a feeling that there is something to hide even when agencies have done a good job. Therefore, an 'opaque insiderism' is seen to prevail in aid agencies - or as the FT described the DEC - "a cosy club" with "few incentives to change".

Interestingly, ITV News Editor Tim Singleton has suggested that it is exactly the aid agencies' fear of being compromised or exposed by the media that encourages shallow, over-simplistic coverage of humanitarian issues.

Whatever the cause, and while not trying to be an apologist for aid agencies, I think it is important to point out that there are two sides to this game. Aid agencies clearly need to be better at learning from problems and mistakes in the aid delivery process. But what is also needed is for journalists to stop automatically equating problems and mistakes in humanitarian aid with dramas and scandals.

In this regard, the recent coverage failed. When even ministers' speeches can be reported as we saw - at best partially covered and over-simplified - what are the incentives for agencies to be more transparent? Evaluation and detailed assessments include both good and bad practices, but when journalists just seem to want to hunt down potential scandals, it seems rational for aid agencies to keep their assessments behind closed doors.

Relief work is challenging enough without having to simultaneously fight media fires. In June of this year, the ALNAP network of international relief agencies brought together journalists and aid workers at an international conference to forge a new agenda for relations between the media and humanitarian world. Veteran BBC journalist Kate Adie, who chaired the event, spoke eloquently of the need for journalists and the media to have mutual respect for each others' work whilst at the same time holding each other accountable.

The media certainly have the potential to hold the humanitarian community to account. But there are few mechanisms to hold the media to account, and the relationship is far from mutually respectful. Instead we have aid agencies nervous of their failings being blown out of proportion, while the media alternately highlights the suffering of crisis-affected people, or wags admonishing fingers at the aid agencies.

While selective, simplistic and formulaic reporting may make for more vivid journalism, the cost for both the media and humanitarian agencies in terms of accuracy, balance and overall credibility may be high. In the media coverage of humanitarian crises, the first victim is nuance.

So, how to start changing the situation? Aid agencies could collectively decide that public trust is important, and that it can only be built through more openness and honesty. This would mean aid agencies going through a public process of learning. This will not be a comfortable ride. It probably means they need to swing with the punches and knocks that will be felt in the short-term, with eyes firmly fixed on the long-term benefits for the collective reputation and health of the sector.

Simultaneously, the media could recognise that their efforts to encourage more openness among aid agencies can be damaged by a single over-simplistic headline - and that their 'business-as-usual' approach to reporting humanitarian issues can itself be damaging and run counter to aid agency transparency.

Both sectors have some way to go, certainly. But a bit more mutual respect would be a good start.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.