Why is it only bad news that makes the headlines?
We are all aware of the influence the media can have in shaping our views of the world, and we ask do the media have a responsibility to the local people as well as their readers?
Anyone would be forgiven for thinking it is safer to stay at home; with terrible events happening around the world, you don’t know where disaster will strike next.
Horror stories of people going through ‘ordeals’ while on holiday seem to be exacerbated by the fact it happened abroad. The threat of armed conflict in a certain location deems the entire country unsafe.
Positive events such as the rains starting after a drought or conflicts ending, as seen for example recently in Nepal, rarely make the headlines. But why is it that these issues are not put in perspective, and we only hear about the bad things?
Conflicts in Nepal have frequently made the headlines in the last few years. Now, for the first time in 10 years, peace is in sight after a peace accord was signed earlier this month ( read more here). Unfortunately this news hasn’t been broadcast to the same extent as the conflicts have, leaving the Nepalese tourism industry dealing with the aftermath even longer due to people’s perceptions not being adjusted. This is partly due to the fact that this news was hardly covered by UK media.
Sri Lanka is another example of a country that has suffered several set-backs that made the news. The terrible scenes that the tsunami caused, seem to be etched in our memories. Any reluctance to visit a country that is still recovering from a disaster on this scale is not helped by reports of violence near tourist hot spots.
But public perception is often very different from personal experience. Anna Best, who travelled to Sri Lanka very recently, says: “We toured most of Sri Lanka, apart from the North, and at no time did we feel unsafe in any way. There were some road blocks in the more sensitive areas, and there was heavy security in Colombo itself, but the greatest worry for most of the locals seemed to be the lack of tourists and consequently the worsening economic situation.”
The knock-on effects of travellers avoiding these countries can be disastrous for local communities, as Lars Sorenson, an accommodation operator in Sri Lanka, illustrates: “In Sri Lanka there are 100% negative expectations and no realistic hope for the tourism industry. It’s difficult to work against the totally bad media coverage on Sri Lanka. There are other countries in the world - tourists can easily find good alternatives.”
Whereas large tour operators can focus on different destinations, local operators haven't got this option and are therefore much worse affected. The benefit local operators do have is that they know exactly what is happening in the destination.
Ruban Jayathas, who runs a local Sri Lankan tour operator, explains: “The media has painted a picture to travellers portraying danger as an imminent eventuality should you visit Sri Lanka. A lack of counter propaganda has led to declining arrivals so much so that we and many other smaller operators are facing closure if this continues.”
He adds: “It is true that there were two attacks in close proximity to tourist hot spots but it is imperative to understand that these attacks were not targeted at tourists. In fact in the 20 year history of this conflict foreigners have never been targeted.
”The bottom line is however that Sri Lanka is a safe destination. Areas like Polonnaruwa, Nuwara Eliya, Yala and even the beach hotspots like Bentota have never seen any violence in the 20 year conflict and even today hold little or no importance strategically for either party. Therefore it is completely safe to travel to these areas.”
Anna Best explains her reasons for travelling to Sri Lanka despite the negative publicity: “We wanted to support the tourist industry there as they seem to have had nothing but bad luck over the last few years with the tsunami and the current troubles. We read the advice from the Foreign Office & asked the opinion of our Sri Lankan tour operator, and were persuaded that there was very little risk indeed of being caught up in any hostilities."
She sympathises: ”On the coast there was still much evidence of the devastation from the tsunami, though the hotel we stayed in had been refurbished and was stunning in all ways.
However, with only 16 guests and 150 rooms, the management and staff were open in their concern for the future. I think the important thing to remember about the current long-running conflict in Sri Lanka is that it is an internal problem and tourists have never been targeted in any way. There is always some small risk of course, but I think the possibility of being caught up in a hostile situation would be most unlikely.”
Stories similar to Sri Lanka’s plight have been repeated many times across the globe: famine and poverty in Kenya, Ethiopia and other African countries; bombings in Egypt; the threat of terrorism in various Islamic countries. However, it’s not just developing countries far away that suffer from this phenomenon.
For example, after the foot & mouth crisis in Britain, 14% fewer Canadians visited Britain in the first 9 months of 2001 due to the high profile coverage of the crisis in Canadian media. While Western countries suffer, the effects are usually not as devastating as they can be for developing countries.
Public perception plays an important role in the tourism industry. The way the media operate means that news stories have to be prioritised and 'bad' news is usually ranked more highly. Unfortunately in some cases, no amount of marketing can undo the damage done and it takes time to improve a country’s image.
Our advice to anyone considering travelling to a location that has suffered negative publicity is to research the destination, perhaps with the help of a local operator, find out what the FCO advice is and weigh up in reality how much of an extra risk you are taking. Finally, remind yourself what your visit will mean to the people and economy of the country you're visiting. This may just be all the encouragement you need to take the road (temporarily) less trodden.
Links By Iris Coates, responsibletravel.com, Nov '06
Anyone would be forgiven for thinking it is safer to stay at home; with terrible events happening around the world, you don’t know where disaster will strike next. Horror stories of people going through ‘ordeals’ while on holiday seem to be exacerbated by the fact it happened abroad. The threat of armed conflict in a certain location deems the entire country unsafe.
Positive events such as the rains starting after a drought or conflicts ending, as seen for example recently in Nepal, rarely make the headlines. But why is it that these issues are not put in perspective, and we only hear about the bad things?
Conflicts in Nepal have frequently made the headlines in the last few years. Now, for the first time in 10 years, peace is in sight after a peace accord was signed earlier this month ( read more here). Unfortunately this news hasn’t been broadcast to the same extent as the conflicts have, leaving the Nepalese tourism industry dealing with the aftermath even longer due to people’s perceptions not being adjusted. This is partly due to the fact that this news was hardly covered by UK media.
Sri Lanka is another example of a country that has suffered several set-backs that made the news. The terrible scenes that the tsunami caused, seem to be etched in our memories. Any reluctance to visit a country that is still recovering from a disaster on this scale is not helped by reports of violence near tourist hot spots.
But public perception is often very different from personal experience. Anna Best, who travelled to Sri Lanka very recently, says: “We toured most of Sri Lanka, apart from the North, and at no time did we feel unsafe in any way. There were some road blocks in the more sensitive areas, and there was heavy security in Colombo itself, but the greatest worry for most of the locals seemed to be the lack of tourists and consequently the worsening economic situation.”
The knock-on effects of travellers avoiding these countries can be disastrous for local communities, as Lars Sorenson, an accommodation operator in Sri Lanka, illustrates: “In Sri Lanka there are 100% negative expectations and no realistic hope for the tourism industry. It’s difficult to work against the totally bad media coverage on Sri Lanka. There are other countries in the world - tourists can easily find good alternatives.” Whereas large tour operators can focus on different destinations, local operators haven't got this option and are therefore much worse affected. The benefit local operators do have is that they know exactly what is happening in the destination.
Ruban Jayathas, who runs a local Sri Lankan tour operator, explains: “The media has painted a picture to travellers portraying danger as an imminent eventuality should you visit Sri Lanka. A lack of counter propaganda has led to declining arrivals so much so that we and many other smaller operators are facing closure if this continues.”
He adds: “It is true that there were two attacks in close proximity to tourist hot spots but it is imperative to understand that these attacks were not targeted at tourists. In fact in the 20 year history of this conflict foreigners have never been targeted.
”The bottom line is however that Sri Lanka is a safe destination. Areas like Polonnaruwa, Nuwara Eliya, Yala and even the beach hotspots like Bentota have never seen any violence in the 20 year conflict and even today hold little or no importance strategically for either party. Therefore it is completely safe to travel to these areas.”
Anna Best explains her reasons for travelling to Sri Lanka despite the negative publicity: “We wanted to support the tourist industry there as they seem to have had nothing but bad luck over the last few years with the tsunami and the current troubles. We read the advice from the Foreign Office & asked the opinion of our Sri Lankan tour operator, and were persuaded that there was very little risk indeed of being caught up in any hostilities."
She sympathises: ”On the coast there was still much evidence of the devastation from the tsunami, though the hotel we stayed in had been refurbished and was stunning in all ways. However, with only 16 guests and 150 rooms, the management and staff were open in their concern for the future. I think the important thing to remember about the current long-running conflict in Sri Lanka is that it is an internal problem and tourists have never been targeted in any way. There is always some small risk of course, but I think the possibility of being caught up in a hostile situation would be most unlikely.”
Stories similar to Sri Lanka’s plight have been repeated many times across the globe: famine and poverty in Kenya, Ethiopia and other African countries; bombings in Egypt; the threat of terrorism in various Islamic countries. However, it’s not just developing countries far away that suffer from this phenomenon.
For example, after the foot & mouth crisis in Britain, 14% fewer Canadians visited Britain in the first 9 months of 2001 due to the high profile coverage of the crisis in Canadian media. While Western countries suffer, the effects are usually not as devastating as they can be for developing countries.
Public perception plays an important role in the tourism industry. The way the media operate means that news stories have to be prioritised and 'bad' news is usually ranked more highly. Unfortunately in some cases, no amount of marketing can undo the damage done and it takes time to improve a country’s image.
Our advice to anyone considering travelling to a location that has suffered negative publicity is to research the destination, perhaps with the help of a local operator, find out what the FCO advice is and weigh up in reality how much of an extra risk you are taking. Finally, remind yourself what your visit will mean to the people and economy of the country you're visiting. This may just be all the encouragement you need to take the road (temporarily) less trodden.
Links By Iris Coates, responsibletravel.com, Nov '06