 So, does anyone have any questions or comments about? I think that in the infinite, writing about a developing country is very complicated, because if you go to travel there, you can dispose of it from the foreign ministry, from the AAT department that they will show that how well they are doing it, or with some kind of other interest that have more to show something to you. So, in that balance, it's quite easy to have a temptation to have more or less critical voices at the same time. And it's a slightly difficult to get some kind of balance view, or some kind of advice based view on what's happening. But how do you see, what do you think about this kind of spores or sips, do you, have you had any problems with it? Well, I think there's going to be discussion at a conference about sort of science journalists wearing different hats. So, you know, can you be an independent science journalist if you're receiving money from sort of a funding agency or something like that? I think there's sort of, it's a sliding scale and there's different levels of that kind of sponsorship. So, for example, side of net, I mean, 50% of our funding comes from aid agencies. So, DFID, CIDA and places like that fund us, but we're still independent and the sort of, our editorial output is fully independent of our funding. Precisely sort of, you're aware of it and you're aware of where your funding comes from. I think when you come, when you get into sort of more specific projects where specific output is paid for by, by different agencies or, you know, funds, I think it gets trickier. And I think, you know, most of these, most of these partnerships say that, you know, the editorial output is still independent, but I think it's very tricky to keep that independent. I think it is, it is probably challenging and I think I don't know how it's going to change in the future. But obviously, there will be discussions at this conference. So, I think it is, people are thinking about it and thinking how does this influence journalism that we do if someone's, you know, if someone's paying for it. I don't know. I mean, do you have any opinions yourself on the issue? I think that the problem is that usually, usually that what you don't see, you know, you have some problems with, or big forestry companies existing, but okay, you go there, you see something, you don't know what you don't see. On the other hand, we know that the shell, for instance, wanted to show so that there was something good and that generated extremely bad, extremely huge amount of bad will for shell, so it's not an easy issue or, of course, somehow, see what happens. Other really issue is that, what are the trends? Is it that they will make an interesting issue at all? What kind of, are we interested in North Africa or Asia or South Africa at all? Well, it seems to be. I think, I don't know, I mean, I work and live in London and I think in UK media, over the past few years, definitely, I think I'm seeing more and more stuff in the media, especially places like The Guardian, for example, they've started The Guardian development network and, you know, side-of-net news feature there. And I'm seeing more and more discussions about sort of this global issue of global development, I guess. But I think it's not so much aid per se, it's more about, you know, what they call global development and how do we, you know, get rid of poverty and how do we get food security, you know, to countries around the world. So I think in the UK media, at least, I'm seeing more and more of reports on those sorts of issues. And I think within the sort of science, journalism and science and development, I think certainly there are some voices and some people saying that we should cover private sector more. So, you know, if Shell is doing something really good, maybe we should write about it. I think traditionally we haven't really because you always had that perception that if it's a private company, you know, maybe they're doing, you know, greenwash, maybe they're just kind of doing it for their PR. So it's not clear always what the sort of objective benefits of their projects are. But I think, again, like there seems to be a bit of a push in covering those sorts of things. And even within the aid business, I think if you look at DFID and USAID, some of their new projects, they're kind of there to encourage the private sector and encourage the innovation of the private sector and sort of unleash private sector funding. So I think, again, there's more and more of that in the sector as well. I'd like to ask you if in London you face a problem which we have all the time in our newsrooms. Say the ambassador of some important European Union nation has a ceremony with our minister of finance or as we now would call them Cabinet Secretary for Finance and they are giving X million dollars say to fight malaria. And we give it a very small mention because it was just a signing ceremony. But since they invited the press, we may not even use a photo. And that same week, you know, someone like Julia Roberts comes as goodwill ambassador for some small American and governmental organization nobody has even heard of. And you know, we have her photo prominently Julia Roberts on this and that and that was at this lamb. It'd be carrying a little baby, very photogenic, etc. And the communications people at the embassy will call and say, what's wrong with you people? We have a story here which is going to save about 100,000 children, giving them clean water or providing them with treatment for malaria. And you give us two qualities and they say the woman comes and she doesn't even know which country she's in and you give her half a page. And it's hard to explain that people are actually interested that I'm using Julia Roberts, actually another film star in mind, but she's never come to Kenya as far as I'm aware. But some are just as beautiful, many of them. And that's news to the public. Both are public health stories, but one in our eyes is more exciting, more sexy than the other. Do you get such complaints at your level? Not so much complaints, but I think there's definitely a challenge there because I think we all want to have readers and we all want to have more readers. And I think with the online media, you know, you want more readers, you want more hits. And stories like that, you know, Julia Roberts is going to get more views than the story about finance minister meeting someone else. So I think that's the problem. How do you maintain your audience and your impact as a media organization by doing serious stories, you know, doing stories on science and development and doing stories about aid, you know, covering this new study that, you know, that showed that aid does work when, you know, your competitor is doing something about this celebrity who's, you know, they're going to get better pictures, better headlines, more views. So I think that's a challenge and it's kind of a general challenge to do with online media, I think, that's affecting all of us. And, yeah, I don't think we get complaints so much because we don't really do celebrity stories. So for Side of Net, at least we stick to serious stories. But I think that's definitely a growing challenge, especially for sort of commercial media that have to worry about those sorts of things. But even us, I mean, at Side of Net, we have to, you know, we have to present to our funders, you know, how many readers did we have. So to us, again, it matters how many readers we get. But we try not to get, I guess, you know, readers by having celebrities or we try to get readers by covering serious and relevant stories in an accessible way. But I think that's part, it's very interesting what you said because it's part of a global trend of sort of how do you reconcile those two things. And it also goes back to something what the first speaker said was about, you know, for example, climate change and how come that one skeptic is getting quoted when everyone, all the academics are not. And again, that's a big problem for climate change reporting. It's similar in, you know, evolution science reporting. And I think some of the aid stuff, I mean, if you look at the reports of aid and the sort of columns in British newspapers, American newspapers, I think, again, it kind of relates to bigger sort of narratives within those countries and sort of, you know, political divide between the left and the right. And, you know, the left sort of leaning reporters are more likely to cover stories like yours and say aid really does work, whereas then you see this sort of opposition saying, actually, no, we shouldn't be giving aid to these countries and aid doesn't work. And I think kind of links back to that as well. And I think we can't sort of ignore those other narratives and political issues that media are embedded in. And again, the economic crisis as well, I think, that played a role as well because I think now when you see aid stories, you know, they're often put with that background of economic crisis and should we be giving all this aid money now when we are actually in the West having less and less money to spend? And I think certainly when you talk about UK aid spending, you know, people say sort of David Cameron's government is doing quite well to be, you know, still be giving their 0.7% of GDP to aid even against this sort of bad economy. And I think all of these things link in. I don't think it's always sort of fair to say, oh, it's the journalist's fault, so they're not picking up our stories. And I think, yeah, I think it's not always journalists who are even choosing or picking stories. I think it's often editors and producers, publishers. No, I mean, I hope that I meant to just try to get some discussion going. I am also recognizing that newspapers have to be so that so on and so forth. At the same time, thinking about, now you mentioned the aid debate in the UK, there was this so-called large commission in the UK on foreign aid, right? And then you had this so-called distinguished professor who appeared to give his, what do you call it, witness or testimony. And you have this guy going on and on. And then he talks about aid doesn't work. Just look at Vietnam. There you really see what the private sector can do. Now which country in the world received most aid for 20 years up until 2008 in absolute terms? Vietnam. I mean, it's just, I mean, for me, it's just kind of an illustration of this thing that sometimes, that would, I mean, I may be wrong, but I mean, isn't that a good story that somebody called himself a distinguished professor and stands there and elaborates and elaborates and elaborates and he doesn't have even his basic facts in order. I would have thought that was a story. But if anyone knows that, yeah, I think if people notice that he doesn't have the facts straight, but I think as a journalist, you trust that people like him are saying good things. And I think, again, it links back to this online media and everything has to be online now. So I think just the other days, so David Cameron announced 5 billion, sorry, 15 million pounds to this new initiative. And within minutes it was up on the Guardian website. It's sort of same, almost the same as the actual press release. So the journalists didn't really go and talk to anyone about is this really needed or how is it going to be spent, what are these innovations going to be like. They just kind of took the press release. And I think that's probably similar to what you're referring to as well. But sort of, I think it's a pressure from online media. As in your sources, how do you see the African universities and research institutions as a source of your reporting? Of course, and in Finland we know, unlike in Sweden where the nation is on stress, the top of the price is not the first trial of research. But it seems that there is, they say it's also happening in the moment that you're also the universities that they haven't got any more such education on these issues but also generating information. Yeah, well I think that's sort of an acknowledged challenge for African universities that don't have necessarily good press release, press offices and press releases and even sort of the African journals and academic institutions don't push their content as much. So I think it's always a challenge to get their stories unless you have journalists on the ground who have good contacts and who go and attend various workshops and talk to scientists. But for us, definitely we have that network in Africa. So I think we do report a lot on African universities and their research. But it's really, for us, I mean it really depends on those people who live in those countries and know those people. So you know, they know researchers or have good links with local universities and they can go and attend their events. I think if it wasn't for that, if we just had western journalists sitting in the office in London or travelling to Africa, I think that would be much more difficult and much more challenging. But another thing I think for us at Side of Net, to us it comes easy to report on sort of sudden view of development and of aid because we have people from those countries, citizens of those countries reporting for us. Whereas you often see western journalists going to Africa sometimes for the first time and then they write these stories about how surprised they were or how they found this fantastic research project and they didn't realise how well it was running. And I think it's because a lot of western journalists don't have that experience. So they've never been to Africa. They don't know what's happening. So you know, you're writing, you're part of this sort of western culture and you sort of assume Africa is not doing well and it needs aid or it's not doing much to help it. And I think those sort of framing of stories probably comes through for some journalists. And I think it's good to have more journalists in Africa writing about aid and writing about Africa because then you get a different picture, you get more views from recipients of aid and from people to whom it matters. I'd like to give the last word to Wycliffe. I mean, when you write for the star and when you comment for BBC, what's the difference for you, Gamin? There are two fundamental differences. First of all, there's what had called shared assumptions. Like one of the points I wanted to make, I had listed, that was not really important but still something called NEPAD, New Partnership for Africa Development. It was very big news about five to ten years ago. In Africa, if you said NEPAD, most people have an idea what you're talking about. If you are commenting for global radio, you'd better explain its new partnership for African development which was initiated by the following presidents at this time for this reason, etc. So, you can't assume that people are aware. You also can't assume that they're aware that malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes. You'd have to explain that people living there, swampy places, where there's plenty of malaria, where they would be bitten, etc. So, that's the first thing, you cannot assume that people understand. Then secondly, you need to be willing to oppose what I'd call local received wisdom. There are so many assumptions, especially on the subject of economics. Most people would tell you, we need more aid, not less. I mean, you mentioned that Bisa Moyo. The only time I find myself arguing about them, Bisa Moyo is when I'm outside Kenya. In Kenya, nobody cares. Nobody knows. Bill Eastley has zero influence. I'm not saying that that's a good thing. I'm just telling you what the situation is. What they care about is can we get more aid? Because as I said, their personal experience is they have seen somewhere where the French government brought a new water project and people benefited. The Japanese government built a bridge where there was no bridge and people benefited. The US government distributed free antiretrovirals and people who are HIV positive, they're live the same. So, we tend to see aid in those terms. And surprisingly often, because although it's reported by London and based in Kenya, what I do is what is called a letter from Africa. It used to be every week, but my current job makes it very difficult. Maybe I'll talk about once a month. And on all these things, I find even my editors in London who are very well informed journalists, I mean, the BBC is a big thing. They already asked me, are you sure? So, very often when I submit what I want to record for my commentary, I have to give them a list to fact check. For example, if I say the inflation rate is so much or interest rates are so much, they say, what, is it that high? Or if I say so many lives have been saved, I indicate which newspaper did I get it from or which report of the nation I get it from. So, you have to understand that you are essentially preaching to people who have no real idea what you're talking about and you have to explain everything in some detail. Whereas in Kenya, if I'm writing for the local paper, there are so many things which I can take for granted the public already knows. So, you almost take shortcuts and you just get to the heart of it because you don't have to explain everything from scratch. And it's actually very demanding. I also used to be a columnist from a magazine called African Business which is based in London, just all over Africa. And it was exactly the same. The editors would ask me, are you sure of this? Are you sure of this? Because they didn't know. And these are things I took for granted. So, it's actually very difficult writing globally and locally because it requires a constant shift of perspective. And that's how I was criticising Finn because his perspective, in my view, is only one way of looking at a very, very complex picture. If you look at it in terms of the impact on the lives of real people on the ground, I'd agree with him completely that foreign aid has been a huge success. But I would disagree with him because it's terribly addicting. People get used to interventions from outside. And they stop looking for their own solutions. Again, I speculate about how much wrong I need to be criticised. Thank you so much for coming here. It's been a great afternoon. I mean, the discussion could probably have continued for quite a while. And I think thank you, Finn. Thank you, speakers, for coming here and contributing to this discussion.