It took a couple days, but I was finally able to download the video of Bill and Melinda Gates' Why We Are Impatient Optimists presentation (well, most of it at least). I firmly support the aim of their campaign - to build a broader base of support for global health aid efforts. I also strongly believe in the strategy behind The Living Proof Project - to reframe the narrative surrounding global health from one of problems and pessimism to one of progress and optimism (full disclosure: I worked with Gates on the research and strategy behind this project). But unfortunately, I think the execution of this particular event fell a bit flat. This was meant to be Bill Gates' Al Gore moment. But the inconvenient truth of Gates' Impatient Optimism is that Bill Gates is not well suited to be the spokesperson for this movement. I don't believe the fortune he's invested has bought him the authenticity (or eloquence) needed to mobilize millions of people to get behind global health. Further, despite Bill Gates' many talents, gifted orator is not one. Don't get me wrong, The Gates Foundation has been an enormous catalyst for renewed energy and commitment to solving the health problems of the world's poor. And they've wisely poached some of the best minds in global health to help them invest their billions. But I think they would have been well advised to apply their practice of expert poaching to the position of evangelist for their advocacy campaign.
Beyond the issue of casting, the script left a bit to be desired as well. They tried to pack a lot into this presentation. Consequently, I think the story was over-simplified. They also spent too much time defending the aid model of the past half century and not enough time convincing the audience that a new era of aid accountability, effectiveness, and progress is upon us. To commit to this cause, people need to feel that things are different now. Too much of this talk implicitly suggested that business-as-usual is working, which most people don't buy. Gates talked about the impact of new investments to reducing child mortality but he didn't address the overriding issue of intervention delivery and uptake. Which, in effect, suggests we simply need to invest more money into a model that many people don't believe works. In the "answering our skeptics" segment, Gates did address the chief complaint against foreign aid - no accountability. But as Aid Watch rightfully remarked, he was unclear about how you identify the corrupt link in the chain. In my mind, this should have been the golden moment in Gates' pitch. His chance to drive home the argument that US investments in global health are directly reaching those most in need. This is the biggest point of tension in the global health debate. The stories of aid recipients scattered throughout the presentation helped demonstrate that support is reaching those in need. But quantifiable evidence was conspicuously absent.
Many will accuse this presentation of just preaching to the converted. And I agree. But I don't believe this should be taken as a criticism. This presentation is clearly one part of a larger campaign to mobilize support for global health funding. Yes, the overall aim of the effort is to persuade undecided policy makers, elected officials, and citizens to join their cause. This presentation, however, should be viewed as a first step to mobilizing a broader effort. Opinions aren't changed with one webcast. It will take time for a new global health narrative to take root. And we would be foolish to evaluate the impact of this project on a single point in time. Even Al Gore's Oscar winning Power Point did little to change people's opinion on climate change. Rather, it simply made the believers believe stronger. But Gore and his team understood the limitations of his book and film. Which is why they trained an army of advocates to give Gore's presentation. This under-acknowledged grassroots mobilization of an Inconvenient Truth is perhaps principally responsible for reframing the climate change narrative from a fringe cause of environmental activists to a mainstream movement of responsible citizens. It appears that The Living Proof Project is wisely taking a page from Gore's playbook. Melinda encouraged those watching to submit their own success stories and help share the evidence of progress underway. And I suspect my immensely talented colleagues already have a plan in place to facilitate broader participation in their project.
It is far too early to tell what effect, if any, The Living Proof Project will have. As far as internet memes go, Gates' mosquito stunt at TED spread much faster and further. But the true measure of this effort's impact should be evaluated over time by:
- Tracking key attitudes and perceptions about global health and foreign aid among the aforementioned target audience (data referenced in my previous post would serve as a benchmark).
- A framing analysis of media coverage of global health issues. What is the balance of content and tone of global health coverage - percentage of negative stories (problem narrative) vs. percentage of positive stories (progress narrative)?
- A framing analysis of global health advocacy campaigns. What is the balance of main message and tone of advocacy campaigns - percentage of problem focused campaigns (e.g., MSF boy ad) vs. percentage of progress focused campaigns?
- An online ethnographic study of issue advocacy.
I'm hopeful that The Living Proof Project will spark a new dialogue around global health. One that isn't characterized overwhelmingly by criticism and crises. Unfortunately, the news media and blogosphere have been relatively quiet on Gates speech so far (in comparison to the coverage of Dambisa Moyo's thesis, there's barely a whisper of interest for the so-called Impatient Optimist). Then again it took Al Gore over 20 years to find an audience for his cause. I hope it won't take that long to build a base of support for global health. But even if it does, as change.org rightly noted, with the world's richest couple on global health's side, we all still have reason to be optimistic.
Society as a whole is a bit predictable and especially the American ideals. This is a major player in the root of the problem. “How am I affected……” Global Warming works on sparking debate and awareness in this country because they (public) can see a direct effect. The Arizona melanoma patent or the Iowa corn farmer, they see themselves being affected/hurt so they then have vested interest and concern. Also it can be polarizing political argument used for their agendas.
Majority of people can’t see much father then the end of their nose, and until they can learn a tie to these many problems suffered its hard to imagine a true rally. Truly Gates is starting just needs to find a platform that will be listen too on a broader scale.
Not saying culture is cold and only self fulfilling; however empathy can only do so much.
Another great and educational read thank you
Posted by: Seth | 11/20/2009 at 01:04 AM