Here is a reader comment on advocacy to add to the discussion. The moderator would like to point out that although little harm may occur from a media campaign, there are costs and opportunity costs involved. Media coverage is not 'free'. How many staff hours have been spent on the currrent campaigns?

[him] moderator

++++++++++++++++++

"Advocacy used to be a very inexact form of communication, based on the idea that publicizing a cause would raise awareness, change public opinion and influence decision-making on higher levels. But communicators know that raising awareness does not often change behavior by itself, and public opinion does not necessarily influence decision makers.

When advocacy is approached systematically as a form of communication to change behavior, we look at what specific behavioral outcome we want (a law passed? a policy changed? funding secured?), look at who can make that happen, and target our communication toward those key groups or individuals, addressing their specific barriers to change, just as in any other well-constructed communication campaign.  Such targeted advocacy turns out to be a better use of  communicators' resources than mass media awareness raising in almost every instance.

That said, free media coverage of the need for more funding (as in a newspaper interview of someone from the UN or MSF) probably does no harm, might do some good, but it's not targeted advocacy and shouldn't be considered as a significant advocacy effort."