During the early phase of the recent Haiti crisis, the ENN became increasingly exasperated by many aspects of the media coverage. Key points of contention were; inaccuracy of reporting, lack of historical context and understanding of the humanitarian system, failure to acknowledge or represent the constraints on the ground, lack of balance and the tendency towards sensationalism and 'bad news'. This was not limited to general media reports, but in pieces in the Lancet and the BMJ, for example. ENN wrote a number of letters of complaint one of which was published in the Lancet in critique of their editorial (see below). We would be very interested to know whether others working in our sector were equally frustrated with this media coverage and if so, what views people hold regarding whether and how our sector may be able to hold the media to greater account? We take issue with the view stated in The Lancet editorial of January 23rd that " the situation in Haiti is chaotic, devastating, and anything but coordinated". We have been working in the emergency nutrition sector for over 20 years and have seen huge improvements in the coordination of emergency response since the genocide in Rwanda. One of the most important improvements has been the implementation of the cluster approach as part of the Humanitarian Reform Process which aims to address gaps and strengthen the effectiveness of humanitarian response through building partnerships. There are global clusters representing eleven areas of humanitarian activity. One of these is the Nutrition Cluster. Led by UNICEF, the Nutrition Cluster comprises 33 international agencies (UN, NGO and academic/research organisations) involved in responding to emergencies. Haiti has been the most high profile disaster in the life of the Nutrition Cluster to date and the Nutrition Cluster has risen to the challenge with effect. The Nutrition Cluster took on the role of coordination as soon as the earthquake struck. Twenty two local and international organisations on the ground are involved in health and nutrition services. These organisations are updated on a regular basis through 'SitReps' which detail nutritional needs, the activities of individual agencies, identify gaps and constraints, and agree future action. Regular conference calls are convened to agree strategy and to receive the latest information on developments in Haiti. There is a Nutrition Cluster representative on the ground who arrived in Haiti with a few days of the earthquake. While the situation in Haiti is certainly chaotic and devastating, which is hardly surprising given the scale and speed of onset of the crisis, we challenge The Lancet to provide evidence of the lack of coordination in health and nutrition. Furthermore, the Lancet editorial has completely failed to highlight the constraints on the ground. UN agencies and INGOs lost large numbers of staff in the disaster not to mention stocks and logistical infrastructure. At the same time there has been limited capacity of government counterpart agencies to work with the international community reflecting both weak government capacity before the quake struck and the impact of the quake the capacity that existed. Our evidence suggests that Lancet assertions of poor coordination and chaos are simply wrong. We are angered by the constant sniping of the media and are frankly surprised that a publication such as the Lancet is writing sensationalist and poorly researched editorials which would be far more at home in the tabloid press.