# data[].attributes.body
Are tourists destroying the planet?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are tourists destroying the planet - or saving it ? - Gringo Trails

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
a film more than a decade in the making...looks at the effect of the unplanned or mismanaged growth of the tourism industry in developing countries - CNN Travelers Can Choose to Make a Difference @ New York Times RENT/BUY ICARUS FILMS North America ANDANA FILMS International FaceBook / Twitter / Email List / Screenings / Press / About

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the past two decades, I have witnessed the devastation caused by orphanages and institutions:

-Endless rows of cots: tiny babies staring silently into space; toddlers rocking back and forth, self-stimulating as a form of comfort, then as the distress becomes too great, self-harming, banging their heads against the bars, biting their hands, hitting themselves in the face.

-Haunted eyes of malnourished children, whose families were tricked into giving them to the orphanage, ostensibly to receive better care and an education but in reality just so the institution could raise donations from abroad with little spent on the children

-Older teenagers, beaten, forced to stand barefoot in the snow for hours, burned with cigarettes, all in the name of behavior control

-Eight-year-old girls with sexually transmitted diseases

-Children who have disappeared without trace

Most of these children had parents who loved and wanted them, but were poor and were given no option but to put their child in an orphanage.

Of course, some orphanages are provided by well-meaning people who try their best, but their efforts cannot replace the love of a family. Even here, children go to sleep alone and afraid, struggling to understand why their families sent them away. The effects last a lifetime.[1]

Globally, an estimated eight million children live in orphanages. More than 80% have at least one living parent. If the estimates are accurate, approximately 500,000 children enter institutions every year. Eighty years of scientific research prove that raising children in institutions seriously harms their health, development and life chances.[2] Even poor quality orphanage care is more expensive than caring for children in families.[3]

Many developed countries abandoned orphanages decades ago, because of the evidence of harm, the existence of better alternatives and because family care is cheaper, with better outcomes for children.

This begs the question: Why do institutions still proliferate? Why do governments choose this form of 'care' despite the harm? Why do donors pour billions of dollars annually into building, renovating and running institutions when their funds could help 10 times as many children live in families, with better outcomes?[4]

Firstly, systems do not change themselves. Large bureaucracies are like complex machines: they continue turning the same wheels in the same way because of inertia. Making a large machine do something different takes determination, strategy, investment and time. And those running the machine must admit that what they have been doing for decades - many with great belief and commitment - was and is wrong.

Secondly, numerous myths abound regarding orphanage care, despite evidence to the contrary: ' Orphanages are full of orphans and are therefore necessary, since there are not enough families'; ' orphanages provide good care for children'; ' children with disabilities must live in orphanages to access health services or education; ad infinitum.

Thirdly, there are vested interests in the status quo: from orphanage personnel, worried about losing their jobs, to local businesses with contracts to supply orphanages; from the opportunistic businesspeople who set up institutions because they know foreigners like to donate to orphanages, to the organized criminals who know that children once in an orphanage away from family and community are easier to exploit and traffic.

Finally, the system is ingrained in culture. The first known orphanage was founded in 1212, and 800 years of complex history cannot be reversed overnight. At times, orphanages served as an adjunct to genocide - a way of 'breeding out' the culture of indigenous peoples.[5] At others, they provided warehouses to hide and dispose of children with disabilities who did not fit the ideal of extremist ideologies.[6] At others, they fulfilled the purpose of empire, exporting white children to populate the colonies and counter the increase in population of darker-skinned people.[7] Today they provide organized criminals with revenue from unsuspecting gap year students who set out to help the poor, but end up facilitating trafficking.[8]

Ten years ago, J.K. Rowling founded Lumos to end the institutionalization of children. Working with many partners we have ensured that what once seemed a fantasy is now a realistic prospect. Our strategy will ensure that, by 2050, no more children will ever have to live in orphanages, and all countries will have systems to ensure all children can be raised in families, with the opportunity to develop to their full potential. To some, this goal seems impossible. But to others, it begs the question: "Why must it take so long? Surely many children will suffer before we end this terrible practice?" I have often consoled myself that it took William Wilberforce and colleagues 50 years to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But last year, I began to ask, "What would it take to reach our goal better and faster?"

And then the MacArthur Foundation issued their 100&Change challenge https://www.macfound.org/programs/100change/ . The MacArthur Foundation started this competition to find and fund one proposal that promises real and measurable progress in solving a critical problem. Together with our partners, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and Maestral International, we dared to dream what it might mean to children if MacArthur invested $100 million in our cause.

We are honored that, out of nearly 2,000 proposals, ours was selected by MacArthur as one of the top eight. There is a realistic chance our proposal might win. Investing $100 million in ending the institutionalization of children would change everything. We could accelerate our work to demonstrate change across the world and to help donors change how they spend their money. One hundred million dollars could drive $1 billion away from institutions, towards families and communities. Most importantly, it would bring forward an end to institutionalization by 10 years, meaning 5 million fewer children would ever enter institutions, would ever know the terror of being torn from their families. For them, orphanages would be nothing more than a story.

J.K. Rowling wrote about the work of Lumos: "For children in institutions, life too often resembles the darkest of Grimm's fairy tales.... It is my dream that, within my lifetime, the very concept of taking a child away from its family and locking it away will seem to belong to a cruel, fictional world." If MacArthur chooses our partnership, we will come a step closer to making that dream a reality.

But ours is only one of many causes. And if another is chosen, we still feel we have won. Simply to have been selected as a semi-finalist means that, finally, the world is beginning to understand orphanages are both harmful and unnecessary, that an injustice has been delivered on millions of children over the past 800 years, and that it will, eventually, end.

[1] Please see: Pashkina quoted in Holm-Hansen, J., Kristofersen, L. B and Myrvold, T. M. (eds). (2003). Orphans in Russia, NIBR -rap-port Vol 1, p 83; & Kane, J., (2005). Child Trafficking - The People Involved: A synthesis of findings from Albania, Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. International Labour Office. http://www.humantrafficking.org/uploads/publications/ipec_balkana_05.pdf ; International Organisation for Migration (2007) Protecting Vulnerable Children in Moldova; & Hodnocení systému péče o ohrožené děti. Ministerstvo Vnitra České republiky, 2007.
[2] Berens, A.E. & Nelson, C.A. (2015). The science of early adversity: is there a role for large institutions in the care of vulnerable children? The Lancet. [3] Mulheir, G. (2015) Ending Institutionalisation: An analysis of the financing of the deinstitutionalisation process in Bulgaria. London, UK: Lumos.
[4] Swales, Diane. Applying the Standards: Improving quality Childcare Provision in East and Central Africa (UK: Save the Children, 2006, pg 110) http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/ApplyingTheStandards_1.pdf & Mulheir, G et al. (2016). Orphanage Entrepreneurs: The Trafficking of Haiti's Invisible Children. Lumos Foundation. London, England. https://wearelumos.org/sites/default/files/Haiti%20Trafficking%20Report_ENG_web_20EP16_1.pdf [accessed on 21 February 2017].

[5] The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (n.d.) Findings. [webpage]. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/public-hearings/findings [accessed 21 February 2017]; & The Law Commission of Canada (2000) Restoring Dignity Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions. [webpage]. https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/cornwall/en/hearings/exhibits/Peter_Jaffe/pdf/Restoring_Dignity.pdf [accessed 21 February 2017]. Please also see: Stolen Children (Indian / Native American) Residential School survivors speak out [video file]. (19 Feb 2017). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIb6ctrsYU8 [accessed 21 Feb 2017]; and Coyhis, D. [Don Coyhis]. (28 Feb 2011). The Wellbriety Journey to Forgiveness [video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZwF9NnQbWM [accessed 21 Feb 2017].

[6] Gallego, R. (2006). White on Black (translated from Russian by M. Schwartz). New York: Harcourt Books. Please also see: Artur Hojan & Cameron Munro (2015). "Overview of Nazi 'euthanasia' program". The central office at Tiergartenstrasse 4 in Berlin. The Tiergartenstrasse 4 Association. Retrieved 28 August 2015 - via Nazi Ideology and Ethics By Wolfgang Bialas & Lothar Fritze, pp. 263, 281.
[7] Humphreys, M. (2011). Empty Cradles. London: Transworld Publishers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For 800 Years, The problem Of Orphanages Has Been Underestimated And Misunderstood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past two decades, I have witnessed the devastation caused by orphanages and institutions: -Endless rows of cots: tiny babies staring silently into space; toddlers rocking back and forth, self-stimulating as a form of comfort, then as the distress becomes too great, self-harming, banging their heads against the bars, biting their hands, hitting themselves in the face.

# data[].attributes.headline
J K Rowling and Lunos on orphanage tourism

# data[].attributes.subject
J K Rowling and Lunos on orphanage tourism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
www.wearelumos.org "A child's life is so much more than the sum of its parts ‐ and the love a family brings holds everything together. From the very beginning, a child thrives on individual care and attention. A baby quickly forges a bond with loving parents - and because of this bond the brain develops with remarkable speed and complexity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Volunteer Abroad | World Expeditions | Voluntourism | Earthwatch

# data[].attributes.subject
Volunteer Abroad | World Expeditions | Voluntourism | Earthwatch

# data[].attributes.body
Voluntourism.....Ecotourism.....Find out more about how you can travel differently. Explore this website and find a project that would appeal to you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Earthwatch Expeditions: Travel the World. Save the Planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earthwatch Expeditions offer volunteers the chance work alongside the world's top scientists on critical environmental research while traveling across the globe.

# data[].attributes.headline
There's No Such Thing As Eco-Tourism | Alternet

# data[].attributes.subject
There's No Such Thing As Eco-Tourism | Alternet

# data[].attributes.body
Eco-tourism is all a sham! Read this article to find out why.  Do you agree? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colonialism isn't dead.

Colonialism is alive and well every time you travel from the First World to the Third and come home bearing photographs of sharks and storms and slums, of scorpions fried for snacks, sunflowers bigger than your head, stalled buses whose aisles are slick with spit, and then you tell your friends and co-workers, "Oh man, it was so great, you gotta go."

We call it ecotourism and adventure travel. That sounds sensitive. We think Ugly Americans are the fat ones on cruises and on package tours -- anyone but us. We think we're different because we don't have a stars-and-stripes patch on our backpacks as -- buckle your seatbelt -- this summer's travel boom defies the presence of not one but several wars around the world right now which may or may not become a world war. This is the busiest summer on record for air travel, according to USA Today, with 207 million Americans expected to board U.S. planes for domestic and international flights, up from last summer's 205 million.

El Salvador has enjoyed a 20 percent jump in its number of visitors for each of the past two years. Colombia is up 18 percent. Record numbers are arriving in Cuba. When the Philippines' Mount Mayon started spewing lava and car-sized boulders in mid-July, the government evacuated locals, but tourists arrived in droves. Hotels were packed. Real travelers mock the drones who flock to Rennes-le-Chateau in France because they adored "The Da Vinci Code," or to Botswana because a Scotsman writes bestselling mysteries set there, or to Namibia because of Brad and Angelina, or to Vietnam for sex.

We think our motives are purer, that in the correct frame of mind, a trip to exotica means independence and not exploitation, as we come and see and -- well, not quite conquer but globalize with every dollar spent. It's easy to say: "My aim is true, my morals are on track," but Christopher Columbus and a million missionaries said so, too. Easy to think it's not corrupting or condescending or anachronistic but cool to collect snapshots of the other, trading smiles with strangers to brag about at dinner parties later: souvenirs. Off we go, from Berkeley and Brooklyn, we Marco Polos, Attilas the Hun, Captains Cook, Rudyard Kiplings with tattoos.

Takeoff. That plane transporting 207 million of us to giant-flowerland is causing global warming. That's what Ian Jack writes in the latest edition of the literary journal Granta, whose theme is "On the Road Again." Carbon emissions from aircraft into the higher atmosphere are thrice as potent as those rising from ground level, Jack writes. To slow the coming debacle, "because all we can do now is to modify the severity of the inevitable," he makes a radical proposal that we go virtually nowhere: "We would need to ration the carbon dioxide produced by traveling to an allowance of no more than half a ton a year for every human being alive today." That translates to 2,200 kilometers (1,320 miles) by car a year, with no air travel, or 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) by car a year with a round-trip international flight once every 15 years.

"Fortunately for the climate," Jack half-jokes, "a lot of the world's population is too poor to do much traveling at all."

OK, so we the corporate shills -- having shelled out to the airlines and big oil and then fouled the air -- arrive abroad. Here we are now, entertain us, spurred by the same selfish yearnings as every pioneer and pirate and imperial passenger from eras past. Yet despite the boom, Lawrence Osborne laments in " The Naked Tourist" (North Point, 2006) that there's "nowhere left to go," because "tourism has made the planet into a uniform spectacle," with everyone "wandering through an imitation of an imitation. ... The entire world is a tourist installation." As a New Yorker travel writer who has come to loathe his own profession, Osborne ought to know.

Tourism began not for fun, but as a form of torture: the medieval pilgrimage, a mortifying slog. The word derives from travailler, French for "to toil or labor." Certain murderers escaped execution by being sentenced to perform a pilgrimage, in chains.

Nearly a thousand years later, nearly all trips are pleasure trips. But after 9/11, travel became yet another loaded activity, far from automatic. Strangers wand your body, scan your shoes. And while a passenger aboard planes and trains it's so hard not to flirt with mental pictures of flying into things, of arms on fire. Maybe that's part of what fuels this summer's boom: the tingly frisson of potential danger, of denying that danger, of accepting it but not knowing its source, of not being certain that you'll actually arrive. With the airline industry on ultrahigh alert after mass arrests in Britain and talk of a thwarted plane-bombing plot, travel lurches yet another notch out of neutral, out of normal. To go anywhere now, you have to really want to go.

Although Osborne's diction evinces an elite British education -- "hoplites," "decalcomaniac," "stalactitic" and "helots" pop lightly off his fingertips -- he is too broke to afford dental work before starting his own trip through the Mideast and Asia, where every destination resembles a theme park at which "you are asked to play a part in the racial memory of others": Consumer. Invader. Crusader. Seducer. Self-hating Westerner. Buffoon.

In Dubai, Osborne wonders what anticolonialist scholar Edward Said would say about a booming emirate that, with its faux-Arabian Nights shopping malls and steel palm trees, "Orientalizes itself." Andaman Islanders act scary, then cynically hawk their handicrafts. Korowai tribesmen in remote Papua are "persuaded to change out of their T-shirts and shorts, put on hornbill penis gourds, and climb into traditional treehouses" by the operators of a tour company whose German name means "Back to the Stone Age!" Osborne develops a tremor as he quaffs more and more whisky to kill "the awful taste of simulacrum." But even the Thai health resort to which a doctor sends him -- a place where fresh flowers stud the swimming pools -- exudes a sense "of dejection, of pointlessness." Osborne flees in a cab.

Anthropologists haunt him as he prepares to enter Papua, hailed as the last truly primitive aerie on Earth -- a jungly puzzle where, in the 1930s, Margaret Mead "found all the material she needed to overturn what she perceived as the patriarchy, racism, and puritanism of her native America."

Despite time marching on, Osborne observes, "Papua has stayed wild. Almost nobody experiences it." Even people he meets in not-so-far-away India have never heard of it. Thus Papua feels like the last possible source of a buzz for someone so shamed and callused by his "long collusion with the forces of global tourism" -- which, he notes, is the world's fastest-growing industry and one that pretty much defines and confines the economies of entire nations. Osborne regrets having been "induced" to roam, to spend years on end in thousands of hotel rooms in 204 countries while having no home of his own: "Passing one's time in this way is a novel form of dementia."

I know. I used to travel. Now I don't go anywhere anymore. I even used to write travel books, and talk about them on TV. I have seen mummies whose still-perfect hands shimmered like caramel. I have seen rainforests and a shipwreck, and found shampoo bottles washed ashore. I spoke Chinese. But now I wonder whether it is right to guide anyone anywhere that he or she could not find on his or her own. Travel writing is advertising; it's turning foreigners and their landscapes into commodities.

And tourism, as James Hamilton-Patterson writes in Granta -- in an essay titled "The End of Travel" -- "is an industry determined to embrace you. ... It wants you to spend as much as you can on fatuous souvenirs; it wants you to do Machu Picchu or the Taj Mahal; it wants you to have the rainforest experience or the Mysterious East experience or the Rose Red City Half as Old as Time experience, and it doesn't terribly mind if you also have the fleeced-by-muggers-on-Copacabana-Beach experience."

First Worlders penetrating the Third World aren't the wild rebels they imagine themselves to be, he snorts. They're deluded children, lulled by the convenience of their own electronic toys and their longing to make the folks back home envy them for where they've been. More and more trips these days, he writes, are "apparently influenced more by the Guinness Book of Records than by a desire to travel per se. People aspire to be the first to swim the entire length of the Mekong backstroke or become the only dude ever to go snowboarding in Antarctica. Take a camera crew along to capture your waggish ego!"

And sure enough, the last few years have seen a flood of adventure-memoirs whose authors undertook exactly such stunts: John Pollack's " Cork Boat," about building a vessel from wire and 165,321 wine-corks and sailing through Portugal, because that's where cork comes from; Rory Stewart's " The Places in Between," about walking across Afghanistan in 2002; Jeffrey Tayler's " River of No Reprieve," about motorboating into Russia's Arctic; AndrÃ© TolmÃ©'s " I Golfed Across Mongolia"...

In an ever-flatter world where simply seeing is no longer enough, where adventure travel gets spun into "Survivor" and "The Amazing Race," neoswashbucklers feel compelled to traverse entire nations and waterways on foot or in unorthodox boats, suffering and sometimes only barely surviving. An Afghani official warned Stewart: "You'll die, I guarantee it," and he almost did. Tayler was marooned. But even this -- even what appears to be anti-travel writing, with its horror stories about power outages and Taliban gunmen and canned meat and house-sized icebergs and whole populations afflicted with what Tayler calls "broken souls" -- is travel writing nonetheless. Because in its perverse way, it still makes you want to go. Because you'll feel like a coward or a dork if you don't.

Go on, sneers Hamilton-Patterson, who has lived all over the world: Ski down Kilimanjaro before the last snowdrift melts on a planet whose "accelerating demise is helped along by the mounting effluent of our journeys."

For me, travel is a misty dream, like a fairground ride in a landscape now dismantled. I miss it. Am I saving some tribe from extinction by not looking for it, much less telling you about it? Or am I starving some shopkeeper by not buying his sandals? Both. Neither. I am out of that game now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tourism in the post-9/11, post-colonial era remains a minefield of moral issues -- and living as a sin-free travel writer is damn near impossible.

# data[].attributes.headline
Heads Up: Poverty Tours - Slum Visits: Tourism or Voyeurism? - Travel - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
Heads Up: Poverty Tours - Slum Visits: Tourism or Voyeurism? - Travel - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
Tourism or Voyeurism? Read the full article here and include in your oral presentation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Slum tourism isn't for everyone. Critics charge that ogling the poorest of the poor isn't tourism at all. It's voyeurism. The tours are exploitative, these critics say, and have no place on an ethical traveler's itinerary.

"Would you want people stopping outside of your front door every day, or maybe twice a day, snapping a few pictures of you and making some observations about your lifestyle?" asked David Fennell, a professor of tourism and environment at Brock University in Ontario. Slum tourism, he says, is just another example of tourism's finding a new niche to exploit. The real purpose, he believes, is to make Westerners feel better about their station in life. "It affirms in my mind how lucky I am - or how unlucky they are," he said.

Not so fast, proponents of slum tourism say. Ignoring poverty won't make it go away. "Tourism is one of the few ways that you or I are ever going to understand what poverty means," said Harold Goodwin, director of the International Center for Responsible Tourism in Leeds, England. "To just kind of turn a blind eye and pretend the poverty doesn't exist seems to me a very denial of our humanity."

The crucial question, Mr. Goodwin and other experts say, is not whether slum tours should exist but how they are conducted. Do they limit the excursions to small groups, interacting respectfully with residents? Or do they travel in buses, snapping photos from the windows as if on safari?

Many tour organizers are sensitive to charges of exploitation. Some encourage - and in at least one case require - participants to play an active role in helping residents. A church group in Mazatlán, Mexico, runs tours of the local garbage dump, where scavengers earn a living picking through trash, some of it from nearby luxury resorts. The group doesn't charge anything but asks participants to help make sandwiches and fill bottles with filtered water. The tours have proven so popular that during high season the church group has to turn people away. "We see ourselves as a bridge to connect the tourists to the real world," said Fred Collom, the minister who runs the tours.

By most accounts, slum tourism began in Brazil 16 years ago, when a young man named Marcelo Armstrong took a few tourists into Rocinha, Rio de Janeiro's largest favela, or shantytown. His company, Favela Tour, grew and spawned half a dozen imitators. Today, on any given day in Rio, dozens of tourists hop in minivans, then motorcycles and venture into places even Brazil's police dare not tread. Organizers insist the tours are safe, though they routinely check security conditions. Luiz Fantozzi, founder of the Rio-based Be a Local Tours, says that about once a year he cancels a tour for security reasons.

The tours may be safe, but they can be tense. Rajika Bhasin, a lawyer from New York, recalls how, at one point during a favela tour, the guide told everyone to stop taking pictures. A young man approached the group, smiling and holding a cocked gun. Ms. Bhasin said she didn't exactly feel threatened, "just very aware of my surroundings, and aware of the fact that I was on this guy's turf."

Still, she said, the experience, which included visiting galleries featuring the work of local artists, was positive. "Honestly, I would say it was a life-changing experience," Ms. Bhasin said. Saying she understood the objections, she parried, "It has everything to do with who you are and why you're going."

Chuck Geyer, of Reston, Va., arrived for a tour in Mumbai armed with hand sanitizer and the expectation of human misery incarnate. He left with a changed mind. Instead of being solicited by beggars, Mr. Geyer found himself the recipient of gifts: fruit, and dye to smear on his hands and face, as people celebrated the Hindu festival of Holi. "I was shocked at how friendly and gracious these people were," Mr. Geyer said.

Proponents of slum tourism say that's the point: to change the reputation of the slums one tourist at a time. Tour organizers say they provide employment for local guides and a chance to sell souvenirs. Chris Way has vowed to put 80 percent of his profits back into the Dharavi slum.

The catch, though, is that Mr. Way's company has yet to earn a profit on the tours, for which he charges 300 rupees (around $7.50). After receiving flak from the Indian press ("a fair criticism," Mr. Way concedes), he used his own money to open a community center in the slum. It offers English classes, and Mr. Way himself mentors a chess club. Many of those running favela tours in Brazil also channel a portion of their profits into the slums. Luiz Fantozzi contributes to a school and day-care center.

But slum tourism isn't just about charity, its proponents say; it also fosters an entrepreneurial spirit. "At first, the tourists were besieged by beggars, but not anymore," said Kevin Outterson, a law professor from Boston who has taken several favela tours. Mr. Fantozzi has taught people, Mr. Outterson said, "that you're not going to get anything from my people by begging, but if you make something, people are going to buy it."

Even critics of slum tourism concede it allows a few dollars to trickle into the shantytowns, but say that's no substitute for development programs.

Mr. Fennell, the professor of tourism in Ontario, wonders whether the relatively minuscule tourist revenue can make a difference. "If you're so concerned about helping these people, then write a check," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heads Up: Poverty Tours - Slum Visits: Tourism or Voyeurism? - Travel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Slum tourism isn't for everyone. Critics charge that ogling the poorest of the poor isn't tourism at all. It's voyeurism. The tours are exploitative, these critics say, and have no place on an ethical traveler's itinerary.

# data[].attributes.headline
Responsible tourism definition - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
Responsible tourism definition - YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
Watch this video and explain what 'responsible tourism is'. Give examples. How does it differ from regular tourism?

# data[].attributes.body
This document is a report from the BBC about slums tours given in Dharavi in Mumbai.  Kushna Pujari is a tour guide and he explains in this interview how he came up with the idea of slum tours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tourism Ireland launches Skellig Micheal video to entice Star Wars fans (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I can't believe they let us shoot there, it was so beautiful," said Star Wars' director J.J. Abrams.