The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) published an advertisement on providing financial grants, using the expression indigenous people to refer to the groups targeted by the grants. It is an expression used in social and human sciences to refer to the "original population" in societies that faced demographic and political changes, which led to the existence of more than one people or ethnicity, especially the regions invaded by the white man in the past centuries. 

The website nesannews took the lead in criticizing the advertisement, specifically in relation to the use of the term "indigenous people," which commonly has some racist connotations. This follow-up by the website is considered a positive media practice. 

After the website published this criticism, Nedal Ouran, director of the UNDP"s Environment and Climate Change Program, sent an apology to the site, in which he noted a technical mistake that caused the publishing of the English version of the advertisement, while the Arabic version, which spoke about "local communities" as target groups and not "indigenous people," was supposed to be used.

Some electronic sites were quick to carry the news without attributing it to its source, which is a wrong practice that has been regrettably repeated frequently. In a telephone call with AKEED, the director of the U.N. office confirmed that the only media outlet that it contacted was Nesan News.

However, media follow-up as a whole included--most likely out of goodwill--mistakes that are not less harmful than the mistake of the U.N. advertisement. The media protested against likening Jordanians to "Red Indians," which, in itself, implies a racist attitude and is a mistranslation of the notion of "indigenous people," let alone the fact that the notion of "Red Indians" itself is not recognized by the peoples described as such. It was produced by the invading white man, who used it to describe peoples that have a long history and civilization, which is not less than what was prevalent in other locations of the Old World, such as China, India, and Pharaonic Egypt.  Besides, these peoples used to have different names, which are ordinary and acceptable, but did not include "Red Indians" as one of them. This name came from the racist memory of the invader, who saw a similarity between the inhabitants of the new regions and the Indian people (in India). The name Red Indians is, in itself, considered a racist title, and is not a scientifically recognized notion.

As for the notion of "indigenous people," it is, in itself, a social concept that is used in social sciences (in specific contexts). It does not have racist connotations or an inferior view of the group described as such.

Since these concepts are primarily used in anthropology (study of humankind), the AKEED Monitor called Abdulhakeem Husban, professor of anthropology at Yarmouk University, who pointed out that the term indigenous is not offensive in itself, but that it is used in specific contexts, especially in cases where sharp demographic changes have occurred. The term is used to refer to some countries and regions in what is known as the Old World in the American continent and Australia where the invading white man came as a settler in large numbers in the place of the indigenous people through genocide and destruction. The concept is used in connection with communities that have managed to survive and preserve themselves as special local communities. As such, it is considered a social science concept. Husban added that the concept may be used in other instances to refer to less severe cases of diversity or multiplicity, even within the same community in which demographic changes took place and led to new groups replacing others, which might have moved totally or partially within the same country.

Husban thinks that using the concept in the phrasing of the above U.N. advertisement is a mistake, but the concept in itself is not offensive. However, to protest by saying that the advertisement likened Jordanians to Red Indians is offensive.

The AKEED Monitor believes that media outlets should observe accuracy and seek the opinion of experts when the matter has to do with terms and concepts that have specific meanings. Not doing this made them commit the same mistake that they protested against.