DARFUR IN PERSPECTIVE
By Professor David Hoile
Published by The European - Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Chapter 6
THE MEDIA, SENSATIONALISM AND
IRRESPONSIBILITY
For all that it deals with events and realities…news
has a prodigious capacity for mythmaking.Like a huckster on
the high street it hawks its wares regardless of their quality.
Former BBC Correspondent Martin Bell [488]
It was Alexander Pope who observed that “a little learning is a
dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there
shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.” [489] The Roman writer Publilius
Syrus noted that it is “better to be ignorant of a matter than half know
it”. Never have such warnings been more applicable than in studies of
the media coverage of the Darfur crisis.
It should not have been unexpected. It is a simple matter of fact that a
significant amount of the international press coverage of Sudan over the
past decade has been questionable. Disinformation and propaganda have
been an ever-present particular feature of most, if not all, wars over the past 50 years or so. Sudan in general and Darfur in particular have been
no exception. The international news media have been an obvious target
for those who wish to manipulate the way in which conflicts are
presented. This is for obvious reasons. International “reporting” is in
many instances the only image many outside observers will have of the
country itself. International press coverage is also sometimes the only
material many commentators and even legislators will have in mind
when addressing issues either directly or indirectly related to Sudan.
Journalists have in many instances managed to get away with some
appalling reporting on Sudan. There has been a mixture of simply badjournalism and misinformation. The latest examples of questionable
journalism have focused upon the war in Darfur.
Speaking in December 2004, Chris Mullins, Minister of State at the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, noted the dysfunctional nature of
much of the media coverage of the Darfur conflict. After viewing a
British television news item on Darfur, he stated that the news item was
“the first one to acknowledge there are actually two sides in this
dispute” [490] – that is to say 18 months after the war had begun. It is a sad
reality that Mullins’ comments can be applied virtually across the board
with regard to media coverage of the Darfur crisis.
It is worth placing the reporting on Darfur into context. Over the past
decade or so the international news media have carried a number of
deeply questionable claims about Sudan. These have included
allegations that Sudan possessed and manufactured weapons of mass
destruction. These were, of course, particularly grave allegations to have
been made. On 20 August 1998, the Clinton Administration launched
cruise missile attacks on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in
Khartoum alleging that the plant was making chemical weapons as part
of Osama bin Laden’s infrastructure of international terrorism. The
Clinton Administration made several, widely-reported, claims about
Sudan and the factory – all of which were repeated in the media. Every
one proved to have been false. After carefully assessing the claims The
Observer newspaper spoke of “a catalogue of US misinformation,
glaring omissions and intelligence errors about the function of the
plant”. [491] These claims are now accepted internationally to have been
unfounded.
It has also “reported” that Khartoum had used weapons of mass
destruction in the course of the then civil war in southern Sudan. The
allegations were also shown to have been baseless. In this instance antigovernment
rebels claimed in July 1999 that Sudanese armed forces hadused chemical weapons in attacks on their forces in southern Sudan. [492]
These claims were repeated by several British newspapers as well as the
BBC. They were also carried in other international media. [493] The United
Nations investigated the claims and arranged for detailed tests which
“indicated no evidence of exposure to chemicals”. [494]
One of the other widely-publicised sensationalist claims about Sudan
has been allegations of government-sponsored “slavery” and “slave
trade” in Sudan. As “proof” for this, a great number of newspaper
articles “reported” instances of “slave redemption” in which alleged
“slaves” were said to have been “bought” back from “slave traders”.
These sorts of claims began to be exposed as questionable where not
simply false as early as 1999. [495] In February 2002, in an unprecedented
international focus, and as the result of some excellent investigative
journalism, The Irish Times, London’s Independent on Sunday, The
Washington Post and International Herald Tribune, chose to publish,
or republish, articles definitively exposing the deep fraud and corruption
at the heart of claims of “slave redemption” in Sudan. [496] The Washington Post reported that in numerous documented instances “the
slaves weren’t slaves at all, but people gathered locally and instructed to
pretend they were returning from bondage”. [497] The Independent on
Sunday reported that it was able to “reveal that ‘redemption’ has often
been a carefully orchestrated fraud”. [498] The Irish Times reported “According to aid workers, missionaries, and even the rebel movement
that facilitates it, slave redemption in Sudan is often an elaborate
scam.” [499]
Interestingly, allegations of chemical weapons use have surfaced within
the Darfur conflict. In September 2004, the conservative German daily
newspaper Die Welt published allegations that the Sudanese and Syrian
governments were using chemical weapons in Darfur. [500] The article had
a specific racial tone as the article claimed that the weapons were to be
tested on “the black African population”. The newspaper claimed
western intelligence services as its source. Similar allegations surfaced
at the same time in Norwegian state media. The story was soon
discounted, by, amongst others, the American government and German
intelligence, but not before it had been was picked up and republished
by major news agencies and by the media world-wide. [501] German
intelligence sources blamed the fabrication on Sudanese exile groups. [502]
The British government subsequently stated that it had “seen no credibleevidence” to support the allegation. [503] The Norwegian variant on the
story was sourced back to the Sudan Liberation Army through
Norwegian People’s Aid, an anti-Khartoum organisation with a history
of fabricating propaganda stories – including earlier disproved
“chemical weapons” claims in southern Sudan. [504]
“Genocide” in Darfur
The latest sensationalist claim has been “genocide” in Darfur. The
international media has carried a number of reports alleging “genocide”
and “ethnic cleansing” in Darfur. This has been despite the fact that such
claims have been challenged by seasoned aid groups such as Médecins
Sans Frontières, and only really advanced by a politically opportunistic
Bush Administration.
The international media’s coverage of the Darfur conflict has been selfevidently
lacklustre. The very dynamics of the conflict has not even
been adequately analysed or reported. Most coverage has taken at face
value rebel claims that they are fighting against underdevelopment and
marginalisation in Darfur. As we have seen this has been challenged by
fiercely anti-government critics such as Ghazi Suleiman. Neither
Turabi’s name, nor the Islamist involvement, has featured much in
media coverage of the conflict.
Professor Moeller’s clinical description of how the media handles crises
is instructive - a description that fits the way in which the Darfur crisis
has been presented:
Almost every night, [the crisis] will become a front-page, top-of-the news
story. Print and television reporters, photographers and
camerapeople flood the area. At this point, the story is grossly
simplified: clear victims, villains and heroes are created; language
such as ‘harrowing,’ ‘hellish,’ ‘unprecedented,’ ‘single worst crisis in
the world,’ [crisis] of the century’ is employed; huge numbers aretossed off frequently and casually, with few references to
sources…[The crisis] dominates coverage of international news, and
for a while even domestic events. It becomes the focus of presidential
and congressional debate and action. It becomes a cultural and moral
bellwether for the nation…By this stage, the story has become a
runaway engine…The success of that morality play story line rests on
the fact that it is easy to understand and appreciate…The set piece is ideal material for television and superficial print coverage. [505]
Moeller additionally cites one disaster reporter as noting that there is “a
common period in disaster reporting – exaggerating the immediate and
long-term impact. We will always gravitate towards the largest kill
count…We will always speculate…the cosmic consequence.” [506]
That there has been superficial and exaggerated press coverage is clear.
That many news reports have accepted rebel propaganda is unsurprising.
Much of this reporting has been done by journalists who were taken on
guided tours by the rebels in Darfur. [507] Only one of these journalists
subsequently contacted the government of Sudan stating that he wished
to visit government areas to give the government’s position. That the
reporting by these journalists in large part reflected claims made by the
rebels is self-evident. This despite the fact that, as also noted by Reuters,
“it is hard to independently verify claims by government or rebels in
Darfur.” [508] It is also clear that some of these journalists are long-time
anti-Sudan activists (such as Julie Flint) who have previously made
several questionable claims about events in Sudan. [509] And, in addition,
one has those journalists who wish to present one side as good and the
other as bad. An example of this was the Scottish Sunday Herald’s August 2004 article “And With Darfur’s Rebels”, which actually used
the phrase “guys in white hats” with regard to the SLA. [510]
The media would once again appear to have gone for the sensationalist
story in Sudan – at the expense of professionalism. Andrew Buckoke, a
British foreign correspondent who has written for The Guardian, The
Economist, The Observer, The Financial Times and The Times, has
provided an insight into the mindset – even on non-controversial issues
– which should be borne in mind when reading claims of “genocide” and
“ethnic cleansing” in Darfur. He cited the example of the sensationalistic
coverage of the floods in Sudan in August 1988. Torrential rain on the
headwaters of both the White Nile and Blue Niles had resulted in intense
press prediction and speculation that Khartoum “would disappear under
a gigantic whirlpool”. [511] Buckoke was sent to cover this impending
disaster and found there was none to report on: “The Nile never did
burst its banks, nor was any significant damage due to the downpour
evident in central Khartoum.” [512] This, however, did not stop “the story
still being taken very seriously in the outside world, and I was rebuked
by a telex demanding more drama and detail”. Despite their being a nonevent,
“the floods were the biggest story out of black Africa”. [513]
Buckoke questions the international coverage: “How did the
coverage…get so distorted and imbalanced, as they so often do when
Africa is involved?” [514] He also notes that “the whole story was out of
control. Journalists, aid agency workers, the government and donors had
been caught from the beginning in a self-sustaining spiral of exaggeration.” [515]
It can be argued that Andrew Buckoke’s use of the term “self-sustaining
spiral of exaggeration” applies equally to sensationalistic claims of
“genocide” in Darfur. What has happened there is bad enough. Given the expected story-line set by editors it would be a brave journalist
indeed who returned from a week of milling around in the sands of Chad
or along the border with Sudan without filing the some sort of story of
“ethnic” cleaning or genocide. This does not, of course, in any way
excuse the unprofessional way in which Sudan continues to be covered
by many journalists. Given the track record of questionable claims about
Sudan, one would have expected professional journalists to have taken a
much more cautious approach to events in Darfur.
There are numerous instances of poor journalism on Darfur. The
following are a few examples.
The New York Times: Questionable Journalism
In the course of 2004, The New York Times published a number of
articles alleging that genocide is taking place in Darfur. The newspaper
has also published articles alleging that there has been systematic “ethnic cleansing”. [516] Mark Lacey, for example, has claimed that the
“Janjaweed” have been purging “villages of their darker-skinned black
African inhabitants”. [517] Nicholas Kristof, a former editor of The New
York Times turned columnist, has repeatedly claimed genocide in
Darfur, asserting that the “Arabs” have been targeting “blacks”, citing
claims that “The Arabs want to get rid of anyone with black skin…there
are no blacks left.” [518] In another article Kristof alleges that “black
Africans have been driven from their homes by lighter-skinned Arabs in
the Janjaweed”. [519] These sorts of claims are particularly inflammatory
and very questionable. (The racial dimension of their claims would also
be called into question by subsequent New York Times articles withtitles such as such as “In Sudan, No Clear Difference between Arab and
African”. [520] The discrepancy between simple factual Darfurian realities
and the “reporting” and claims of people such as Kristof and Lacey
exposes either poor reporting (of very sensitive issues) or reporting that
has been purposefully skewed. Either is simply unacceptable. It is
perhaps worth noting that Kristof’s reporting on other issues has been
repeatedly criticised for its shortcomings. His coverage of Africa in
general was described as cynical and distorted and “bizarre” by African
academics. [521] It should also be noted that Kristof is no stranger to
blunders, managing to get his newspaper sued over claims made in the
wake of the post-September 11 anthrax scare when he erroneously
pointed the finger at an American scientist as being responsible. [522]
Even The New York Times, while blithely claiming genocide has
admitted at the same time that “it is impossible to travel in Darfur to
verify these claims”. [523] Despite these circumstances, Lacey, Kristof and
others have rushed in to make the most serious claims imaginable. And,
as we have seen above, claims of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” in
Darfur have also been categorically contradicted by seasoned
humanitarian groups with hands-on experience of events within Darfur
such as Médecins Sans Frontières. Dr Mercedes Taty, MSF’s deputy
emergency director, was one of those aid workers who have gone on
record to refute allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Amazingly
enough, Nicholas Kristof has actually quoted from Dr Taty in one of his
articles claiming genocide in Darfur. He apparently did not ask the most obvious question, or if he did he chose to ignore the answer. He
obviously thought that his one or two day visits to the Chad border,
running after third- and fourth-hand stories provided him with a better
picture than someone such as Dr Taty, and MSF, whose thousands of
workers have worked at the heart of the affected area for over a year.
Kristof’s apparent disinclination to even discuss MSF’s reservations is a
strange one journalistically. As Professor Moeller has noted: “The
central heroes of [crisis] are the western aid workers.” She quotes a
commentator as saying that “The age of the ‘French doctors’” has
come. [524] Moeller also notes: “In contrast to the victims, the relief
workers are extensively quoted. As the on-scene mediators in the [crisis]
world, their comments are used both as the ‘deus ex machina’ of the
stories and as providers of verbal ‘color.’ Their words give the political
and social context and much of the anecdotal fillip.” [525] In the words of
Michael Maren, a journalist and former aid worker cited by Moeller,
journalism can become “impervious to facts that do not fit the popular
story line”. [526]
For all its sensationalism and inaccuracies, Kristof’s reporting succeeded
in adversely influencing thinking within the United States. Foreign
Affairs magazine, for example, noted that “[t]he genocide debate took
off in March 2004, after New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
published a number of articles making the charge.” These were said to
have “stimulated…calls for action from an unlikely combination of
players – Jewish-American, African-American, liberal, and religiousconservative
constituencies.” [527] The lessons of previous mistakes have
clearly not been learnt. Professor Susan Moeller has stated that
“conventional wisdom” has it, as Senator Paul Simon wrote in 1994, that
“The media brought the disaster of Somalia into our living rooms. TheAmerican people and our government were moved to action.” [528] It is, of
course, now widely accepted that the American intervention in Somalia
had disastrous consequences – for the Somali people, for American
prestige and for American foreign policy.
The Washington Post: A Recruiting Sergeant for al-Qaeda?
The Washington Post’s editorial stance on Darfur has been both
remarkably shallow and sensationalist – never a good combination. In a
series of editorials in the course of 2004, the newspaper repeatedly
described events in Darfur as genocide. [529] Its June 7 2004 editorial,
“300,000 Deaths Foretold”, for example, merely echoed, and in some
instances updated, much of the misinformation that has previously so
clouded perceptions of Sudan. In some instances it was simply
untruthful. The editorial sought to draw parallels between events in
Darfur and the recently concluded civil war in southern Sudan. It
additionally attempted to compare the situation in Darfur with Rwanda
or even Cambodia. These attempts – which are little more than crude
opportunism - were all the more shameful given that they come from a
newspaper of record.
The editorial claimed genocide and ethnic cleansing in Darfur. In
attempting to make its case, The Washington Post has made assertions
that are at best very questionable where not simply untruthful. It claimed
that “almost no foreign aid workers operated in the region” – this despite
the fact that there were over a thousand present at that time. A prime
example of The Washington Post’s crassness was its claim that “Sudan’s government is delighted with the war’s ‘slaughter’”. The
editorial staff had not even asked of themselves the most elementary of
questions: who benefits from the Darfur situation? Khartoum has not.The Zaghawa and Fur communities have not. The only people to benefit
from Darfur are those Islamist extremists who succeeded in drawing
Khartoum into a war in the region, and those within the anti-Sudan
lobby who have not hesitated to continue with their long-standing
propaganda war against Sudan.
The Washington Post was also caught out in more lies. Much of the
debate about Darfur now evolves around the need to provide waraffected
communities in Darfur and refugees in Chad with humanitarian
assistance. In trying to argue that Khartoum wants 300,000 of its own
civilians to starve, The Washington Post claimed that in “its long war
against the country’s southern rebels” the government has used
“starvation” as a weapon stating that Khartoum’s response to
humanitarian access was “always late and inadequate”. This could not be
a more blatant lie. Humanitarian relief to the war-affected parts of
southern Sudan is provided by Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS). OLS
began in 1989 under the auspices of the United Nations, and with the
full approval and cooperation of Sudanese government. OLS was
unprecedented in as much as it was the first time that a government had
agreed to the delivery of assistance by outside agencies to rebelcontrolled
parts of its own country, something confirmed by The
Journal of Humanitarian Assistance: “It was the first time a
government agreed on a violation of its own national sovereignty by
accepting that humanitarian organizations aid rebel-held areas. Further,
the negotiators decided that non-government areas would be supplied
from Lokichoggio, Kenya, consequently establishing the first legitimate
cross-border operation for the delivery of humanitarian assistance.” [530]
As The Guardian also observed: “Governments involved in civil wars
usually refuse to authorise cross-border feeding.” [531] Far from using
“starvation” against southern Sudan, independent observers confirmed
that the number of Khartoum-approved OLS feeding sites in southern
Sudan served by air grew within five years from ten in 1992 to over 200 sites by the end of 1997 - a twenty-fold increase. [532] Each and every one
of these sites had been agreed upon by the Sudanese government.
Khartoum could have refused to increase the number from the initial ten.
There was also a similar increase in the number of approved nongovernmental
organisations operating within southern Sudan. There had
only been six or seven NGOs working in the southern sector in 1992. [533]
OLS brings together over 40 non-governmental organisations, including
the UN World Food Programme and UNICEF. It is additionally worth
noting that these increases in food delivery sites were also agreed by the
Khartoum authorities despite it being widely known that the southern
rebels were diverting very sizeable amounts of this aid for its own
uses. [534] Far from starving civilians, there were unanimous United
Nations resolutions acknowledging “with appreciation” Khartoum’s
cooperation
with agreements and arrangements facilitating “relief
operations”. [535]
In projecting its claims of genocide in Darfur, The Washington Post’s
figures for those who have died as a consequence of the crisis have
grown exponentially. In February 2004, Amnesty International cited the
United Nations figure of 3,000 deaths.[536] By August 2004, The
Washington Post was citing 80,000 deaths. [537] In October 2004, the
death toll is variable with figures ranging from 50,000 to 70,000 to
300,000 – a figure provided by established anti-Sudan activist Eric
Reeves, described disingenuously as “an independent Sudan watcher”.[538]
By November 2004, the figure is unquestioningly said to be 300,000. [539]
The Washington Post’s choice of Reeves, one of the most jaundicedand inaccurate commentators on Sudan and the description of his figure
of 300,000 as the “best” estimate available, is revealing.
To make its case The Washington Post has also had to ignore the fact
that the rebel movements have been at the heart of so much of the
violence, and disruption of essential food aid deliveries, over the past
several months. Indeed, when it is forced to mention repeated rebel
attacks in November and December, the editorial line is that the murder
of policemen and aid workers, and attacks on aid convoys, are little
more than a rebel cry for help. [540]
The Washington Post’s editorial position has also neglected to note any
Islamist involvement in the Darfur crisis, accepting rebel claims about
“marginalisation” being the reason for the conflict. Interestingly, The
Washington Post editorialists called on European countries to militarily
intervene in Darfur, stating that “the United States is overcommitted
militarily in Iraq and elsewhere”. The United States is overcommitted
for the simple reason that it is mired in increasingly unsuccessful
military interventions in two other Muslim countries, Iraq and
Afghanistan. These interventions have served to galvanise anti-
American forces, armed and unarmed, across the political spectrum
within those countries and internationally, as well as attracting vast
numbers of al-Qaeda fighters. Western military intervention in Sudan,
another Muslim country, would have a similar effect. Simply put, The Washington Post’s editorial stance has put propaganda before both
people in need and national security.
The London Sunday Times Magazine: A Study in Inept Journalism:
On 11 July 2004, the London Sunday Times magazine carried an article
written by AA Gill, on the situation in Darfur. Written by someone
better known as a restaurant critic, the article was described as the “firstof our series of stirring reports from around the world” and featured a
picture of Gill swathed in a head-scarf on the magazine cover. Entitled
“Welcome to Hell”, the article demonstrated almost every facet of the
poor journalism that has characterised media coverage of the Darfur
crisis. His first piece of foreign reporting, Gill rushed at the Darfur issue
with all the enthusiasm of a cub reporter - and made all the mistakes one
would have expected from one.
Gill chose the easy option on Darfur, echoing sensationalist claims,
stating for example that “there are rumours of war, of genocide, of
ethnic cleansing” before moving on to assert that there is “ethnic
cleansing and genocide”, and then concluding that the Sudanese
government is a “blatantly racist, genocidal regime”. Gill’s inept
journalism, based on a short visit to the Chadian side of the border, was
illustrated by his attempt to produce evidence for the “genocide”. As
proof of genocide and ethnic cleansing Gill pointed to the fact that in the
refugee camps he visited “all the refugees are black: there are no Arabs
here.” Here Gill made his first mistake. As we have seen, both “African”
and “Arab” in Darfur are black. Any number of anti-government sources
have shown Gill’s claims to be dangerously lazy racial shorthand.
Perhaps Gill was expecting “Arabs” to be Omar Sharif lookalikes. The
discrepancy between simple Darfurian realities and the “reporting” and claims of people such as Gill exposes either poor reporting or reporting
that has been purposefully skewed. Either is simply unacceptable: in
Gill’s case it was all too obvious that it is merely poor journalism.
AA Gill chose to make serious claims of genocide in Darfur - this
despite the unambiguous observations of groups such as Médecins Sans
Frontières. This was even more surprising as what little “front-line”
colour there was in Gill’s report came out of visits to MSF camps and
facilities on the border. While visiting their camps, Gill seemingly
neglected to ask MSF for their view of claims of genocide. Gill would
have also come across these views had he done even a basic internet
search. He opted, however, for easier, more sensationalist and less
demanding story-lines.
Gill was equally strident in his claims that humanitarian access to Darfur
is being blocked by the Khartoum authorities, claiming: “invariably the
promised visas for observers and NGOs never materialise...There are
500 applications from humanitarian agencies alone gathering dust.” This
claim would come as a surprise to aid workers in Darfur. Mr Jan
Egeland, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian
Affairs (and a fierce critic of the government), stated in early July - a
week before Gill’s article - that he was surprised to see claims that aid
was not reaching Darfur: “It is strange to see that there is still the notion
in the world that nothing is happening and we’re completely blocked
from accessing Darfur. We are reaching some 800,000 people at the
moment with some sort of assistance and food.” [541] Gill may also have
been interested that three weeks before his Sunday Times magazine
article, Mr Kevin Kennedy, the outgoing acting UN Humanitarian
Coordinator for Sudan, stated that visas were generally being granted
within 48 hours and that “people are experiencing very few visa
difficulties”. [542] Gill's claims were also somewhat dented by the United
Nations announcement one week prior to his article that two million
children in Darfur had been immunised against measles. [543] This was
carried out by 2,000 health teams made up of World Health
Organisation, UNICEF and other humanitarian workers - all of whom would presumably have needed visas of some sort.
AA Gill’s gullibility appeared to know no bounds. He rounded off his
lacklustre piece on Darfur by repeating a few more stale and discredited
claims about Sudan. He states, for example, that Khartoum has
“attempted to develop chemical and nuclear weapons”. This will come
as news to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The Clinton
Administration’s farcical 1998 cruise missile attack on the al-Shifa
aspirin factory in Khartoum and its subsequent inability to substantiateits claims (and Gill’s) about Sudan and chemical weapons was painful
and public. [544]
The Independent on Sudan: Lies and Hypocrisy
The Independent, a British newspaper, has over the years established
itself as a newspaper which showed a genuine interest in Africa and
African issues. Sadly, its coverage of the Darfur crisis has demonstrated
every shortcoming associated with Western media coverage of the
continent: inaccurate reporting, sensationalism, prejudice and hypocrisy.
In a mirror image of The Washington Post, The Independent’s
editorial line has claimed that events in Darfur were genocide and has
called for military intervention. The newspaper enthusiastically
proclaimed Colin Powell’s 9 September 2004 claim of genocide in
Darfur with a banner-page headline, “Genocide”, the following day. [545]
Given that The Independent has hitherto been very cautious about
believing anything claimed by Colin Powell it is very surprising that it
unreservedly accepted at face value Powell’s claim of genocide in
Darfur, let alone to have given his assertion such prominence in the
paper. [546]
This leads to the first surprise about this newspaper’s embracing of
claims of genocide. Not many months previously, The Independent had
been at the forefront of opposition to any American military intervention
anywhere, and was particularly prominent in the opposition to the
American-led war in Iraq. It published several editorials and numerous comment pieces and news items critical of the war. It warned about
American claims leading up to the Iraq war. [547] It reported on the horrific
nature of the American-led war in Iraq. [548] It reported on the gradual
disintegration of the American reasons for invading Iraq in the first
place. [549] And it has reported on the consequences of the American
invasion of Iraq. [550] The Independent has also asserted that President
Bush and Colin Powell led Britain into an illegal war in Iraq. [551] Yet, the
newspaper’s editorialists appear to be blind to the fact that in their
unquestioning acceptance of clearly questionable American claims about
another Muslim country – and in their calls for military intervention they
have reduced The Independent to nothing more than a mindless
cheerleader for action that could be every bit as badly thought-out and
disastrous as Iraq.
It is worth noting that The Independent was very critical of Prime
Minister Tony Blair for supporting the Bush Administration’s invasion
of Iraq. It has claimed he was suckered into doing so by untrue
American claims about the country. [552] It is ironic that with regard to
American claims about Darfur, unlike Mr Blair – who has been far more
cautious and better informed about the issue on this occasion – it is The
Independent that appears to have been suckered by Washington.In any instance, the case made by The Independent to support its claim
of genocide and call for military intervention is flimsy. The editorial
which accompanied its “Genocide” front-page banner headline, for
example, claimed that “By any civilised standards, the slaughter of
50,000 people constitutes genocide” and pressed for military
intervention. [553] Given that the figure cited was a controversial statistical
extrapolation, and included those who may have died from malnutrition
and disease, the use of the term “slaughter” was immediately
questionable, as was the inference that any war in which 50,000 may
have died automatically qualifies as “genocide”. The intellectual and
linguistic sloppiness of The Independent’s editorial team is manifest.
This has not stopped it making repeated claims of genocide in Darfur.
Johann Hari, a regular columnist with The Independent, has led the
newspaper’s attempts to describe events in Darfur as genocide. In so
doing he has made repeated references to, amongst other things, the film
“Schindler’s List” and the Rwandan holocaust. [554] Indeed, in his
enthusiasm, he has trivialised concern for the Nazi Holocaust: “If we
don’t intervene in Darfur, you can toss your tear-stained copies of
‘Schindler’s List’ on to a bonfire.” [555] Amazingly enough, however, in
his article of 23 April 2004 claiming genocide, he quotes from one
Mercedes Tatay [sic], whom he describes as “a Darfur-based physician
with the aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres”, as giving “a glimpse into
the state of a country where journalists are being denied access”. This is,
of course, Mercedes Taty, the deputy emergency director of Médecins
Sans Frontières, someone who had indeed been based in Darfur, and
who had been interviewed on 16 April by MSNBC. Hari cites Taty’s
comments about the destroyed villages in Darfur, but conveniently
ignores the fact that she unambiguously said events in Darfur did not
constitute genocide – and that there was no systematic targeting of one
ethnic group or another: Taty also said the crisis could not be describedas ethnic cleansing. Hari’s article was one more example of appalling,
two-faced journalism on Darfur. In his enthusiasm to claim genocide in
Darfur, however, Hari actually compares Darfur to the Holocaust, Nazi
death camps and IBM. [556] Unsurprisingly, given this sort of wordblindness,
Hari’s Darfur articles regurgitate all the standard propaganda
lines on the issue. He writes about “racist Sudanese militias” engaging in
“attacks against black people”, and their disruption of “basic food and
medicine supplies”. [557] He has claimed that “the Arab majority is
continuing to rape and slaughter the black minority”. [558] And just as the
United Nations tells us that things are getting better, the situation has
stabilised, war-affected communities are being fed, Hari, once again
claiming genocide, informs his readers that “the situation…is getting
worse”. [559]
Hari’s skewing of the reality of events in Darfur complemented the
newspaper’s general Darfur coverage. Despite having published a
glowing account of Médecins Sans Frontières, The Independent’s
editorialists conveniently overlooked MSF’s views on claims of
genocide in Darfur. [560] It has also published untruths. In January 2005,
for example, it alleged that the charity Save the Children “was expelled
from the country last year”. [561] The reality was that Save the Children
had voluntarily left Darfur following the murder by rebels of four of
their staff. This had even been reported on by its own correspondents. [562]
The Independent’s editorialising about the murder of aid workers also
demonstrated its slant. The newspaper had ignored the fact that the Darfur rebels had murdered a number of aid workers – including the
four Save the Children personnel, had abducted dozens of others and
had repeatedly attacked aid convoys over several months in 2004. It
chose to editorialise when another aid worker was killed in cross-fire
during an engagement between government forces and rebels. Its
editorial then accused the government of the “deliberate targeting of aid
workers” and inferred that the government had killed the four Save the
Children workers, thereby forcing the organisation out of Darfur. [563]
It is still puzzling how The Independent finds itself in the lonely
position of enthusiastically articulating American claims about genocide
in Darfur – claims which even the Americans appear not to take too
seriously – in the face of precisely the sort of concerns it raised about
previous American assertions about Iraq: widespread international
unease about the American claims, the horror of the military
intervention that would be needed and the unpredictable outcome and
legality of any such intervention. The question it has not posed or
answered is that given the chaos that we now see in Iraq, whether the
people of Darfur would be any better off with a similar intervention in
their homeland. Would Darfur – and Sudan and possibly some of her
neighbours – merely become the latest extension of Afghanistan or
Somalia, a failed state with no international humanitarian presence?
BBC Panorama, “The New Killing Fields”, 14 November 2004
British foreign minister Mullins has also been critical of BBC coverage
of the Darfur crisis: “I continually hear reports of the situation in Darfur,
often on the BBC, as if only one party – the Government of Sudan –
were involved…we do ourselves no service in improving our
understanding of what is happening there if we continually pretend that
it is all due to the Government of Sudan. That is not the case.” [564] “The
New Killing Fields”, a BBC Panorama programme, presented byAmerican reporter Hilary Andersson and screened on 14 November
2004, provided clear evidence of this poor reporting. The programme
deviated significantly from the journalistic standards normally
associated with the flagship Panorama series and violated the BBC’s
own Producers’ Guidelines. These guidelines declare that “[a]ccurate,
robust, independent, and impartial, journalism is the DNA of the BBC”
and called for people to be able to rely on the BBC for “unbiased and
impartial reporting and analysis to help them make sense of events; and
where a debate can take place in which relevant and significant voices are heard”
It goes without question that any journalistic investigation of allegations
of genocide must be thoroughly professional and objective. Anything
less is simply unacceptable. The BBC’s “The New Killing Fields”, fell
considerably short in both respects. The thrust of the programme was
clear. It argued a case for genocide in Darfur – the title of the
programme made that clear from the start - but in making its case it
presented an incomplete and questionable picture of events to support its
assertions.
Ms Andersson’s report essentially cut and pasted footage in an attempt
to put her case for genocide in Darfur. This undermined the report’s
chronological integrity from the very beginning of the programme. It is
a simple fact that the bulk of the actions that framed the tragedy of
Darfur happened up to April 2004. The April ceasefire and the
deployment of thousands of policemen in Darfur essentially stabilised
the situation in Darfur. Ms Anderson reported from Darfur during this
earlier period and did not then assert that genocide had taken place. It is
hard to see how not having seen or reported “genocide” then, that a
subsequent visit to Darfur during a period of comparative stability
during which the UN and other aid agencies were able to reach most if
not all of those Darfurian communities in need of humanitarian
assistance, Ms Andersson was then able to insinuate that genocide has/is
taking place in Darfur. Ms Andersson’s attempt to update her coverage
of Darfur from earlier in 2004 did not produce anything remotely
supportive of her assertions of genocide in Darfur. By way of evidence
Ms Andersson produced interviews and a Sudan Liberation Army rebel videotape which – even if taken at face value – point to the sorts of
appalling human rights abuses that are tragically a hall-mark of many
African and European civil wars. However much Ms Andersson and
Panorama may have sought to package the suffering of those she
interviewed; it was simply not evidence of “genocide”.
While there were several examples of questionable and lacklustre
journalism in the BBC programme, two issues stood out. The first point
is that there was a clear failure to reflect “all significant strands of
opinion” as stipulated in the BBC’s Producers’ Guidelines. The
guidelines state: “Openness and independence of mind is at the heart of
practising accuracy and impartiality. We will strive to be fair and open
minded by reflecting all significant strands of opinion, and by exploring
the range and conflict of views. Testing a wide range of views with the
evidence is essential if we are to give our audiences the greatest possible
opportunity to decide for themselves on the issues of the day.”
[Emphasis added] With regard to “accuracy” and “achieving accuracy”,
the Guidelines state that “The BBC must be accurate. Research for all
programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared to check, crosscheck
and seek advice, to ensure this. Wherever possible we should
gather information first-hand by being there ourselves or, where that is
not possible, by talking to those who were. [emphasis added] Accuracy
can be difficult to achieve. It is important to distinguish between first
and second-hand sources.”
With regard to “impartiality in general”, the BBC’s Producers’
Guidelines clearly states that: “No significant strand of thought should
go unreflected or under represented on the BBC.” [Emphasis added]
The Panorama programme clearly did not reflect “all significant strands
of opinion” on allegations of genocide in Darfur. Ms Andersson also did
not talk to “those who were [there]”. Her programme pointedly ignored
the views of the most respected, independent, vocal and accessible
authority on the issue of genocide in general and allegations of genocide
in Darfur in particular – the views of Médecins Sans Frontières, the
biggest humanitarian aid agency present in Darfur. There were therefore several question-marks over this BBC programme.
Was Ms Andersson or the BBC aware of Médecins Sans Frontières’
stance with regard to allegations of genocide in Darfur? Why were the
clearly relevant views of Médecins Sans Frontières ignored in her report? Why did Ms Andersson not interview Médecins Sans Frontières
about allegations of genocide in Darfur? Did she really believe that
MSF’s view on the issue of genocide was irrelevant or not significant? If
she was not aware of MSF’s position would that not indicate inadequate
background research on this grave issue? It is all the more surprising that
Ms Andersson did not approach Médecins Sans Frontières given that she
filmed MSF facilities in Darfur. Why did Panorama chose to use MSF as
a prop and not a commentator? Could this have been because Ms
Anderson knew they may well have contradicted the core of her report?
Similarly, it is strange that while interviewing African Union officials in
Darfur, she pointedly chose not to ask their position with regard to
allegations of genocide in Darfur. Like Médecins Sans Frontières, the
African Union has a presence in Darfur, albeit subsequent to that of
MSF, and, as we have seen above, its position that there is no genocide
in Darfur is a clear one. Given that Ms Andersson self-servingly
interviewed African Union officials about allegations of human rights
abuses, why did she not interview the African Union about allegations
of genocide in Darfur? Was she aware of the African Union’s stance
with regard to allegations of genocide in Darfur? If she was not aware of
the African Union’s position, would that not indicate inadequate
background research on this serious issue?
Secondly, the BBC’s Producers’ Guidelines note the importance of
using “accurate language”, stating that “it is not sufficient that we get
our facts right. We must use language fairly. That means avoiding
exaggeration. We must not use language inadvertently so as to suggest
value judgements, commitment or lack of objectivity.” The title “The
New Killing Fields” was simply unacceptable. They are words that
directly refer to the genocide in Kampuchea in the 1970s – and were the
title of a well-known film about the Kampuchean genocide. The absence
of a question mark in the title was even more insidious. The use of thistitle implied precisely the sort of value judgement and lack of objectivity
warned against in the Producers’ Guidelines.
The Producers’ Guidelines additionally refer to “hurtful or inaccurate
stereotypes” and under a section headed “misleading images” states that
“Programmes must not allow offensive assumptions or generalisations in
scripted material, and interviewees who express them need to be
challenged wherever possible.” The BBC programme resorted to
inaccurate stereotyping regarding Darfur, repeatedly referring either to
“black Africans” or “Arabs”. Ms Andersson referred, for example, to
“black African rebels”, “black Africans”, “black African civilians”,
“African families”, “black African population”, “black African civilian
areas” etc. She also referred to “Arab militias”, “Arab-looking” and “the
Arabs”. In so doing Ms Anderson wittingly or unwittingly perpetuated
the patently inaccurate stereotype that the conflict in Darfur has been a
racial one in which light-skinned “Arab” tribes have been engaged in the
“genocide” of black “African” tribes. These sorts of claims are selfevidently
inflammatory and very questionable. Ms Andersson may only
have spent a short time in Darfur but it cannot have escaped her notice
that “Arab” and “African” communities in Darfur are both black – a
reality repeatedly confirmed by prominent critics of the Khartoum
government. Why was it that in the hour-long Panorama programme, Ms
Andersson did not even address the fundamental issue of identities
outlined above? While there could conceivably be a case for referring to
“African” and “Arab” in the cultural context cited above, Ms
Andersson’s repeated use of the term “black” within the Darfur context,
however, in which both “Arab” and “African” are equally black-skinned
is either deliberately self-serving and sensationalist or simply lazy
journalism. Neither should have a place in BBC journalism.
An American Media Critique of Itself
A September 2004 article in The Village Voice, a liberal New York newspaper, provided one of the most insightful critiques of American news coverage of Darfur. It is worth quoting it at length:
For news outlets covering the conflict in Sudan, the killings rapes,
and razing of villages boils down to one factor – race. The
Washington Post and The New York Times have repeatedly
characterized attacks by the Arab riders of the government-backed
Janjaweed as a war against “black Africans.” The Associated Press
has referred to the turmoil in the Darfur region as fighting between
Arabs and “ethnic Africans.” Clinging to race as an explain-all theory
might make for more readable stories, but it has a central flaw. Many
of the Sudanese “Arabs” are as dark as the “ethnic Africans” they are
at war with....“If you look at most of the media coverage, you get the
impression that Sudan is made up of white people, who are mostly
Arabs, attacking black people who aren’t Arab,” says Bill Fletcher,
president of TransAfrica Forum. “Some of the Africans in question
are Arab, some are not. But they are almost all black – at least the
way we understand it. Being Arab is a matter of culture and language.
Arabs look all kinds of ways, but you’d never get that
impression.”…The narrative of Darfur involves issues of religion,
climate, and competition for land…Nuanced and accurate, this kind
of explanation has little chance of making it into the morning
papers…In much of its coverage [The New York Times] has been
sucked in by the siren song of race. An August 20 piece cited “the
war in western Sudan, pitting the Arab-led government against black
Africans in Darfur.” [565]
In Online Journal’s independent critique of Eric Reeves’ activity on
Sudan – he “may be the major source of disinformation (he calls it
analysis’) about Darfur” – the gullibility of the American media is also
criticised: “How curious that the American media latches on to Mr
Reeves’ one-sided falsehoods by way of presented out-of-context halftruths
while at the same time ignoring the dispatches of other journalists,
including those who have provided eyewitness accounts…Reeves’
pieces altogether comprise of several dozens of pages which have the
same basic thrust, yet be utterly ignores the realities of the two-decadesplus
Civil War in Sudan and even the more recent background of
violence….Reeves’, and by extension, the newspapers that publish him,
morality is clearly a one-way morality. In other words, a hypocritical
immorality.” Online Journal concludes: “In sum, what the Americanmedia has poured down an unsuspecting public’s throat is a hellish brew
of selective half-truths, sophistry, and ad hominem pseudoarguments.”
[566] That any newspaper worth that name would publish
material by Reeves is surprising. There can be no greater indictment on
the ethics and standards of American journalism. Reeves, however, has
provided students of the media-propaganda dynamic with a snap-shot of
gullibility and culpability. In an attack on “shamefully irresponsible
journalism” – that is to say those newspapers and wire services that have
not accepted his claims of 400,000 dead in Darfur – Reeves provides us
with a list of those “news organizations, editorial boards and journalists”
that have. They include “the editorial boards of the Washington Post and
Boston Globe; Bloomberg News; the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation; and experienced Sudan journalists such as Julie Flint.” [567]
The Online Journal states that The Washington Post has, indeed, been
“a major conduit for Mr Reeves’ misinformation”. [568]
In her study of media reporting and compassion fatigue Professor
Moeller has also pointed to other media shortcomings which can also be
applied to reporting of the Darfur crisis:
The media should commit to covering international affairs as they
cover domestic crime. If they report on the arrest of a suspect, they
have an ethical responsibility to follow up and report on the outcome
of that arrest. Was there a plea bargain or a trial? Was the defendant
found innocent or guilty? Too often the media cover an international
crisis as they would a dramatic incident like an arrest, but then the
story is dropped, and the public never learns whether the victim
survived or whether the suspect arrested was really the person responsible. The media also too infrequently revisit stories six months or even six years later. [569]
That the media rarely follows up on its stories was confirmed by former
NBC News president Bill Small: “It is rarely done but whenever it is,
one finds insights in the follow-up, and, often, the discovery that the
original story was either wrong or lacked vital ingredients that the
follow-up discovers.” [570] It is worth noting that in the small number of
cases when there has been follow-up on sensationalist stories on Sudan -
on “slave redemption” and weapons of mass destruction stories, for
example - much of the original story, as outlined above, was wrong or
deeply questionable.
Coverage of Darfur has led to considerable in-house debate amongst
journalists, including several exchanges in the Press Gazette, British
journalism’s in-house magazine, with articles questioning the close
relationship between the media and non-governmental organisations in
Darfur. One keynote piece asked whether some “kind of deliberate
misinformation about the Sudan was being engineered by some…NGOs
that had become players in the civil war in the south or had been
involved in media manipulation through friendly journalists?” [571] One
journalist expressed his concern “that a number of aid and humanitarian
organisations continue to hid their own political agenda and a larger
number of journalists and media organisations resort to lazy racial
stereotyping…Many humanitarian crises caused by civil wars are in
inaccessible places and appear too complicated…but it is exactly the
duty and function of journalism to highlight the crisis and explain its
background.” [572]
Mediocre and sensationalist media coverage of the Darfur crisis has, and
will have, a number of deplorable consequences. Firstly, given that the
some of the media - journalists such as Kristof - have, for whatever
reason, labelled events in Darfur as genocide when there have already
been several credible denials that that is the case, there is a clear danger
of interest in the issue waning as a result. This is a point made byProfessor Moeller: “There is another problem stemming from the
labelling of crises by images and metaphors. Once an audience is
familiar with a label, it becomes easy to dismiss the event itself by
rejecting the label. And that rejection can become a form of compassion
fatigue.” [573] Secondly, the media’s role in forcing the US Administration
into a declaration of genocide in Darfur - in circumstances in which that
description was at best deeply questionable and at worst undeserved -
will, in the light of clearer examinations of the issue, have the effect of
presenting the United States as once again crying wolf. In the wake of
the “weapons of mass destruction” fiasco over Iraq, this “weapons of
mass distraction” controversy will ill serve the reputation of the United
States. And on a related issue, the mis-labelling of events in Darfur as
genocide will - as was the case with American policy after Somalia -
make the United States reluctant to recognise genuine instances of
genocide in the future. Thirdly, shallow media coverage of Darfur
claiming genocide and calling for foreign military intervention would
not only have resulted in an Iraqi-style quagmire but would also have
had a disastrous knock-on effect on the delicate north-south peace deal
in Sudan. [574] The irresponsibility of shallow, and in some cases selfserving,
media coverage of Darfur could not be clearer.
Moeller’s warnings about the importance of responsible reporting, and
their relevance to Darfur, are equally clear: “Reporting the news is both
a political and a moral act. An element of shame is involved in not
reporting responsibly and reporting equitably. If the media don’t bear
witness truthfully and thoughtfully, the good/bad stereotypes endure and
the lack of concern persists.” [575]
Footnotes
|
 |
|
