I searched hard for a major media outlet that does as I suggest, and provides good, informative background links: Please take a look at the profiles provided as links to appropiate web stories from the BBC1:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14069082
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14094995
Please note that I intend to refer to these articles in my following posts. Please give them a good read.
1 links provided in accordance with Terms of Use of BBC Online Services - Personal Use
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Blaming the media
In my prior post, I asked you to review Don Golden's very good piece from the Huffington Post. In the paragraph I quoted, he cites the relative silence of the media as a danger which could unravel years of peace work.
With all respect to this well reasoned article, I think the media's responsibility is not the fault that really needs to be addressed. I did some surfing on the internet last night to see if I could locate articles about the current Sudan crisis. I found most media outlets covered the Helgig raid by South Sudan, and the Sudanese retaking of the town. The stories each added a little knowledge, as each came from a slightly different angle, and focused on a different aspect. So the reporting was there, but ut was buried deep into the international section. This is hardly a media problem (with 2 exceptions I'll note below); There have been news items which clearly gained some traction yesterday, most notably the conviction of Charles Taylor in Sierra Leone. I did find that the CNN site had no articles, which surprised me; I also discovered that Fox News doesn't even have an Africa desk. I'll try to be as neutral as I can in writing these posts but I'm neither surprised that Fox had nothing to say, nor concerned considering their seeming inability to report without editorializing at the same time. I also checked English and French speaking sites from Europe and Canada, and found that coverage in the US was similar to countries with comparable media.
The media clearly did not ignore the South Sudan story, but it was far from being a lead story. Given the events of yesterday, it is quite understandable. So if the media reports, why aren't we paying attention?
I think there are two problems playing out here: First, to the few people who try to keep abreast of African issues, there is a certain weariness of the ongoing problems in Sudan. The Darfur issue, hudreds of miles from South Sudan, was a loudly decried crisis a decade ago, and has not been satisfactorily addressed. Omar al-Bashir has been president for eighteen years in the Sudan, and is an accused war criminal. The civil wars that ended in a treaty between Sudan and it's rebelling provices destroyed an entire generation there. So, after more than 20 years of continuing bad and intractable news from Sudan, is it any wonder that many gloss over a new crisis and shrug it off?
The second problem with paying attention to the Sudan is a lack of education about geography, recent history and background about the Sudan in particular, but also with the wider world. I don't think this problem is limited to my fellow US citizens, but it is a general malaise of developed countries toward the rest of the world.
Now I'm getting to a point that the media ought to be doing better: educating and informing. With the tools available to modern news organizations, I would like to see a synopsis article written for the Sudan, along with maps explaining where the important sites are (South Kordofan and Abeye for example), and a chronology of the crisis. It should be linked to each new article about a violence flare up, a diplomatic event, or any other newsworthy event. In that way, the web-based reader can get a background briefing if needed, or as television begins to become interactive, links to a synopsis would greatly aid the viewer. Newspapers have traditionally given in-depth synopses on critical matters, but as we move to a new media paradigm, we need to rely on some sources are good at streaming 24-hour current events, but are simply terrible at in-depth explanations.
So there it is. The media are NOT silent. they are, however not engaging the reader who needs to know the basis for the events thrown at him or her. If Mr. Golden is right, that we risk years of peace work by ignoring the current crisis, then I for one call on the new media to learn how to engage the audience.
With all respect to this well reasoned article, I think the media's responsibility is not the fault that really needs to be addressed. I did some surfing on the internet last night to see if I could locate articles about the current Sudan crisis. I found most media outlets covered the Helgig raid by South Sudan, and the Sudanese retaking of the town. The stories each added a little knowledge, as each came from a slightly different angle, and focused on a different aspect. So the reporting was there, but ut was buried deep into the international section. This is hardly a media problem (with 2 exceptions I'll note below); There have been news items which clearly gained some traction yesterday, most notably the conviction of Charles Taylor in Sierra Leone. I did find that the CNN site had no articles, which surprised me; I also discovered that Fox News doesn't even have an Africa desk. I'll try to be as neutral as I can in writing these posts but I'm neither surprised that Fox had nothing to say, nor concerned considering their seeming inability to report without editorializing at the same time. I also checked English and French speaking sites from Europe and Canada, and found that coverage in the US was similar to countries with comparable media.
The media clearly did not ignore the South Sudan story, but it was far from being a lead story. Given the events of yesterday, it is quite understandable. So if the media reports, why aren't we paying attention?
I think there are two problems playing out here: First, to the few people who try to keep abreast of African issues, there is a certain weariness of the ongoing problems in Sudan. The Darfur issue, hudreds of miles from South Sudan, was a loudly decried crisis a decade ago, and has not been satisfactorily addressed. Omar al-Bashir has been president for eighteen years in the Sudan, and is an accused war criminal. The civil wars that ended in a treaty between Sudan and it's rebelling provices destroyed an entire generation there. So, after more than 20 years of continuing bad and intractable news from Sudan, is it any wonder that many gloss over a new crisis and shrug it off?
The second problem with paying attention to the Sudan is a lack of education about geography, recent history and background about the Sudan in particular, but also with the wider world. I don't think this problem is limited to my fellow US citizens, but it is a general malaise of developed countries toward the rest of the world.
Now I'm getting to a point that the media ought to be doing better: educating and informing. With the tools available to modern news organizations, I would like to see a synopsis article written for the Sudan, along with maps explaining where the important sites are (South Kordofan and Abeye for example), and a chronology of the crisis. It should be linked to each new article about a violence flare up, a diplomatic event, or any other newsworthy event. In that way, the web-based reader can get a background briefing if needed, or as television begins to become interactive, links to a synopsis would greatly aid the viewer. Newspapers have traditionally given in-depth synopses on critical matters, but as we move to a new media paradigm, we need to rely on some sources are good at streaming 24-hour current events, but are simply terrible at in-depth explanations.
So there it is. The media are NOT silent. they are, however not engaging the reader who needs to know the basis for the events thrown at him or her. If Mr. Golden is right, that we risk years of peace work by ignoring the current crisis, then I for one call on the new media to learn how to engage the audience.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Redirection, and a few thoughts about South Sudan
Every 'hobby' blog I come across seems to eventually have a lot of posts starting with "sorry I haven't written in so long..." or some such posting. In fact, although I have been absent for a while, I've been actively pondering the direction to take this writing, and the break has been, more or less, intentional.
When I finished my philosophy segment I started out on a tactical approach to organizing. It's not a bad approach, but honestly, it didn't feel right. I wanted to really talk about peace and peacemaking. Tactics can be left for any organization that I find myself in to do this work. I think this blog represents an intangible soap box for me where I can carefully consider the state of peace in the world.
It's been a terrible month for peace, most notably in Syria. Let's hope Kofi Annan's good efforts prevail. I'd prefer to have more to say on the subject, but Syria is a particularly difficult place to unravel. Not that any conflict of that magnitude is going to be easy, but Syria's interconnectedness with the Israel/Palestine, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon make any efforts to unravel a part of the conflict seem to aggravate some other aspect of the region. That makes it all the more impressive that Kofi Annan was able to make headway, albeit frustatingly slow and fragile.
I'm going to spend the next few posts on the potential for war between Sudan and South Sudan. This conflict is also quite complex, and involves quite a few exterior players, but there are several factors making it a compelling topic, including:
1) The independence of South Sudan was less than a year ago, and based on recently forged, albeit flawed, agreements. I feel that there is a fair basis to work with, and
2) The United States is on the periphery of these events. As a US citizen, it should be easier to have a perspective largely unclouded by national debate.
Tonight, I want to direct you to a posting released earlier today in The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-golden/are-we-still-dedicated-to_b_1452039.html
Don Golden gives an excellent summary of where the conflict stand right now, and urges engagement in the process, particularly where he states:
"The events of this past month, and the relative silence by the media on the escalating violence in the region, is a frightening reminder that turning a blind eye to the people of South Sudan could unravel years of peace work. It is then all the more important that the United Nations, African Union, local government and the multitude of international NGOs in the region recommit to furthering peace if a return to violence is to be avoided. "
This particular segment calls for several players to act on behalf of maintaining peace:
1) The media - he feels that inattention around the globe will allow the violence to escalate
2) The United Nations
3) The African Union
4) Local government
5) NGO's active in the region - Here it is important to note that Don Golden and his co-writer Francesco Paganini are executives with World Relief, a US-based Christian sponsored NGO.
Over the next week or so, I will examine the roles that each of the five players listed in the Post should play, and hopefully come to some conclusions as to the responsibility of everyone to keeping (or, perhaps more accurately, restoring) peace to South Sudan.
Thanks. As always, feel free to comment. I suspect the impetus to comment will become stronger as I dive in.
When I finished my philosophy segment I started out on a tactical approach to organizing. It's not a bad approach, but honestly, it didn't feel right. I wanted to really talk about peace and peacemaking. Tactics can be left for any organization that I find myself in to do this work. I think this blog represents an intangible soap box for me where I can carefully consider the state of peace in the world.
It's been a terrible month for peace, most notably in Syria. Let's hope Kofi Annan's good efforts prevail. I'd prefer to have more to say on the subject, but Syria is a particularly difficult place to unravel. Not that any conflict of that magnitude is going to be easy, but Syria's interconnectedness with the Israel/Palestine, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon make any efforts to unravel a part of the conflict seem to aggravate some other aspect of the region. That makes it all the more impressive that Kofi Annan was able to make headway, albeit frustatingly slow and fragile.
I'm going to spend the next few posts on the potential for war between Sudan and South Sudan. This conflict is also quite complex, and involves quite a few exterior players, but there are several factors making it a compelling topic, including:
1) The independence of South Sudan was less than a year ago, and based on recently forged, albeit flawed, agreements. I feel that there is a fair basis to work with, and
2) The United States is on the periphery of these events. As a US citizen, it should be easier to have a perspective largely unclouded by national debate.
Tonight, I want to direct you to a posting released earlier today in The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-golden/are-we-still-dedicated-to_b_1452039.html
Don Golden gives an excellent summary of where the conflict stand right now, and urges engagement in the process, particularly where he states:
"The events of this past month, and the relative silence by the media on the escalating violence in the region, is a frightening reminder that turning a blind eye to the people of South Sudan could unravel years of peace work. It is then all the more important that the United Nations, African Union, local government and the multitude of international NGOs in the region recommit to furthering peace if a return to violence is to be avoided. "
This particular segment calls for several players to act on behalf of maintaining peace:
1) The media - he feels that inattention around the globe will allow the violence to escalate
2) The United Nations
3) The African Union
4) Local government
5) NGO's active in the region - Here it is important to note that Don Golden and his co-writer Francesco Paganini are executives with World Relief, a US-based Christian sponsored NGO.
Over the next week or so, I will examine the roles that each of the five players listed in the Post should play, and hopefully come to some conclusions as to the responsibility of everyone to keeping (or, perhaps more accurately, restoring) peace to South Sudan.
Thanks. As always, feel free to comment. I suspect the impetus to comment will become stronger as I dive in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)