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.