Why is this happening?
The people I talk to have barely heard about the tragedy going on, in southern Somalia.
We heard about Haiti right away, of course. And we heard about the Tsunami, in Japan, just as quickly.
Why is it, that when yet another tragedy hits the continent of Africa, Media in the West are slow to make the public aware?
Are Media simply following public interest?
Hundreds of people have died, in that region of the world--in the short time that it has taken for me to put up this Post. Hundreds of thousands may have already died, in recent weeks.
Is it that the Public and/or the Media take it for granted--because that's the way it has always been in this region of the world?
And how do we see God's role, or God's possible absence, in these kinds of massive tragedies--which could, quite arguably, be distinguished from genocides?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 54
That's really sad. We are wrapped in shallow stories of movie stars instead of the events of our brothers and sisters throughout the world. This truly makes me sad.
How many more Rwandas and Dafurs do we have to have, before we pound the message home....time and time again.....that Africa is so often capable of suffering 50,000 miseries a day?
Regardless of our own serious problems, we--here in the West--are much, much, much, much better off.....
Thanks for your comments, CatBird....
But I also think that if you look at when ABC's coverage expanded, they were still somewhat on the slow side--especially, by comparison to the BBC and to ITN.
I realize that technical resources, for Media, as well as political turmoil, curtail coverage.
Nevertheless, PBS's "News Hour" has accepted feeds, for quite sometime.
And, clearly, there isn't that synergistic effect, that we received from the Media reports of the Haitian and Japanese tragedies--where the Public became flooded (no pun intended) with essential information.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13393137
I forgot to say, the UK's press - mostly the broadsheets, but also some of the tabloids have also publicised the situation in Somalia.
I take 2 newspapers a day and prefer that method of news!
I prefer to read news too, we absorb it better that way. Unfortunately newspaper deliveries are no longer reliable and I can't be asred going to collect a paper in the morning.
I have bought the new tabloid version of The Indy, 'i' quite often. I think the low price and lack of waffle will be a winner for them.
Ian - I've bought that 'I' a few times, too. Liked it, but a little too sparse for a good read!
Until the public starts patronizing the important instead of the immediate, we'll get what we get. And it seems clear that the public likes to live in fantasy, not reality.
How good are they at circumnavigating political turmoil?
I've always been a fan of theirs.....
Thanks for your comments.
On the other hand, we continue to restrain aid coming from the US because of Al-Shebaab's terrorist ties. The only ones suffering are the innocents caught in the middle.
What is also not unknown is the US media not bothering with the suffering of those who are neither white nor well-off. We don't seem to care. That, too, is vile.
Good post, John. If the mainstream media won't bother, I'm glad you have.
Unfortunately, it takes a visit from Angelina Jolie before the media notice.
Only for a short time after the earthquake decimated the island. Then we went back to ignoring them.
I can only partially agree, with regard to commitment and awareness, on the Haitian coverage.
CNN had reports for many hours a day, for weeks. And you may recall the celebrity-filled national TV, phone-bank fundraisers.
How does that sort of commitment compare to the trickling of information, coming from the Horn of Africa? Awareness of the Famine is paltry by comparison.
First, we care only about our own Hemisphere.
In any case, thanks for your valued comments, here....
Actually, I think your statements suggest we do agree, as I'll expound on below.
How does that sort of commitment compare to the trickling of information, coming from the Horn of Africa? Awareness of the Famine is paltry by comparison.
As you note, CNN and many others had extensive coverage for a (relatively) short time, replete with celebrities. All to deal with an acute crisis. People, and celebrities, react to acute crises. But when this crisis was lapped by the next "acute crisis in waiting" our interest shifted away from Haiti and on to the other flash point issue. We've seen this many many times.
In contrast, the famine in Somalia and environs is more of a chronic problem. There have been flashes or urgency in the past - Biafra, LiveAid, etc. - but the sudden influx of interest never lasts as long as the problem persists. And, embarrassingly, many in America and perhaps also Europe lump everything that happens in different parts of Africa as "Africa." Thus the famine in Somalia seems to be just a continuation of the famines elsewhere on the continent, which means in peoples minds this is something that has been going on for a very long time. Which means chronic. Which means, not acute. Which means, boring. [Not boring to me or to you or to Ishbel or to others on this thread who have expressed regrets for not doing more, but boring to the people who need some acute crisis with celebrity endorsement to stimulate action.] All of this means a lack of urgency and a lack of action.
The media reflect this lack of urgency in peoples minds since stories they do don't get the ratings. So the media move on to the next "exciting" story that will engage their short attention span viewers/readers.
First, we care only about our own Hemisphere.
I don't necessarily agree that this is true, though there certainly is some evidence to suggest so. I think we do care but since we each individually can't carry the weight of all the world's problems on our shoulders we tend to focus on those that affect us most or seem "less foreign." Or is the most acute crisis of the moment. Or have Angelina Jolie or Bob Geldof involved.
Needless to say I'm not trying to make excuses for the lack of coverage and the lack of action on this front. One of GW Bush's greatest efforts in my mind was his insistence that we contribute funding and expertise to help thwart AIDS in Africa (which, unfortunately, the tea party seems intent on reversing). We need to understand better how such crises in other parts of the world affect us in the US and in other affluent regions. Which means more coverage.
Which of course gets us back to your efforts with this article. By posting it and engaging in discussion you have taken a step toward raising the awareness. If others here on Gather and in the blogosphere do the same it will help the public to understand the problem. It might even drag them away from screaming at [name party opposite of whoever you support] for causing this unnecessary self-contrived debt ceiling fake crisis that distracts us from more important issues.
Thanks for reminding us.
Does the US have such an organisation?
Like others here, I have heard about the severity of this crisis--from the BBC.
The Guarantee, that you mention, is important to would-be donors.
I can't speak for the USA but here in Britain compassion fatigue set in over Aftica a few humanitarian crises ago. The attitude among many of the British public is "We've been here before so many times since the 1960s and nothing changes."
As Sarah A points out above some religious and tribal groups (not just in Somalia but Ethiopia and Kenya which are also affected) are actively trying to prevent aid reaching members of other religions or tribes.
And then despite the best efforts of charities most of the money will end up either in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, or being used to buy weapons.
People on the left will blame colonialism but to do so is wrong. The colonial powers orginised food distribution in times of famine (the shortages are a result of distribution problems, not supply) The big mistake colonialism made was on withdrawing they tried to replace traditional tribal societies and the violence and conflict that went with those by imposing modern political nation states with geographically logical borders. It has not worked and Africa has reverted to tribalism.
Apart from compassion fatigue of course we do have a few minor local difficulties of our own to sort out in the developed nations.
I have spent some time, years ago, studying the imposed famine in the Sudan, before the atrocities in Dafur.
So I know something about the distribution problems, the lack of access, and the political oppression that transform droughts to famines.
Nevertheless, if Electronic Media fall into complacency or resignation--where Media have forsaken a respect for how critical pictures can be, to spurring on life-saving action and clamor--then we have lost a prodigious weapon for repelling Human Evil and its interlinkage to Natural Disaster.
I think what adds to the fatigue is the plethora of choices and not knowing who's going to use your money as intended and who's not. Thanks to Aniko for helping with that one. Here's a link I stumbled across yesterday that might help also...
As to help with the US Gov't - I fear there is none. But I digress.
There is a strong body of opinion among African thinkers that western aid is counter productive and only encourages a dependency culture. One of the foremost advocates of this view is Dambisa Moyo a Zambian polymath whose book Dead Aid details the harm done by western 'guilt tourism,' and discusses how the best way to help Africa is to stop exploiting its resuorces but then stand back and let Africans sort their own problems out and apply African rather than American or European solutions.
Ms Moyo is not alone in this view. Perhaps it is time to start listening to Africans rather than careeer politicians and bureaucrats in the west.
I'll link to my own post on this, Hugging an African does not help, thre's not much point going to read it, you'd do better reading the author interview on Dead Aid, but boosting the visibility of my post will steer more people towards the author's ideas.
Nippy, as you know, the majority of the country does not get their news from the BBC or from PBS.
Why should the country which is supposedly the leader of the 'free world' have such a crappy system of spreading news? Or is it that many American wouldn't be interested and so the news services don't bother?
For my money, the entire matter is deplorable....
Be fair, many in Britain are not intersted either. When I posted an item on my satirical blog about teacing people to buy kebabs or burgers and send them to Africa instead of throwing them in the gutter on Friday nghts I caught a load of comments expressing the opinion that the BBC's coverage of this latest famine (which has been going on for several years) is sensationalist, manipulative and politically biased.
Can't say I'm entirely unsympathetic to that p.o.v. especially when I hear stories about inadequate care on the elderly and vulnerable young in our own country.
The question of assistance to Africa is obviously complex and complicated.
The terrain, the climate, the nature of culture and the nature of political culture are all brought to bear, it seems to me--when assessing what sort of assistance is either essential or counterproductive.
For me, the bottom line is communicable diseases and deaths from starvation and dehydration:
If major epidemics break out, or if exposure or lack of resources result in a multitude of deaths, then who is to say that the dependency issue is a true factor in precipitating more deaths?
When did the continent of Africa, ever become immune to wide-spread disasters?
Certainly not before the Peace Corps, the AID, and a bevy of NGOs settled into their roles, there.
I suspect we might move in different circles.
Amongst academics, most are interested. They may agree or disagree about HOW aid is distributed - and may take into account the recent publications from African academics who tell us we in the West are wrong to keep ladling on the aid.....
They are not journalists any more; They are TV Stars.
Stories about famine are gut-wrenchingly difficult to watch. Many, if not most, will change the channel. So, the journalistic responsibilty to inform the public takes a back seat to putting on a good show.