4.6 Using the Media in Support of Genocide Prevention and Suppression

Contents | Previous | Next

The Joint Evaluation found that inadequate and inaccurate reporting of the build up to and the initial phases of the genocide by the international media contributed to international indifference and inaction. References to “tribal killings” and “civil war” in sections of the media during the first weeks of the genocide had the effect of reducing pressure on key UN member states to recognize and publicly acknowledge that it was a genocide that was underway. This failure occurred in spite of local media, which became dominated in the early 1990s by a radio station and newspaper whose vitriolic propaganda incited ethnic hatred and violence. The Joint Evaluation recommended (E) that:

Conferences have been held. In 1997 an international media organization, “Crosslines,” sponsored a conference in Boston, Massachusetts, focusing on the role of the media in conflict prevention. The meeting used the Rwanda genocide and the Joint Evaluation as points of departure. Participants included media, NGO, and donor representatives. Seven years later, a number of observances of the tenth anniversary of the Rwanda genocide in March and April 2004 addressed the issue of the role of the media, and the School of Journalism at Carleton University in Ottawa hosted a conference in March devoted specifically to “The Media and the Rwanda Genocide.” However, the number of reporters and editors from media organizations participating in such events is limited: most members of the media are not “conference goers.”

Some prominent journalists have thought about the mistakes made and the lessons to be learned from coverage of the genocide by themselves and their colleagues (e.g. Dowden 2004). A number of studies have been undertaken both by individuals within the media and by academics (e.g. Minear, Scott and Weiss 1996; Rotberg and Weiss 1996; Gowing 1997, Save the Children/ECHO 1998) The Netherlands Association of Journalists held a seminar on the role of conflict prevention and peace building in 2002 and the Canadian-based Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society (IMPACS) has developed a handbook on Conflict Sensitive Journalism and has projects in selected conflict and post-conflict areas. The Institute for War and Peace Reporting also provides support to journalists reporting on conflicts. Unfortunately, even when taken together such steps do not guarantee that major news organizations would be unlikely to repeat the same mistakes as occurred in Rwanda.⁴⁸

To complement such steps schools of journalism need to be providing at least some basic training in international human rights law and conflict prevention and media organizations and professional organizations should encourage greater reflection on their practice as organizations and individuals in such complex and challenging contexts. Some journalists argue that there are simply far too few foreign correspondents and not enough space dedicated to foreign news to provide the space for such measures.⁴⁹ Nevertheless, the media as with other professions should strive to improve its standards, accountability mechanisms and ability to learn from experience, and should be encouraged to do so.

A discussion of the media’s responses to the lessons from Rwanda would not be complete without mention of the very significant technological changes that have occurred since 1994 in newsgathering and transmission. The advent of digital video cameras and their widespread use by private individuals has significantly increased the availability of images from many parts of the world. Journalists can now prepare and send good quality film via the Internet or satellite links. The ability of news organizations to cover events has increased substantially.

Another development since 1994 has been in the number and availability of analytical sources on a particular area of tension or conflict. In the words of one interlocutor: “Groups like the International Crisis Group (ICG) are invaluable for working journalists (and their editors), who often are generalists by nature and don’t have the time to get up to speed on the complexities of any breaking crisis. Briefing papers and websites like those produced by the ICG are easily digestible, and perceived to be relatively free of bias. In 1994, journalists who suddenly found themselves covering Rwanda had few independent sources of information about the country, the background to the crisis and were quick to resort to inappropriate narrative clichés about “ceasefire” and “tribal hatreds”.

While improvements in these areas reduce the likelihood that a future genocide will be receive inadequate and poor quality coverage, they do not guarantee improved coverage and quality in all cases. For instance the lack of film images from Darfur during 2003 and early 2004 due to travel restrictions on outsiders imposed by the Government of Sudan appears to have been an important factor contributing to the delayed international response in that case. Also it seems that editors continue to be influenced by their perceptions of what politicians, officials and the public see as “important stories”.

48. Personal communication from Greg Barker.

49. Personal communication from Linda Melvern.

Contents | Previous | Next