Tamara Sanford, C. Lyn and Dr. Robert Wakefield, Communications

As the conflict in Darfur persists, conditions continue to deteriorate for those living in the area. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, even by the most conservative estimates. The United Nations puts the death toll at roughly 300,000 (Lederer, 2008). Up to 2.5 million Darfuris have fled their homes and continue to live in camps throughout Darfur, or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic.

The purpose of this paper will be to explore the ways in which the media have framed the Darfur crisis and how it has contributed to the general public’s lack of awareness and credible information about it in addition to how it has affected those written about.

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times was one of the first journalists to report on Darfur. While his coverage of the crisis contributed immensely to expanding public awareness, Kristof, like many reporters, described the conflict as a struggle between Arabs and ‘Black Africans.’ However, while Kristof oversimplified the complex reality of the conflict, his approach still served a useful purpose in providing a way in which to get the word out about the crisis; a method which international media were able to copy. Referred to as ‘genocide’ of the native African population by an oppressive Arab rendition, this made Darfur simple and much easier to explain.

Contrary to how Kristof made the it appear, the Darfur crisis revolves around issues of religion, climate, and competition for land…not just issues of race. Susan Moeller, Director of International Center for Media and the Public Agenda, and her warnings about the importance of responsible and accurate reporting, and their relevance to Darfur are very 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 [and] bad stereotypes endure and the lack of concern persists” (Moeller, 321).

One of the components that contribute to the way in which the media are covering the Darfur crisis is agenda setting. Agenda setting is the ability of the media to tell people not so much what to think, but what to think about. Journalist Walter Lippmann referred to the things that the media tell people to think about as “the pictures in our heads.” A factor influencing how we think about the pictures in our heads is framing, a component of agenda setting. Framing is the media’s ability to tell people how to think about what the media have told them to think about.

To summarize my findings, I have found three main areas of concern that describe the main issues that have arisen with the coverage of Darfur that has been provided by Western media: de-historification, de-contextualization, and the homogenization of all the groups.

In the case of de-historification, in many of the articles that were used for this paper the history behind the crisis was assumed to be common knowledge and thus it was not included in every article. If a history was included within the article, it was very simplified, only giving information that barely scratched the surface. In general, no reasons for the conflict were given, nor any set up for why it happened in the first place. The fact that Sudan has been at war almost constantly throughout its history was generally glossed over or mentioned in passing.

In the case of de-contextualization, like de-historification, the background is not there in the article. The reader has no means to understand the context in which the actions are taking place. Without a context, certain sides in the crisis can be made to look better or worse than the other. For example, in many articles, the actions of the Janjaweed/government were the primary focus of articles. The acts of the Darfur rebel’s against the government, which served as a trigger point for the crisis, were not examined. If they were mentioned it was only in passing, as if to ignore them so they could keep the lines drawn as they were. So as a result, the acts of the government against the Darfuri people looked even worse, because it appeared as if the government was attacking without a solid motivating factor. Causes for conflict are also generally excluded in the media’s coverage of the crisis.

Homogenization, as previously mentioned, is when people among the various aspects of the crisis are lumped together to form ‘sides’. For example, 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’. The problem with this is that many of the Sudanese ‘Arabs’ are as dark as the ‘ethnic Africans’ they are at war with. According to Bill Fletcher, president of the TransAfrica Forum:

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…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 [from the way they are portrayed in the media] (Darfur Overshadows the Peace Process in South Sudan, 2004).

Another relevant point is the way that each side is being made out to be either masculine or feminine (in the case of the Janjaweed and the ‘black Africans’, respectively). Based on these distinctions, each side is then made out to have those characteristics relevant to the gender. For example, the Janjaweed are shown as active, mobile, and violent, while ‘black Africans’ are shown as helpless, immobile, and passive.

Overall, Western media are trying to simplify the crisis, so they use the three generalized attributes mentioned above as a means to do that. Through using these methods, the crisis can appear to be black and white and can be easier to report. One main reason s the media does this is because Sudan is a distant place. Many viewers never have and most likely never will visit it. They know little or nothing about it. In addition, there are many other problems in the world that need coverage as well. Many media organizations do not have the time or resources to dig beyond the surface of the Darfur Crisis, so they resort to simplifying it based on what they already have.

Works Cited

• Edith M. Lederer, “UN Says Darfur Conflict Worsening, with Perhaps 300,000 Dead,” Associated Press 22 April 2008.
• Moeller, Susan. Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell, Disease, Famine, War and Death, Routledge, New York and London, 1999.
• “Darfur Overshadows the Peace Process in South Sudan”, News Article by IPS, 2 September 2004.