The other night, I watched the network news, then switched over to The News Hour on my local PBS station. The network news had all the typical stories: the latest attack on American troops in Iraq, the latest on the Laci Peterson case, and all the usual fluff. But the news hour had something all the other news shows dare not touch: The Congo.

In The Congo, the people have nothing. There's poverty that we as Americans really can't understand. Even the poorest here live better than people in The Congo. It's just a very poor country. However, they have diamonds and gold, so some people have gotten very, very rich. The people are always facing dreadful civil wars, ethnic conflicts and famine. Our media, if they even take the time to mention these problem, is far from committed to informing the public of these injustices. When there's genocide against white Europeans in Bosnia, it's terrible and requires military intervention, but when certain ethnic groups are dragging of 13-year-old girls and gang raping them in The Congo it doesn't seem to be so important.


Every suicide bombing against Israeli Jews makes the front page. Laci Peterson and OJ Simpson get huge coverage. However, all the suffering in Africa, which almost always is worse than the violence in the rest of the world, is rarely given more than a passing reference. Does the media deliberately ignore the terrible things that happens in places like The Congo, or is there some other reason for the fact we don't hear much about the "Dark Continent?"


Note: I don't think the media monguls sit around and say "Let's ignore those n*****s," but rather that they're racist in their practice of systematically keeping Africa out of the news in favor of things like Michael Jackson's face and Clinton's Sex Scandal.

I don't think they're racist on the whole. I would go as far to say that they favor stories about racism (among other topics) for the controversy. It sells.

As bad as the plight is for the Congolese, and as much as we should care about them, the fact is......we as a society don't.
That story doesn't sell in the news business, because the moguls and anchors feel, correctly or not that the public isn't interested. The Congo has little impact on Americans lives. Many wouldn't even know where it is on a map...and to others it just seems so...well so very far away.

Racism on the part of the media...no.
Ignorance on the part of the public...probably so.

The public most certainly cares when people on the other side of the world are suffering. They obviously care if white Bosnians or white Israelis are suffering. They even seem to care about if Iraqis are suffering. Why exactly wouldn't they care if Congolese were suffering, other than racism? The wars/terrorism in Israel and the genocide in Bosnia didn't affect us any more than did the genocide/terrorism in the Congo. Why is it that Israel and Bosnia are news, and The Congo isn't?




Isn't it the job of the media to disabuse the ignorance of the public?

In a perfect world...yes.
But when you factor in ratings and shares which = the almighty $, the focus then becomes making money. A financially failed media outlet will no longer be in the job of disabusing public ignorance.


I also think American interest has more of a historical context with Israel and the Balkans as opposed to central Africa. The genocide in the Congo carries less weight than terrorism in Israel, by virtue of effect on American lives and possible military conflict, terrorism in the US, etc..
The media realizes this......they report accordingly.

And I won't deny that there is fluff in newscasts and newspapers, but they also can't possibly report on every happening in the world. Editors and programming execs make decisions...I just don't think it's based on race.

Do you really, honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that when 13 year old girls are being systematically dragged off and gang raped, no one in the public is going to care since they're from Africa? What's your point? That it's not the media that's racist, but America? I don't believe that for a second. On the few occasions that the media does report on Africa, there's an overwhelming response from the public. I don't think people are going to not care about terrible suffering simply because it happens in Africa. Maybe you don't, but most people think that genocide is worth doing something about no matter where it happens.




This is systematic rape and killings. There's room for that in 30 minutes of news. They can just make their Michael Jackson sections just a little shorter.




I specifically said I don't think that the indivdual people were racist, but rather that the actions of the media as a whole were. The reasons are hard to know, but I think race does play a part. Other factors could include the public (and media's) general ignorance of Africa, and also the idea that genocide, war and famine "happen all the time" in Africa and therefore reporting it isn't news.

There are horrible things happening throughout the world. Unless there is some realistic means of addressing the problems, they receive only cursory media coverage. This isn't solely limited to Africa. There is genocide in India, massive sex trafficking of women (who are actually slaves) throughout the world, violence against children in South America. The brutality of the world is everywhere, reported only sporadically.
Why isn't it reported every hour on the hour? Probably because it would get too depressing, people would stop watching the news, and companies would stop paying the networks for advertisement.

How are Africa's civil wars and famine any less solvable than, say, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? They're pretty much the same, when it comes down to it, except one of them includes white people and one doesn't. Oh, and the ones in Africa are usually much more bloody and much more costly dead-wise.




It's almost always worse in Africa. Those other problems, especially the sex slave trafficking, do get attention, while Africa is ignored. Problems, whether they're solvable or not, almost always get reported when they involve white, industrialized nations, or even non-white industrialized nations, but when it's Africa (or South America, just as you brought up) that isn't quite as rich and familiar, they get ignored.




If that's true, then why is it that all the news we see is depressing? Just watch World News Tonight in an hour or so. Pretty much all of it will be bad news, or reports on the end (or plans to end) bad things. Sometimes they have "feel-good" stories, but most of them aren't real news, but rather just filler because nothing exciting enough happened that night.

Rattlesnake, how can you say that? We hear news from Africa all the time! Like when the white farmers were treated badly in Zimbabwe!

DTOM, I must disagree. Private charity organizations like the Christian Children's Fund have been very successful. I have visited Africa, and there are so many Americans and Europeans working in Africa, caring about Africa. The same holds true for South Asia and much of South America.

I think, though, that it less racism than it is an inherent bias towards the "North," the Industrialized nations. Of course, since most of the "South" is brown, the inherent Northern bias does have its roots in racism and the age of Empire in Europe...

I think the media is racist to an extent, but the real problem is just plain laziness.

Black people call themselves "African-American" but they don't really care that much about what happens in Africa. Few of us travel to Africa, reach out to Africans that come to live in America or pressure our elected officials to become more involved in African affairs.

Why should they? If Black Americans don't care about what goes on in Africa, why should White Americans be expected to?

News is about ratings. Africa can peak interest every once in a while, but Africa does not generally rise up and effect the average American. While the various levels of suffering in Africa are newsworthy, there is not a hook that can come in and affect our living room or pocket book. The coverage is there. It just isn't on page one or a common radio or television story.

We don't have much of a connection or mutual relationship with Sub-saharan countries.

When something like Ebola perks up we get interested because it could spread. Africa is simply under the radar for many people.

I'd like to ammend my question a little. I'd also like to ask this:

Before Finals started in my sociology class, we talked about what gets reported in the media. Not just here in the U.S, but in the world. It's what people think effects them in general the most.

I brought up that same exact point that you made Eeyore because when something like SARS started in China, then got to Toronto in Canada, the media went crazy over it saying that it's spreading like crazy. It was effecting everyone because who knows where it would have popped up next & when it did pop up, people will know not to take a vacation to that country

Also, the iraq war effected everybody because thousands of families had loved ones over in Iraq so they were tuned in to see if there were casualties that day.

The thing in Congo doesn't phase many people in the major international medias including U.S. media outlets because it is localized in a specific region and isn't effecting them & probably never will unless it goes as far as Kosovo did when NATO started bombings

So, in conclusion, the media is not racist, just selective.

The media is a very selective & interesting creature. There are certain things that will get it's attention & certain things that will bore it to death.

The first rule of mass media is quite simply:

"Give the people what they want."

Should we perhaps direct your questions at media consumers instead of the media itself?

Ignoring that for a second... The frequency and severity of conflicts in Africa is utterly shocking when some people are informed of them. In recent wars hundreds of thousands of people have been brutalized in mass "ethnic cleansings." These events are largely unheralded. I don't have the info on hand but most of the people I know who keep moderately informed are well aware of similar crimes (in a much smaller scale) that have taken place across the Balkans in the last decade. They were well publicized as I certainly remember watching the stories on the news on a regular basis. One could argue that the U.S. has about as much to do with the internal politics of Bosnia as it does with Rawanda (at least since the Cold War expired) yet similar events at similar times received wildly different levels of attention. If not racism then what?

The fragmentation of Yugoslavia made the leadership of Europe decide that it had to react to the instability on southeastern Europe. NATO, our alliance got involved. It had the added attraction of effecting a historic protectorate of Russia (Serbia) and having us take action against that country. And yes ethnic cleansing in Europe for many consumers in the news is closer to home than southeast Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. Culturist maybe, but racist? Naw, I don't think that is the issue. In fact if racism were a factor and social Darwinism reigned our news services would probably gobble up evidence that other races were mired in civil war and plague.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that, since most of the countries in Africa are dictatorships to one degree or another, life can be pretty difficult for Western journalists. This isn't exlusive to Africa, and it's true that other factors already mentioned come into play, but I think that this is a factor.

A most recent example is Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe has banished all BBC journalists from his country on pain of imprisonment or worse (and since his ZanuPF enforcers are often brutal killers, that may also mean death).

Say what you like about the BBC's political bias, they are one news organisation that does attempt to give due weight to African and Asian stories (less so in South America - perhaps this is a legacy of Empire, as not much of it was ever pink on the imperial maps?), so when their journalists are restricted or excluded, it does reduce the overall coverage of what is really going on inside a country.

Didn't we send troops to Somalia before we got directly involved in the Kosovo conflict? Isn't Somalia in Africa?

We didn't intervene militarily in India when thousands of innocents were tortured, burned alive, and raped in Gujarat. Military intervention in other countries' civil warfare is a recent and unusual phenomenon for the US.

The reason we're not hearing as much about the problems in Africa (as we should...Saddam looks like a Boy Scout compared to the violence in Africa), is because the same people who would report this are the same people that whined about Aparthied.

They helped get rid of Apartheid so the Africans could be left to their own devices.

Ooops.

This is one of the most disgusting sentiments I have read in my time on this forum. To even think that Apartheid was a remotely good thing is truly warped. Are you insane? The Great White Daytonrocker could have sure helped those violent little brown people. All they really needed was white leadership!

Take that CRAP to the Aryan Nation, I'm sure they have a website.

Dayton, I was willing to accept your earlier claims that were not a racist, until now.



You raise an interesting point. This is the effect I was speaking of. The media isn't racist, the readers are. As such the news is still reported by journalists (and they have been in Africa) but it doesn't arrive in the American market because nobody wants it.

DaytonRocker, I am truly appalled by your last statement. Fortunately, I don't think that the majority of Americans agree with your sentiment, and I hope that you'll have a change of heart, as well.

I'm inclined to agree with Quarkhead that the media bias is with the northern industrialized nations, because as they (you know that invisible they ) say "Money makes the world go round."

That's not to say that people don't care about the suffering of the people in Africa, but I think that they can't as easily identify with them, because they share less common culture...the bulk of that culture being economic. It's not only African nations that get less coverage in the media. It's any nation or event that by our perspective doesn't directly effect us in some way or another.

Racist? I would say no. Americans on the whole don't find Africa important enough to be on the news. There is a racial divide on the news in America though. When the R. Kelly story broke there was nothing on the news about it. The cable news networks audience, seniors, just isn't interested in news about Africa.

Some people seem to be missing the point. I wasn't saying they were racist in philosophy, but rather that they were racist in practice. As I said in my first post:

IMO, if there is no racism in the philosophy, then it can't be racism in practice.

For an action to actually be racist, it has to come from that mindset purposefully.

Well, before you people get your panties in a twist and start playing "pin-the-tail-on-the-bigot", show me where I said Apartheid was a good thing.

I'll wait...

Ok, done looking?

You ASSUMMED that is what I meant, when that's not it at all. It amazes me how pompous high-minded liberals tend to be the most narrow minded.

Apartheid was horrible. There can be no question or debate about it's effect. It is true that anybody that would think that is a good thing should be posting these comments to an Aryan nation message board for two reasons:

1) It's better suited for like-minded idiots
2) People don't have the stomach for those points of view here

Anyhow, my point is this: From a cultural standpoint, Africa has insurmountable problems.

There are more wars in Africa than any other continent. Under Apartheid, South Africa was the dominant military power in Africa. They were the only country to develop and voluntarily relinquish it's nuclear weapons capabilities.

2/3 of Aids cases in the world come from Africa. They have an astronomical crime problem. The election results in almost a decade are keeping the people already entrenched in power, in power.

Now, here's a racist comment I will float out there so I don't disappoint anybody:

Apartheid was horrible and despicable. However, forcing a people that can't take care of themselves to take care of themselves, is even worse.

It's easier to ignore the possibilty that a people cannot take care of themselves than report on the situation (and the relevance of my point to the topic).

Does this mean they can't take care of themselves? Of course not. But there's more reason to beleive they can't right now versus giving them the benefit of the doubt that they can later.

I hope they can, but think they can't. But I hope they don't wipe out their entire civilzation in trying to prove the world wrong.

Nothing wrong with my panties, thank you.

I just started a new thread on Apartheid so that we don't derail Rattlesnake's thread.

Well, that's just silly/naive. You can certainly come up with a situation that benefits one race over another without specifically being favoring or disfavoring a particular race. If one were to cut funding to all under-performing schools, and most underperforming schools had a high percentage of blacks than did all schools on average (which they do in most places,) the result would certainly be racist, even though no one was specifically trying to hurt black people.

Rattlesnake, that is your opinion. Just because DTOM doesn't agree with you doesn't make him silly or naive.

Well that's just your opinion

Seems pretty obvious that situations where one race is in a better position than another regardless of any feelings (or lack thereof) of racism. Not saying this implies the media is racist for sure, but situations can exist where people can be racist not by ideology but by action.

No it's not racism. Some actions can be discriminatory without being racist, that does not make them racist.

If they're discriminating based on race, how is that not racist?

Because they aren't discriminating based on race. They are discriminating based on the fact that these regions of the world don't effect us very much, economically. These regions (often) happen to be of a certain ethnicity.

Exactly how much do Bosnia, Kosovo and Israel effect us economically?

We have much more of a vested interest in aiding Israel than any African country.
The European economy was effected by the conflict in Kosovo and Bosnia. If nothing else, due to the simple migration of the people trying to get out.

If the media reported on the goings on in Africa, they would be accused of racism for showing blacks in a bad light. Africa is not a nice place to be, especially in the black-controlled nations. That is absolute fact. It may not be nice or pleasant but it is real.