I: INTRODUCTION

The mainstream western media's representation of the Rwandan genocide reflected entrenched stereotypes of Africa, and a reliance on simplistic ethnic explanations and little true analysis. The stereotypes of Africa held by much of the general western audience contributed to the media treatment; the explanation of savage ethnic conflict fit well into Africa's larger media image. Because of western conceptions and representations of Africa on a larger scale, the ethnic explanation for the conflict offered by the genocidaires was easily repeated and reinforced. Had the western media interrogated the explanations that they were offered by those perpetrating the genocide, perhaps they would have been able to play a larger role in stopping it. By privileging ethnic explanations for the genocide, the media accepted the racist ideas promoted by the genocidaires, and strengthened internal propaganda while facilitating international inaction.

In a survey of New York Times photojournalistic coverage of Rwanda from the period of 1989-1994, Niranjan S. Karnik analyses how one "paper of record" reported on the origins and causes of the Rwandan genocide.(1) His research concludes that there was relatively no coverage of the civil war and mounting problems in Rwanda before the actual genocide, and that it was only until April 7, 1994, the day after the downing of Habrimanya's plane, that the NYT took any interest in Rwanda. Furthermore, that the focus lay in attributing the conflict to tribal fighting, and that the international and historical roots of conflict were obscured.(2) Had there been a greater emphasis on the historical, political, economic, and social factors that motivated the actors in the Rwandan genocide, it would be have been harder to hide behind the helplessness of 'ethnic conflict' to justify inaction.-top-

II: AFRICA IN THE WESTERN MEDIA

The media treatment of the genocide is best understood in the context of the media's treatment of Africa as a whole. As Beverly Hawk states, western media reports to an audience that has little understanding or connection to Africa, and therefore relates news that can be "comfortably understood" by its audience.(3) Because of this, Hawk argues that the media relies on a "primitive archetype" that can be traced back to the colonial period. Such texts as Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (1902) still inform the Africa stereotype so prevalent in Hollywood and other contemporary images. Africa is the 'dark continent', exotic, a primitive ungovernable chaos. The people of the African continent are savages, unfit for self-rule, and primitive.(4) That this colonial metaphor, as Hawk calls it, is still readily accessible in the minds of western readers can be seen in the way it is used in media reports on Africa.

The media most readily calls up this image of Africa through the terminology it uses. According to Hawk, the words 'tribe' and 'tribal' originated in the period of colonial domination as a way for the colonists to de-legitimize pre-existing nations. "The nations predating colonial rule on the continent and enduring despite years of colonialism are called tribes by the media, their colonial designation."(5) The media's use of 'tribe', a word that connotes primitivism and backwardness, demonstrates the often racist and ignorant media approach to countries, people, and events in the African continent, and how a general western audience understands Africa.

The media presents a simplified and spotty coverage on Africa, giving inordinate attention to natural disasters, famines, and wars that can be easily understood by a general audience, and relies on colonial metaphors and easily accessible images to relay complex information to an uninformed audience.(6) The media representation of the Rwandan genocide must be analyzed in this context. -top-

III: FACILITATION OF INTERNATIONAL INACTION

According to the Report of the steering committee of the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda, published in 1996, the external media played a major role in the situation in Rwanda.(7) Citing media surveys (Hilsum 1995, Johansson 1995, Livingston and Eachus 1995, Verschave 1994), the authors report that media coverage of the Rwandan genocide in the US, British, and French media - although spiking with the shooting down of the plane and the immediately subsequent massacres - was relatively small.(8)

The JEEAR Report, citing both the Times and the New York Times, identifies some of the most misleading reportage in the early stages of the conflict, as well as a general focus of analysis that portrayed the violence as irrational and beyond western intervention. The mysterious plane crash (now thought to have been shot down by Habyrimana's enemies in the government and military) was attributed to a Tutsi attempt at destabilizing the Rwanda and Burundi governments, and the violence was portrayed as anarchic - chaotic mob violence between feuding tribes.(9) Calls by human rights workers and Africa specialists for a more complex analysis of the violence - as well as an accurate portrayal of the highly systematic, organized nature of a genocide orchestrated from the top-down, were ignored. It was not until mid-May that the analysis became more complex, though it retained the emphasis on age-old ethnic hatreds, which was easily understood within the larger Africa stereotype.

The reliance on this easy explanation for complex problems has implications for how the larger audience responded to the conflict, and also governments. An ethnic explanation, as argued by Jean Seaton, makes the war seem "more or less inevitable, and more or less intractable, because [it is] perceived to be the consequence of qualities inherent in the character of the communities involved."(10)

While the portrayal of the genocide in this way left an audience feeling helpless to stop something so irrational, it also gave the international community a justification for non-intervention. As states by the JEEAR, "the misleading media coverage was echoed in the accounts of events in Rwanda given by both the Security Council and the Secretary-General, explaining the withdrawal of UNAMIR on 21 April."(11)
For the most part the media, according to the JEEAR analysis, presented inadequate and misleading information on the situation in Rwanda, and in this way "possibly contributed to international indifference and inaction, and hence the crime itself."(12) -top-

IV: SUPPORT OF INTERNAL PROPAGANDA

"The Rwandan conflict was exacerbated by the international media's adoption of the false analysis which was in so many ways at the root of the conflict..."(13)

The media's scarce attention to the true motivating factors also served to strengthen the internal propaganda being promoted by the Interhamwe, the hard-line group coordinating the genocide. It did not dig deeper, question further, and recognize the political motivations of the actors apart from the ethnic explanations that were offered. In this way, it supported the justifications of the genocidaires, and did not offer any other analysis to challenge the monopoly of the internal Rwanda media, and the massive indoctrination that was being carried out by the group in power. McNutty argues that this failure of international media empowered the genocidaires because "the effects of external misrepresentation of the causes and conduct of this war encouraged the proponents of genocide to believe, with reason, that their elimination of a section of the Rwandan population would not be identified by the international media until its principal goals had already been achieved."(14)

The western media failed to offer an alternative analysis of the conflict by using the genocidaires' own explanations for the violence - ethnicity; at the same time, there was a general trend of promoting the conflict in keeping with the Africa stereotype of chaos and anarchy. The promotion of images such as "bands of drunken men armed with machetes"(15) and "an orgy of tribal violence"(16) presented the violence as spontaneous savagery, anarchic mob violence, and completely obfuscated the top down planning and inciting of the genocide, the mass indoctrination, and the responsibility of the top officials. John Bowen argues in The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict that "it is fear and hate generated from the top, and not ethnic differences, that finally push people to commit acts of violence."(17) However, the external media did not represent the violence as a result of a meticoulously-crafted plan to systematically destroy a section of the population, so caught up as it was in the Heart of Darkness image of Africa.

This not only continued to perpetrate the racist "colonial metaphor" that Hawk argues is so prevalent in reporting Africa, but this also did not hold the people at the top - those who had orchestrated the genocide - accountable. This was another way in which the western media served to strengthen the internal propaganda - by not holding the organizers responsible. -top-

V: CONCLUSION

While the studies cited in Karnik's and the JEEAR report analyses find a general trend in the representation of the Rwandan genocide - that of privileging ethnic explanations over a more complex analysis, and relying on a stereotype of Africa - the use of the term media is problematic because it is such a broad label. It may be safer to say, however, that the media that is the focus of this critique, which is for the most part based in the US, did play an important role in the representation of the Rwandan genocide internationally, and had far reaching implications. There were, also, however, notable exceptions, that have both been mentioned in the studies I have used and that have come up in my own research. -top-

ENDNOTES

1. Karnik, Niranjan. Review of African Political Economy, No 78:611-623 ROAPE Publications, Ltd. 1998
2. Ibid., 614
3. Hawk, Beverly. 1992. Introduction: Metaphors of African Coverage. Africa's Media Image. Edited by Beverly Hawk. New York, Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger Publishers
4. McNutty, Mel. 1999. Media Ethnicization and the International Response to War and Genocide in Rwanda. The Media of Conflict: War Reporting and Representations of Ethnic Violence. Edited by Tim Allen and Jean Seaton. London and New York: Zed Books, 272
5. Hawk, 8
6. Hawk
7. Report of the Steering Committee of the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda. 1996. "The International Response to Conflict and Genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda Experience", Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, April 1996. Authors: Howard Adelman: York University, Toronto, Canada
Astri Suhrke: Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway. With contributions by: Bruce Jones: London School of Economics, U.K.
7. Ibid., 4.3
8. Ibid., 4.3
9. Ibid., 4.3
10. Seaton, Jean. 1999. The New 'Ethnic' Wars and the Media
The Media of Conflict: War Reporting and Representations of Ethnic Violence.
Edited by Tim Allen and Jean Seaton. London and New York: Zed Books, 44
11. JEEAR report, 4.3
12. Ibid., 4.3
13. McNutty, 277
14. Ibid., 274
15. NYT Article, U.N. Says It Is Powerless to Halt the Violence, April 14, 1994
16. Agence France Presse, Heavy Fighting in Kigali as Interim Government Goes Into Hiding, April 12, 1994
17. Bowen, John. 1996. "The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict", Journal of Democracy
7:4, pp.3-14, p.8
-top-