When International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo presented evidence against two individuals for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur on Tuesday, some national media covered it significantly more than others. Ahmad Muhammad Harun, former Minister of State and head of the “Darfur Security desk” in 2003-2004, and Ali Kushayb, a Janjaweed commander, were the first names related to Darfur atrocities presented to the court, so the announcement was important both because it was new and because the Prosecutor had decided to start with some key figures, not small fry.
But as far as media were concerned, the Europeans were far more interested than the Americans. A quick trawl through Factiva in recent days looking for keywords "Ocampo" and "Darfur" (with spellings adjusted for different languages) returned 103 articles in European sources but only 14 in the US. Mind you, Europe returns higher results on other foreign affairs issues, but not with such a huge gap as that -- using "Iraq" and "Maliki" in the same timeframe, for example, gives you 390 in Europe vs 234 in the US.
103 to 14 is probably a fair representation of the very different levels of interest in the story in two places. This may be somewhat surprising given that media interest in Darfur has generally been higher in the US than in Europe over the past few years. It probably has more to do with suspicious US attitudes towards the ICC in general. As one American media watcher told me, the feeling about the story in the States was, "The Hague? What's that?"
There was also one odd aspect of the coverage of the ICC announcement by international satellite news networks. All the major networks broke into their regular programming to go live to The Hague for Moreno-Ocampo's presentation, but Al Jazeera (Arabic) and Al Arabiya stayed with his speech much longer than the major English-language stations I was also watching -- I believe right to the very end. Not sure why that was.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
Former journalist Andrew Stroehlein is Media Director of the International Crisis Group, the conflict resolution organisation, where he promotes responsible coverage of current and potential conflicts and helps draw attention to forgotten wars around the world.
02 Mar 2007 14:34:43 GMT
Absolutely right. Whilst 'the Americas' (in the form of NGOs) have been strenuously supporting the ICC, there was little coverage of this significant announcement on the US sites that I use.
Having said this, it is worth noting that political opposition in the US to the ICC is softening, and I am optimistic that the US will eventually become a Party to the ICC. US citizens will, in time, have every reason to welcome this: protection of civilians and victims is part of the US military ethic, it is part-and-parcel of 'winning hearts and minds', and it is a self-professed priority in relation to Darfur.02 Mar 2007 18:51:17 GMT
This is an interesting, evocative, and disappointing point. It seems that Africa is hardly ever discussed in the U.S. media. I wonder if it is because Africa does not affect/effect the U.S. economy. Perhaps the media moguls in the United States have yet to realize the global, inter-related and interconnected nature of things. Oh wait, I forgot that the media decides what is important and thereby tells the American public the issues to think about. I'm unfortunately and sadly waiting for the next "never again, again" speech coming to a State of the Union in the near future ...
05 Mar 2007 16:49:34 GMT
As an American journalist based in Africa, I have to disagree. Every major U.S. newspaper wrote about the ICC announcement. There were substantial (900+ words) stories in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and McClatchy Newspapers, all of which maintain East Africa-based correspondents. These aren't niche publications; this is the MSM.
Each of the stories I read quoted at length from the court filing and provided the requisite background on the ICC, including U.S. opposition. Some of the better stories indicated that the U.S. position on the ICC was, in fact, softening. Few stories from Africa rise to the level of daily news in the United States these days - this is just a fact of life in a world of Iraq, Iran and Israel - but the ICC case on Darfur was one of the few such examples. And I thought U.S. papers treated it responsibly.