The Costa Concordia cruise line crash off the Italian coast has been this week's top media story, but a far more important story has fallen beneath the radar: Nearly 100,000 people died of hunger in the Horn of Africa in 2011 as a result of flaws within international aid agencies.
While the cruise ship story made for a sensational and dramatic headline to help sell newspapers, the story about Africa stayed on the BBC World News home page only briefly. The crash was indeed significant, but it is disheartening that stories about famine and the international failure to combat it are so undervalued; especially since more coverage of this topic could help save lives.
The story of famine in Africa has been told countless times, and will continue to be told until a permanent solution can be found. And maybe that is the problem. People have simply heard it too many times, and it is no longer news; it’s just seen as a fact. But if newspapers put these stories as their headline article, aid agencies like Save the Children and Oxfam might be able to draw the needed attention to make a significant impact on millions of lives.
Billions of dollars are being spent to fund aid agencies that focus more on reacting to crises than trying to prevent them. The massive drought that effected the Horn of Africa was predicted in 2010, but donors need “proof of a humanitarian catastrophe” before providing money, which requires significant media exposure and attention from the public. As the potential crisis was given no such coverage, aid was not given until July 2011, after the worst of the drought had already hit.
Not only did the drought cause malnutrition and widespread deaths, but an additional 13 million people were affected by the destruction of livestock, livelihood, and the local market system. Most of this tragedy could have been avoided if donors and aid agencies focused on preventative measures instead of reactionary help.
One example of possible preemptive and cost-effective help given in the report published on Tuesday by Oxfam was that “trucking five litres of water per day as a last-resort lifesaving intervention to 80,000 people in Ethiopia costs more than $3 million for five months, compared to $900,000 to prepare water sources in the same area for an oncoming drought.” Unfortunately, a similar situation is now anticipated in the western region of Africa. But if this report and similar stories are not given the necessary coverage, donors will be just as likely to wait until the famine has reached the appropriate level of newsworthiness before giving aid.
While I could write an entire article around this one report alone, I fear people wouldn’t read it. The topic is neither sensational nor headline-worthy compared to the deaths and missing people caused by the cruise disaster.
Which would you choose to read? “Cruise disaster like a scene from 'Titanic': Survivors share story”, or “East Africa's drought: the avoidable disaster”
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
Because the world cares more about a handful of wealthy Europeans dying on a cruise ship than millions of poor blacks starving in Africa. Nothing new there.
This othering or disregard is the norm, unfortunately. Dr. West said something to the effect of: The majority acts when the majority is affected. Do you thing people are numb to famine in Africa since the story has been told countless times before?
Krosbie, you almost came out and said it - News is an entertainment business. It's not journalism of truth and substance though they all clamor that it is. Its a for profit business where people get to hear what they want and sometimes (actually most of the time lately) what they don't want and fear. But fear is a big seller. Hunger in Africa holds no fear for the average American. Sympathy, yes there has been outpouring but the religious fighting, innocent slaughter, all add up. In fact, the $3 Million for water has probably got costs of bribery to get it delivered safely built in. Despot regimes, wars of race and religion, and illiteracy results in perpetual famine.
As to the captain, well, they will deal with him.
Krosbie, I believe your last paragraph; "Which would you choose to read? “Cruise disaster like a scene from 'Titanic': Survivors share story?”, or “East Africa's drought: the avoidable disaster”, is the answer to the title question. What is shameful that what aid is flowing is reactionary. Being proactive would be so much better-and cost less. Perhaps these disasters need to be put back on the front page as you suggest. Anti- (anything) messages that have a visually disgusting graphic are being used to persuade people to act. A persona may not agree with the graphic's use, but they are effective. Starving and dying people on the front page?
I personally think that this has been more "front page" news because it appears more interesting to the common man, b/c of the whole pop culture (movie)reference that it seems to draw the connection to. I feel like the famine story is not relatable enough to the normal person, especially since it is a global issue. But honestly, if you look at the mainstream media, when are global issues ever covered? I'm fairly certain that most of my peers did not know who Gadhafi & Ahmadinejad are until the whole uproar was reported. The fault is really on both ends.
Media: Misrepresentation, Sensationalism & prioritization issues
People: It's easy to learn about these things, but people don't have the knowledge/motivation to.
Amazing article, I completely agree. The time spent analyzing why the captain is now the "evil character" in this Titanic drama on CNN isn't journalism. But it's not completely the media's fault, because who really buys the newspapers and gives the clicks or mics? How can you fight human nature?
It's difficult to sensationalize (and profit from) the sustained suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people half a world away. I fear that we have become desensitized to true suffering, prefering instead the Crash and Bang news that is reminiscent of an action flick. Thank you for highlighting this issue. I, for one, will be paying more attention.
1 Replies
Sad but true, Krosbie. Our celebrity culture and 24/7 infotainment toys have trained us to "trend." But 25 years ago, famine in Bangladesh was the same kind of ongoing disaster with the same kind of complaints among the donor and NGO community that not enough attention was being paid - and we didn't have all these distractions.
I don't know the answers, except to say that our efforts to mitigate climate change might also do something to reduce the impact of drought and crop failure in the sub-Sahara over time. If not; our refugee planning people need to think about those huge, vulnerable populations in untenable and uninhabitable areas that will have to migrate.
1 Replies
Great article and great point.
Regular folk has grown up hearing about stories like this, so this is nothing new to them, and the scale of this disaster is simply too big to even imagine or get a grasp on. It's just a difficult subject for viewers to watch and media to report on.
So the viewer and the media choose the easier more flashy story.
It's sad but with the competition this is the state of the media today.