It's All the Same Story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7257489.stm

Two of the most interesting topics from the second day of presentations were on SARS and the Rwandan Genocide. I think these two presentations pose two very distinct ways in which the media was utilized within North America.

I placed an article at the top of this posting regarding the conflict in Darfur. It is a very similar occurrence to the Rwandan Genocide issue, in terms of media coverage and the action taken by North American’s. The article notes, right at the beginning that, “the deep concern about Darfur felt internationally has not been matched by a similar determination to intervene.” According to this particular presentation, this seems to have been the case with Rwanda as well. The article also notes that "if there was genocide, then it happened in 2003/4. By the time the world got round to acting, it was too late." This also seems to be no more than a duplicate reaction by North America towards Darfur, as was the case with Rwanda.

I think the article highlights an extremely important point in it’s reasoning for the lack of outside support; “one of the problems for the outside world is that it has been dealing with a very determined government unwilling to concede much in what it sees as a major threat on its own territory.” I think this point is only further validated by the SARS issue. What began as a foreign issue only became significant with North American media, after it became a threat domestically. I definitely see the actions, or rather lack of action in both Darfur and Rwanda as a result of media gatekeepers regulating what gets placed on the media agenda, and as a result, the public agenda. Since the public rely on the media to provide information on all areas of the globe, the lack of attention given to these two areas seriously hindered North American involvement. At the same time, one may argue that the public does not have a great deal of interest in foreign affairs, hence why little attention is given to these issues. While it is difficult to determine which position is correct, it seems to me that the topic of SARS, Darfur and Rwanda are a few examples, out of hundreds of possible choices in the media, which exemplify this type of difference (attention given to topics that only affect North America). There are, I’m sure, many different contingencies that affected North American involvement in Darfur and Rwanda, but as far as media coverage goes, it doesn't seem as though the cycle of narcissistic coverage will end anytime soon.