|
|
 |
| Media and Misinformation |
| |
Reporting on Africa in the western media sometimes seems to be dominated by the colonial view of a dark needy continent, in need of civilising. Where previously colonialists, traders and missionaries were responsible for disseminating information about Africa, today print and electronic media carry out the same role via television, films, satellites, radio and the Internet. The images portrayed are unfortunately frequently still negative and reinforce old stereotypes. Terms such as 'primitive', 'anarchic', 'irrational', 'savage', 'tribal' portray Africa and Africans as backward and inferior to western civilisation.
These images have strong historical roots in the colonialism and slavery that was imposed on the continent. The way in which Africa is portrayed in the media masks many important questions, which rarely get raised. The role of western governments is simplified and disguised as a media smokescreen selects and filters news stories to hide the exploitation of developing countries. The reality is concealed to uphold existing global power structures.
The reporting of the Somali conflict is usually framed in a very particularly way by the mainstream media, as the situation is presented void of any political or historical context. The conflict is portrayed in isolation from the rest of the history of the Horn of Africa, where colonial intervention had caused the 'divide and rule' of Somali people into different territories with different foreign rulers. Economic motives, such as the discovery of oil, have also played their part in the events. Before the overthrow of his regime, Siyad Barre had signed lucrative contracts with major American oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Philips. These companies had strong interests in the region, but this issue was not covered by the mainstream media.
Instead tribalism, or clan-based loyalty, was established as the sole and primary cause of conflict and subsequent state disintegration. The power of family and kin is an important reality in Somali society, but was not the sole, or even primary aspect that informed the conflict of the 1990s. The kinship system is flexible and not irrevocably ascribed at birth, and local power was not only wielded by clan councils but, for example, village committees also made important decisions about land and water. Fighting along clan lines was the primary explanation given for the conflict in the western media. The situation was portrayed as an age-old pattern repeating itself, but this time carried out with modern weaponry.
Yet many Somali citizens did not consciously belong to a clan and different dialects or languages, occupations and racial backgrounds served as regional distinctions which claimed the loyalty of Somalis. Foreign money, cold war policies, colonial legacies and strategic interests have contributed significantly to the disintegration of Somalia, while the media asserts that 'primitive' clan conflicts are the primary reason for the conflict .
The book and Hollywood film Black Hawk Down offers a sickening and simplistic rewrite of history with little grounding in reality, with the American army cast as liberating heroes who bring salvation to the starving masses. Television news showed starving people, soldiers with guns and Somalis foaming at the mouth, 'stoned' on khat. The real issues which generated the conflict and the US/ UN intervention were rarely analysed. The fracturing of Somali society by the colonial legacy and American and Russian weapons sold for profit, was rarely acknowledged. Siyad Barre received weapons worth more than two billion dollars during his 21 years in power.
Link to:
Audiovisual Resources
Asylum Seekers and the Media
Printed Resouces
Somali History
|
Top
|
|
