A Campaign We Can All Support

by hilzoy

Are you as tired of the endless TV coverage of Missing White Women as I am? Annoyed when in a world full of actual news, CNN (or whichever network you watch) decides that it must -- must, I tell you -- not only cover some completely trivial motion filed in the latest case du jour (Michael Jackson, Laci Peterson...), but get actual analysts on to discuss what, exactly, it means that the lawyers in the case have done some absolutely standard, predictable, banal thing? Besides the fact that it's racist, it's also boring.

If so, you'll want to check out BeAWitness (via ThinkProgress.) It's a campaign to try to get TV news to spend more time covering the ongoing genocide in Darfur. If you go to the website, you can send a message (which you can edit) to the five major networks asking for more coverage of Darfur. And this matters: lots of people get their news from TV, and if they are not informed about ongoing genocides, they can't do much about them.

Here, via the Coalition for Darfur (which you should also check out) is a piece from the Columbia Journalism Review comparing CNN's coverage of Darfur and Rwanda:

"While it might not have been perfect, CNN's performance in 1994, in particular the use of images, far exceeds its skimpy coverage of the current conflict in Sudan. Simply put, if you watched CNN in the summer of 1994, you were made aware of a genocide taking place on a nationwide scale -- and you were given a working understanding of what triggered it.

The same cannot be said for the network's coverage of Sudan this year. These days there's a lot of talk from anchors and guests about the pictures they see, but the network doesn't actually have any footage. By CJR Daily's count, the last time CNN showed pictures from Sudan was March 15. At the time, Wolf Blitzer told viewers, "The images in the piece we're about to show you may be disturbing to some viewers." Disturbing? Yes, but necessary to get across the fact that brutal slaughter occurs on a daily basis in Sudan. (...)

But that's no excuse for the fact that the Sudan genocide barely registers as a news topic on CNN. Over the past two weeks there have been four brief reports on Sudan, in regards to Darfur, mostly tied to Annan's visit this past weekend. (By comparison, CNN has updated viewers on the saga of "runaway bride" Jennifer Willbanks more than 20 times in the last three days -- and that "story" peaked weeks ago.) (...)

That suggests that the degree to which Americans are unconcerned about the unfolding atrocities is a direct function of the degree to which they are uninformed about them. Take a look at the CNN programming lineup from around the time of the Rwanda coverage. At least two full hours of programming per day were dedicated to world or international coverage with shows like "The International Hour" and "The World Today." Those shows are no longer on the air, and CNN's current schedule does not have a single weekday program focused exclusively on world news coverage.

In March, the Times' Kristof spoke to me about the phenomenon of declining international coverage by media in general: "Part of that is the degree to which network news coverage has been scaled back. A dozen years ago there would have been a camera crew for the networks in Cairo, sitting around desperate for a story, and when Darfur happened they would have gone down and forced it down our throats. And it would have been in our living rooms everyday. But the combination of [personnel] cutbacks and Iraq meant that that just didn't happen." "

I read a blog post about a year ago, which unfortunately I can't find, about the tremendous disservice the media did us by focussing so much on Chandra Levy, shark attacks, and so on during the summer before 9/11, when they might instead have been covering international news. After their post-9/11 burst of resolve to get serious, they slid back into the same old rut with amazing speed, and now this problem is, I think, worse than it ever was. Nor is there any obvious way for those of us who would rather get serious coverage of non-celebrity-driven stories to express our preferences. Sending an email about coverage of Darfur isn't much, but at least it's something.

Comments

[heet]

Too true. This is why I refuse to watch network/cable news of any kind. Even in a hotel room or at a friends house, I just cringe when I see the inane junk on the screen.

American has become so inward looking because of this lack of coverage in world events. It is a shame and disgrace.

For the networks, it is almost a race to the bottom in order to scoop up every last revenue dollar from those who still rely on TV for their news (the majority of Americans).

Charles, your posts from several weeks ago are still germane. Thanks for the info.

[heet]

A couple more things--

I used the beawitness.org links though I doubt they will do much good. It takes money to air such stories and the cash just isn't around anymore. Sponsors don't like boring ole world events. Better glue 'em to the tube w/ missing white girls and MJ! Mmmmm... Maybe a good argument for funding PBS?

On another, less frivolous note -- I watched "Hotel Rwanda" last night and thought the message was powerful, even if the movie wasn't that great. The flick practically hit you over the head with a big sign that said "The West Didn't Care About African Genocide!".

Too bad nothing has changed, eh?

[liberal japonicus]

hilzoy
I think you might be talking about this Atrios post concerning a Frank Rich NYTimes op-ed.

[Katherine]

It's not just a matter of costs. CNN has a perfectly respectable international division which many of us have seen in hotel rooms when we were in Canada or England. I don't think they have the resources and staffing of the BBC, but they're not helpless. They simply don't show it here.

If I had the time, I would focus my efforts on trying to get CNN to commit to either paying to air that footage on a separate basic cable network--it'd be more useful than headline news, or you get a third network--or air it for several hours a day at a predictable time. And if they ever did agree to it, we would have to do everything possible to get its ratings up.

They do occasionally do a CNN International feed but it's not at any predictable time.

[Marc Valdez]

Stop watching Cable TV altogether. It's the only surefire way to get the point across!

(provided, of course, enough of us do it)

[liberal japonicus]

CNN has a perfectly respectable international division which many of us have seen in hotel rooms when we were in Canada or England.

It's interesting, the CNN international channel here in Japan, during the prime time, cuts off and they send in American Morning. It seems to have improved a bit since they replaced Bill Hemmer with Miles O'Brian and gotten rid of Jack Cafferty (who should be preserved for modern medicine in order to create an anti-grouch a vaccine), though we have just gotten BBCWorld so we've dropped CNN like 1st period French.

Incidentally, they tried to have Fox news here, but no one bought ads for it, and it went the way of the dodo, so there is hope.

[cleek]

i was stuck in the Cincinnati airport this sunday, for 3.5 hours. CNN showed non-stop hurricane coverage the entire time. more than one person watching got up and left, muttering "when do CNN become the Weather Channel?"

[cleek]

(and no, i didn't have the heart to correct their grammar)

[Jackmormon]

I watched a lot of CNN international when I was in Germany. I was underimpressed. The best thing about CNN international was that it filled its dead time with translated puff pieces from media around the world, which, although light, were more informative than American puff pieces.

[John Thullen]

I agree with this post, but I have a little different angle on what has happened.

I stopped watching local news years ago, then gave up on network and cable news as well.

But, look, it is the American public, now exclusively known as the consumer, who requested, by their viewing habits, that these business organizations, who answer to the American public, now also known exclusively as the shareholders (in their only other allowable incarnation), concentrate on white brides gone missing and kitty cats stuck up in trees, not the other way around.

They like it. Covering starving non-brides slaugtered by yet another bunch of pissed-off somebodies is expensive, and worse today, politically correct.

Next to go is the editorial page. Isn't the LA Times experimenting with editorials which the consumer (moving through the world, emptying out its essence, leaving a vacuole) may change according to his/her preferences? Wiki-something?

Why would this be? Because of competition from alternative media, like, you know, us?

Frankly, the only thing which would bring me back to the T.V. would be a 24-hour blow job channel, like we had in the good old days, years ago, when journalism had content, and things mattered, and journalists were imbedded in Monica's lip gloss, and people were still seekers of substantive information which they could use to make informed decisions before they voted for tax cuts.

When I want news, I read Charles.

Now, I must visit the doctor to see about my sore knee. He thinks I'm a consumer of medicine, apparently a scarce resource, and he thinks he is a provider and a gatekeeper and someone who is rationing said medicine.

[hilzoy]

John: I basically agree, as usual. But my one quibble is this: how, exactly, would those of us who do not want to hear any more about the runaway bride supposed to register our preferences? It's not as though we have a choice between the runaway bride/Michael Jackson channel and the serious and interesting channel, or anything.

There is C-SPAN, but it's not international, and you have to take whatever they happen to have going on at the moment, which is fine sometimes, but other times it's e.g. annoying speeches at a Young College Republican Convention, ugh. There's PBS, which carries both the NewsHour and (some stations) BBC world news, but if you happen to miss the news, too bad: you get to watch Yanni instead. Other than that, basically nothing.

So I don't think we can fairly be said to have 'shown' much of anything about our preferences.

[Jordan]

It's called public television. Basically every country in the world has some form of gov't supported news network, except the U.S. The answer to the problem -- this slow, televisual moronification of Americans -- is to support a government-funded independent news network that isn't forced to compete with all the other networks for advertising dollars. It's time we realize the media performs a civil service that has nothing to do with Chandler shacking up with Monica, and fund it like any other vital public interest that keeps this country working. Give the funding to PBS maybe, but there should be at least one network where you can tune in and find national and world news not manufactured in Hollywood.

I know, I know, how old-school, how Rooseveltian of me to dream up such a project. But Libertarians cover your ears: private enterprise is ruining journalism and gradually making us all too stupid to vote. You heard it here first.

[blogbudsman]

I'm reminded of the movie Broadcast News when Jane Craig (Holly Hunter) is presenting an example of the deterioration of the broadcasting of real news by showing one of those massive domino falling displays; and her audience of news personalities perks up for the first time during the presentation. And don't we have the young Texas reporter Dan Rather to thank for the ridiculous broadcast from the teeth of the storm scenario. News is most comedic these days.