Part-Time Pundit: Coalition for Darfur: Darfur in the Dark

« The Gap Between the Rich and the Poor | Main | Hurricane Katrina: Planned Parenthood on the Scene Making Sure Black People Don't Breed »

September 7, 2005

Coalition for Darfur: Darfur in the Dark

Crossposted from Coalition for Darfur

====
Two weeks ago, the "Be a Witness" campaign reported that it couldn't even pay TV networks to cover the genocide in Darfur

American Progress created a television advertisement for BeAWitness.org,
our netroots campaign that calls out the television news media for
their deplorable coverage of the genocide in Darfur. Over the last few
days, three Washington DC television affiliates, NBC-4, CBS-9, and
ABC-7, informed us that they refuse to air the ad.

Since the
major networks seem to have their hands full covering stories like
Natalee Holloway and the Runaway Bride, the ad does what the media
won’t — puts the spotlight on Darfur, and suggests that genocide
warrants increased coverage.

ABC News broadcast just 18
minutes of Darfur coverage in its nightly newscasts in all of 2004 —
“and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings,” as Nicholas
Kristof pointed out. NBC News featured 5 minutes, and CBS only had
three, “about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths.” Now they
won’t allow us to pay for 30 seconds to urge better coverage of the
genocide.

While this is obviously inexcusable, it is at
least somewhat understandable that TV networks would be reluctant to
run ads criticizing their own failings.

What is odd is that
the networks' collective refusal to run this ad generated almost no
print media coverage. And judging by the print media's own lack of
coverage of Darfur, it is easy to see why.

A search of US
newspapers for the number of stories that mentioned the word "Darfur"
at least 2 times over the last 19 months shows how coverage of the
genocide increased during 2004, only to all but disappear in 2005 (we
looked for stories that mention Darfur at least twice in order try to
eliminate pieces that mentioned it only in passing)

January 2004: 8

February 2004: 20

March 2004: 29

April 2004: 72

May 2004: 186

June 2004: 327

July 2004: 713

August 2004: 891

September 2004: 659

October 2004: 369

November 2004: 517

December 2004: 269

January 2005: 397

February 2005: 271

March 2005: 240

April 2005: 275

May 2005: 199

June 2005: 227

July 2005: 260

August 2005: 115

The most staggering thing about these numbers is that they reveal that there has been a nearly eight-fold decrease in the number of stories about Darfur between last August and this August.

The other amazing thing is that, on August 1st of this year, former Sudanese rebel leader John Garang died

in a helicopter crash. Garang, who only three weeks earlier had been
sworn in as vice president under the terms of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement that ended two decades of civil war between North and South
Sudan, was seen by many as a man who might be able to bring peace to
Darfur. Yet, despite his death and the implications it holds for the
future of Darfur, coverage of Darfur plummeted.

Nearly one
year after the United States called the situation in Darfur "genocide"
and the United Nations found overwhelming evidence of "serious
violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law, including crimes against humanity or war crimes" in
Darfur, the genocide is receiving less print coverage than it did before many had even heard the word "Darfur."

We cannot "be a witness" to the genocide in Darfur if the media continues to keep us in the dark.