The silence on Sudan

by Tracy Fehr

In American society today our media controls not only what we see as a nation, but also our reality of the world. If something occurs and is not covered in the mainstream media then for most Americans the event never happened. This is why the silent role the media has played in the Sudan genocide and in the current Darfur conflict is so paramount.

South Sudanese villages are raided by the northern militia—which is supported by the Sudanese government—because of the “Jihad” or Holy War of the northern Arabs.

In 2005 Amnesty International said that over the past 21 years of fighting in Sudan, an estimated 2 million people have died and 6 million have been displaced from their homes. In addition, thousands of women have been raped and thousands of children have been abducted in the south and taken north to be sold into slavery.

“There is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the Earth today than the tragedy that is unfolding in Sudan”, said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to the House International Relations Committee in 2001. Although even at that point the tragedy had already been unfolding for some time. Our own president referred to the situation in Sudan as“genocide”, and the United Nations have called the Sudan bloodshed, “the Worst Humanitarian Conflict on Earth”.

So if Sudan is such a major crisis, then we have to wonder why do we not see it covered more in the media? Well, some could argue the recent lack of coverage is due to the Comprehensive Peace Accord—signed on January 9, 2005, to establish peace in south Sudan—but it’s not. Although this agreement helps to try to secure peace is one area, the rest of Sudan is still suffering. According to the UN News Service, the Darfur region of Sudan is experiencing attacks which have killed 180,000 people and displaced 2 million since that area’s fighting began in 2003.

The Sudanese government has gotten away with supporting militia against their own people for as long as the conflicts have been occurring in south Sudan and Darfur. Recently, the Sudanese government has made it increasingly difficult to obtain a visa for Sudan and has added difficulties for journalists once they arrive in the country. “Those reporters awarded visas are required to get permission to travel to Darfur, and once they get them, must be accompanied there by a government escort. Even then, soldiers can limit access to pillaged villages or displacement camps,” said Kenneth H. Bacon, President of Refugees International.

“There is such a small group of us [journalists] covering it [Sudan]. When we don’t go in, it means Americans don’t see what’s happening here,” said Washington Post reporter Emily Wax during an interview with Sherry Ricchiardi of American Journalism Review.

“The war in Sudan may be ‘invisible’ to Americans and others in the world, but to us south Sudanese it is a constant and painful experience,” said Francis Bok author of Escape from Slavery. Bok is a former slave who was abducted into slavery at the age of seven, when his south Sudanese village was raided by the north government-backed militia.

Although the Washington Post and the New York Times have slowly been setting the precedent for increased Sudan coverage, the television news remains drastically behind. In the year 2004, the three nightly newscasters—ABC, NBC and CBS—aired an insufficient 26 minutes on the Darfur and Sudan crisis. A television news analysis conducted by the American Progress Action Fund studied the amount of collective coverage Sudan received during the month of June 2005 on the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC networks. Sudan’s coverage was 12 times less than the collective coverage on Tom Cruise and 50 times less than the coverage on Michael Jackson.

Placing more priority on celebrities’ lives than on an international crisis affecting millions of lives is an injustice not only to the people of Sudan, but also to the viewing public of America. It is time for the American public to speak out against the increasing celebrity and domesticated media and to demand appropriate coverage for the most significant news stories—especially regarding Sudan. The mainstream media will only continue to ignore international conflicts and sensationalize domestic stories and celebrities as long as its viewers allow it to.

According to Harvard Research Fellow, Ethan Zuckerman, more press coverage on an international conflict leads to more public awareness on the issue and more pressure on the government to act. Thus, the amount of media attention an international conflict receives is positively correlated to the likeliness of peacekeepers and aid being sent.

Perhaps the seriousness of the incredible lack of coverage on Sudan can be summed up in a quote by Rabbi Irving Greenburg, chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, in a Washington Post opinion editorial: “…the horror that afflicts Sudan is staggering…Remembering of the Holocaust has instilled in us a profound appreciation for the cost of silence.”

At this point of the Sudan struggle, we can only hope to cut that cost of silence and finally bring a voice to Sudan.