RWANDAN (GENOCIDE): HOW THE AMERICAN MEDIA FAILED

DR. TRACY MUNSILPOLTICS, MEDIA, AND TECHNOLOGY

FALL SEMESTER 2012

RACHEL E. BLACK NOVEMBER 19, 2012

It started over the radio. Simple messages of hate towards the Tutsi people on “Radio

Rwanda” and RTLM, rested in the ears of the Hutu’s. It was like a trail of gasoline, innocent at

first, waiting for a spark so it could burn a path of destruction. Years of resentment and bitterness

between these two tribes have passed the line of healthy patriotism into something far more

deadly.  The messages on the radio were no longer simple racial joke; they were facts of the

Tutsi’s inferiority. Every day these broadcasts were heard, but no one could have expected how

fatal it would become. The spark that would cause the fire to burn ignited on April 6, 1994 with

the assassination of Rwandan President, Juvénal Habyarimana. The messages broadcasted on the

radio were now lethal commands to murder and wipe out the Tutsi population. The fire was now

at its peak; its weapon of choice machetes in the hands of the Hutu’s whose only purpose now is

to kill. There is no longer husband and wife, parent and child no one is spared from the fire as

husbands kill their wives and brothers kill their sisters. Bloody bodies with missing limbs are

piled everywhere in Rwanda’s capital Kigali. The stench of death has replaced the smell of

Africa’s once beautiful hillside. There is no escape from this deadly fire that would end up

killing eight hundred thousand people. It started with the radio.

A simple form of media with the purpose of bringing news throughout Rwanda had

become a weapon. With media it began and with media it could have ended, but that is where the

media failed. The western media failed to report the genocide in Rwanda in a way that could

bring salvation to the Tutsis. Instead the media “obscured, distorted, and denied current events

and thus undermined the public’s ability to understand the context, causes and consequences of

1

2

the genocide.”1 There are a variety of reasons why the American media failed in accurately

reporting the genocide in Rwanda many of them structural and institutional. Putting motives and

emotions aside the media, the violence in Rwanda simply did not fit the business side of news

making.

Before specifically addressing the role of the American media in covering the Rwandan

genocide, it is first important to understand the structure and shortcomings of the American

media coverage of international news more generally. The situation in Rwanda was ignored and

neglected by the media, simply because it was not “news worthy” enough. News is a business. If

it is not going to sell then it is not going to be published.  Many publishers did not believe that

America cared about what was happening in Rwanda. Why should they? With sensational stories

like the O.J. Simpson case and the situation in Bosnia, why would Americans care about another

“tribal war” in Africa? Why would Americans even care about anything happening in a foreign

country? There are many reasons why the media neglected the genocide in Rwanda including the

gatekeeping process, foreign news coverage, and the way media covers a crisis.  

News making

First, there is an order to how publishers pick what stories are printed. Publishers usually

have five criteria they use to pick stories. These are strong impact, violence, familiarity,

proximity, and timely and novel.2 People tend to read the new stories that “picture conditions that

could have a strong impact on readers or listeners.”3 Americans typically only like to read stories

that will strongly impact the community they live in. Stories that also contain, “breezy crime and

1 Noam Schimmel (2011): An Invisible genocide: how the Western media failed to report the 1994 Rwandan genocide of the Tutsi and why, The International Journal of Human Rights, 15:7, 1125

2 Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics, CQ Press; 8th edition, August 3, 2009.

3 Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics,

3

sex”4 are known to excite the audience. This tends to give a false reality about how the world is.

It makes it seem that violence runs rampant through certain communities when the crime rate

may not be as high as it appears. The American people also only like to read stories that are

about familiar people and events. This is a problem because many politicians are people with

important information are ignored because they are not familiar enough. Local news also seems

to be more popular than news that is far away. For news to be really appealing, “it must be

something that has just occurred and is out of the ordinary.”5 Doris A. Graber from Mass Media

and American Politics say out of these five “conflict, proximity, and timeliness are most

important, judging from analyses of actual news choices.”6 In the case of Rwanda it fell in the

criteria of violence and conflict, but since it was not local and did not have an impact directly on

America it was not published as much as it should have been. That is not to say that Rwanda was

not published at all. In the New York Times there were a total of 401 articles about the Rwanda

genocide from April 6, 1994- July 26, 1994.7 However, compared to other events happening

around the same time this is far less.

Around the same time thousands of Tutsis were dying in Rwanda, the famous O.J. Simpson

was on trial for the murder of his wife, Nicole Brown. Since the O.J. Simpson trial was local,

timely, and familiar it took center stage. In fact, the O.J Simpson trial outshined many other

important events around the same time with a total of 1,364 articles in The New York Times and

seventy minutes of Television coverage at its peak.8 While O.J. Simpson was busy stealing the

spot light Genocide was happening along-side Rwanda. The genocide in Bosnia was receiving 4 Ibid.,

5 Ibid.,

6 Ibid.,

7 New York Times Archive Search-Rwanda

8 New York Times Archive Search-O.J Simpson

4

twice the number of coverage in newspapers like The New York Times, Washington Post and

Chicago Tribune according to a 1996 study by Garth Myers.9 The Bosnian genocide was mainly

covered more because it lasted longer and became more familiar with the American people. If

the Rwandan genocide lasted longer it may have been covered more. The media spent more of its

limited space on these two situations and not enough on Rwanda. However, this was not solely

because of the news making criteria.

Foreign Affairs Coverage

According to Graber, “Americans profess a modest interest in foreign news, but when

given a choice, they do not seek it out.”10 In a 2008 survey 56 percent of people claimed to watch

foreign new selectively when asked what types of news they watched routinely.11 With this lack

of interest foreign news is barely covered in the mainstream media. “Compared with attention to

domestic affairs, foreign news is a neglected stepchild in terms of space, time, and prominence of

display,” says Graber.12 Thus, the criteria for picking foreign news stories are more precise and

demanding. For foreign news to make the mainstream media it must have a, “more profound

impact on the political economic, or cultural concerns of the United States than domestic news. It

must involve people of more exalted status and entail more violence or disaster.”13 Similar to

domestic news foreign new is largely selected for, “audience appeal,” rather than political

reasons.14 Unfortunately, this means that stories that have an angle that interests Americans is

published more, while news that does not include an angle is ignored. The reality is “black-on-9 Anne Chaon, Who Failed in Rwanda, Journalists or the Media?; The Media and the Rwanda Genocide;

Editor, Allan Thompson, Pluto Press 2002; 162.

10 Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics; 8th, 2009. 287

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., 289

13 Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics; 8th, 2009. 289

14 Ibid., 300

5

black violence in Africa seems to hold little interests to the Western world, but throw in a

Caucasian angle and international limelight is likely.”15 According to Sociologist Herbert Gans

there are seven subjects the media favors that he discovered through foreign affairs news in

television newscasts and in newsmagazines.16 The first subject is American involvement in the

foreign country whether it is war or just prominent figures visiting.17 Second, if the event or

events affect Americans directly like oil embargos then they are undoubtedly covered.18 The

third and fourth subjects are “relations with the United States with potentially hostile states” and

“upheavals and leadership changes in friendly states.”19 Stories about dramatic political conflicts

such as wars are the fifth subject.20 Disasters that involve a great loss of life are the sixth

subject.21 There is even an equation to calculate the severity of the conflict in different countries:

“10,000 deaths in Nepal equals 100 deaths in Wales equals 10 deaths in West Virginia equals

one death next door.”22 The seventh subject deals with foreign dictators who use brute force

against political dissidents.23 However, even if with all these subjects there are still restrictions

that limit the amount of foreign news stories. Such examples are space and time limitations and

the lack of journalists. The limitations on space and time are “particularly troubling for reporting

foreign events, which are often unintelligible without adequate background information or

15 Harvey, Nick. "Why Do Some Conflicts Get More Media Coverage than Others?" New Internationalist (2012): 40-43. Print.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics; 8th, 2009.300

23 Ibid.

6

interpretation.”24 This causes many of the foreign news stories to be oversimplified and lacking

of important knowledge. This is also a result of the “extinct breed” of elite specially trained

journalists that supplied most of the foreign news coverage in the past.25 As a result there are so

many other untrained foreign correspondents that provide a plethora of oversimplified and

sometimes inaccurate news. Consequently, because of the way foreign affairs are covered many

stories, such as the violence in Rwanda, are ignored or distorted.

24 Ibid., 301

25 Ibid., 290

7

Crisis Coverage

There are three stages on which the media covers a crisis, according to Graber. Stage one is

where the disaster is “announced as impending or has already struck.”26 During stage one regular

television shows are interrupted to bring news of the crisis to the people. Regrettably, the

genocide in Rwanda did not interrupt the regular programs like this, but the majority of the print

coverage does fit into stage one. The majority of The New York Times articles during this time

were the factual news about what was happening. However, they were mostly short paragraphs

under the title, “News Summary.”27 Stage two is when corrections are made and the media

attempt to “put the situation into a proper perspective.”28 There were a few examples of this in

the New York Times: “An article on Tuesday about violence in Rwanda misstated the tribe of its

Prime Minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, who was one of those killed. She was a member of the

Hutu tribe, not the rival Tutsis.”29 Though some corrections like this were made during the

genocide, many others were not made until a lot later. Stage three is when the media try to “place

the crisis into a larger, long-range perspective and to prepare people to cope with the

aftermath.”30 This is the stage that America’s media failed to do in this crisis. Once the violence

had stopped after a hundred days, so did the news coverage.

The Truth

To really understand how the media distorted the truth about the Rwandan Genocide it is

important to know the truth? First, “the Rwandan genocide did not appear out of nowhere, it has

26 Ibid., 116

27 News Summary .New York Times, 4/9/1994, p2, 0p

28 Doris A. Graber, Mass Media and American Politics; 8th, 2009. 117

29 News Summary .New York Times, 4/9/1994, p2, 0p

30 Ibid., 118

8

historical, political and cultural precursors which the media failed to examine and report.”31

Contrary to popular belief “Tutsis superiority over Hutus had been in place before the Europeans

arrived, but was crystallized under the Belgian colonizers who fixed once fluid labels into rigid,

ethnic categories and established a system of discrimination against Hutu as a whole.”32

Eventually this system was reversed in the Hutus favor once the Hutus began to become fed up

with their position. Even before the assassination began and the killings started, there was

widespread segregation and discrimination towards the Tutsis. After the assassination, the Hutu’s

were the ones killing thousands of innocent people. The Tutsis rebel group, Rwandan Patriotic

Front (RPF), was trying to gain their power back, but they were not the initial igniters of the

conflict. The Majority of Newspaper articles portrayed the idea that it was the Tutsis killing the

Hutus in articles that focused on the RPF killings and the Hutu refugees (French in Rwanda

Discover Thousands of Hutu Refugees)33. Journalists went to refugee camps where Hutu

murderers sought hiding from the RPF and reported them as the victims.34 After the hundred

days of genocide the Tutsis finally regained their power with help from France. However,

throughout the whole conflict Americans were given distorted information about actually was

happening. Though some Journalists have since apologized, the consequences of their failure are

seen in the bloodstained Rwandan roads.

31 Noam Schimmel (2011): An Invisible genocide: how the Western media failed to report the 1994 Rwandan 1126

32 Lee Ann Fujii, (2001): Origins of Power and Identity in Rwanda, San Francisco State University, http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/archive/fujii.html, accessed November 2, 2012

33 Raymond Bonner, French in Rwanda Discover Thousands of Hutu Refugees New York Times, 6/28/1994, p3, 0p

34 Tendai Chari (2010): Representation or misrepresentation? The New York Times’s framing of the 1994 Rwanda genocide, African Identities, Vol. 8 Issue 4, p333-349

9

Oversimplified News

The stereotypical and simple views that the American media portrayed about the Rwanda

Genocide played a huge role in its failure to adequately report the Rwandan Genocide. Because

of the way international news is framed and oversimplified many of the frames that were used

incessantly was that the whole situation was another African tribal rivalry, when in fact it was a

full-blown genocide. They blamed the tragedy on a “long-running tribal hatred between the Hutu

and Tutsi.”35 Most newspapers used words like “tribal issues” and “tribal warfare” and headlines

like “Tribal fighting flares again around Rwandan capital” were common.36 Every characteristic

of the conflict was tribalised in the media and the very first articles published all contained some

sort of tribal spin. Even the Hutus were classified as people that lived in the “forested hills,”

people of nature and not developing people. They were even once compared to gorillas in an

article in the New York Times titled ‘Gorillas still in Rwanda’s mist.37 This spin on things gave

the world the idea that Rwanda was “not worthy of world attention.”38 They were too

undeveloped and clannish, while the rest of the world is far too developed to even worry about

something like another tribal battle. This stereotype projected the idea that nothing could be done

to stop it. They implied that it was too uncontrollable and not even worth trying to control.

However, there might have been an ulterior motive with the tribal frame-“Tribalism of

the conflict relieves the New York Times of the burden of explaining to its western audience the

35 Tendai Chari (2010): Representation or misrepresentation?, 333

36 Ibid., 341

37 Ibid., 339

38 Ibid., 333

10

multilayered causes of the conflict.”39 These over-used stereotypes made it possible for the media

to avoid reporting the real reasons for the genocide and not depicting it “as an organized project

of extermination.”40 Instead, the media propelled the conflict as mysterious circumstances. Even

the plane crash that killed President Juvénal Habyarimana was described as “mysterious” in a

May 1994 New York Times Story.41 Only one article in the New York Times titled, “The World;

Once Chosen, Tribal Elites Now Suffer Consequences,” by William E. Schmidt, got the story

right42. He accurately classified the Hutu’s and Tutsis with mention of the historical precursors.

Not only that, he was able to explain the multilayer causes without oversimplifying the conflict.

Sadly, this is only one article out of four hundred that correctly portrayed the violence in

Rwanda. The majority of news stories focused on the Hutu refugee camps and continued to use

words like “rival tribal groups.”43 “With this “smokescreen of confusion” the Hutus were able to

“proceed with their diabolical plans.”44 With the medias audience thinking that the massacres in

Rwanda was just another uncontrollable tribal war, they could sleep peacefully at night knowing

nothing could be done as others slept in mass graves. The reason that Rwandan Massacres were

describes as tribalism was because the West had little to none accurate knowledge of Africa and

its politics and affairs. The view that has always been portrayed about Africa is, “Africa is a far-

away place where good people go hungry, bad people run government and chaos and anarchy or

39 Ibid., 341

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 William E. Schmidt , “The World; Once Chosen, Tribal Elites Now Suffer Consequences,” New York Times, 4/17/1994, p3, 0p

43 News Summary .New York Times, 4/9/1994, p2, 0p

44 Hammond, Peter, “Holocaust in Rwanda-The Roles of Gun Control, Media Manipulation, Liberal Church Leaders, and the United Nations” (Frontline Fellowship, 1996) pge. 43-47

11

the norm.”45 To assume the massacres were caused by other factors including colonization by the

Belgians did not fit this western view. Thus, in the New York Times, Rwanda is portrayed as

“another hopeless country” in articles titled similar to, “Anarchy rules Rwanda’s capital and

drunken soldiers roam city.”46 Rwanda was just another example of how “violent, irrational, and

immoral” the continent of Africa is.47 This was yet another “smokescreen of confusion” that led

the American people to believe that this was just normal behavior of the African people and not a

deadly plan to wipe out a whole ethnic group.

45 Tendai Chari (2010): The New York Times’s framing Vol. 8 Issue 4, p333-349

46 Ibid,. 334

47 Ibid

12

Avoidance of the Term Genocide

13

Evidence suggests that the American media may have been directed to shape its coverage

to avoid use of the term genocide. Since the beginning of the massacre in Rwanda, the media

was told not to use the word genocide to describe the situation. Instead the New York Times

used words like “massacre,” and “mass killings.”48 David Rawson, a United States Ambassador

to Rwanda said: “As a responsible government, you don’t just go around hollering ‘genocide.”

You say that acts of genocide may have occurred and they need to be investigated.”49 Even if the

government chose not to follow with their obligation there would still be an outcry from the

American people to act that would be hard to ignore. Sadly, that was never even an option. A

New York Times spokesperson was advised not to refer to the killings in Rwanda as Genocide so

that it would not, “inflame public calls for action administration was unwilling to take.”50 This

may have been because the media had no idea that genocide was actually taking place. On the

other hand American officials might have been refrained from describing the massacre as

genocide so that they would not be responsible to act. When the United States signed 1948

Genocide Convention, they agreed to “respond to genocide by investigating and punishing those

who are responsible.”51 By avoiding using the word genocide America would not be obligated to

respond and thus endanger the lives of American soldiers and get involved with a conflict that

did not concern them. Genocide is defined by international law as “the systematic killing of any

ethnic group, with intent to destroy it in whole or in part.”52 Another reason why the media

48 Tendai Chari (2010): The New York Times’s framing, 334.

49 Douglas Jehl, Officials told to Avoid Calling Rwanda Killings ‘Genocide’, The New York Times. June 10, 1994

50 Ibid.

51 Douglas Jehl, Officials told to Avoid Calling Rwanda Killings ‘Genocide’, The New York Times. June 10, 1994

52 Linda Melvern, Missing the Story; The Media and the Rwanda Genocide, Editor, Allan Thompson, Pluto Press 2007;

14

evaded using the word genocide was because they did not a repeat of Somalia where 18

American soldiers died when America decided to send troops. Even so, the media’s audience

was not given the right representation of what was happening in Rwanda so they found no need

to take action. As a result “another Holocaust may just have slipped by hardly noticed.”53 The

western media is expected to report the news in its entirety and when they decide not to,

American citizens are not the only ones that suffer.

Conclusion

The media failed on doing their job by not correctly reporting on the Rwandan genocide. They

misrepresented what was taking place and fed the American people distorted truth. If the Media

would have spent the time to find out what really was going on instead of relying on their old

stereotypes, then maybe some action could have been taken. Maybe the mass graves would not

have gone so deep. The fire that burned for one hundred days killing eight hundred thousand

people could have been contained by the chorus of disapproval of the American people. But the

American people were not given the truth to disapprove and so the genocide continued. The

media holds a great deal of responsibility and in this case they failed with the power they have

been given. However, the blame does not rest on the media alone but on the American people as

well. If the American people could change their ethnocentric, apathetic ways and began to learn

about the world around them, then conflicts like that of Rwanda will not be repeated.

.

53 Ibid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonner, Raymond, French in Rwanda Discover Thousands of Hutu Refugees New York Times, 6/28/1994, p3, 0p

Chaon, Anne, Who Failed in Rwanda, Journalists or the Media?; The Media and the Rwanda Genocide; Editor, Allan Thompson, Pluto Press 2002; 162.

Fujii, Lee Ann, Origins of Power and Identity in Rwanda, San Francisco State University, http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/archive/fujii.html, 2011, accessed November 2, 2012

Graber, Doris A, Mass Media and American Politics. CQ Press 8th edition. 2009.

Hammond, Peter, “Holocaust in Rwanda-The Roles of Gun Control, Media Manipulation, Liberal Church Leaders, and the United Nations” (Frontline Fellowship, 1996)

Harvey, Nick. "Why Do Some Conflicts Get More Media Coverage than Others?" New Internationalist (2012): 40-43. Print.

Jehl, Douglas, Officials told to Avoid Calling Rwanda Killings ‘Genocide’, The New York Times. June 10, 1994

Melvern, Linda, Missing the Story; The Media and the Rwanda Genocide, Editor, Allan Thompson, Pluto Press 2007;

News Summary .New York Times, 4/9/1994, p2, 0p

Schimmel, Noam; An Invisible genocide: how the Western media failed to report the 1994 Rwandan genocide of the Tutsi and why, The International Journal of Human Rights, 2011,

Schmidt, William E. , “The World; Once Chosen, Tribal Elites Now Suffer Consequences,” New York Times, 4/17/1994, p3, 0p

Tendai Chari; Representation or misrepresentation? The New York Times’s framing of the 1994 Rwanda genocide, African Identities, Vol. 8 Issue 4(2010):,

15

16