Darfur: del silencio a la exageración

Darfur se ha convertido en una clase de indecencia editorial, un reflejo de la naturaleza del periodismo y lamentablemente una muestra más de la debilidad de los códigos de ética que suelen mostrar los medios para defenderse de la "industrialización criminal" de la prensa. El 2003 comenzó una cacería indiscriminada en el sur de Sudán que la prensa no vio, no cubrió y que apenas se reflejó en algunos recuadros en los diarios o pequeñas notas televisivas, mientras las ONGs intentaban gritar más allá de las fronteras de ese país. El Chad se llenaba con 2 millones de refugiados, pero eso apenas era una mueca en las cadenas de EE.UU., Europa y para que hablar de América Latina. Luego vino el genocidio y la prensa estuvo más cerca que nunca, porque su código genético le indicaba que tenía una responsabilidad "mayor", incluso usando como pretexto la mentira. Parece ser que no serán los avances tecnológicos los que pondrán en las cuerdas a la industria tradicional, sino su falta de dignidad, su autocomplacencia y el olvido de que las mejores historias son las de carne y hueso. Acá dos artículos aprovechando la tardía llegada de Cascos Azules a Africa; uno sobre el silencio frente a la catástrofe y otro sobre el delirio frente a la muerte.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_200409/ai_n9453646
darfurinformation.com/publications-of-interest/book16.asp

Por Martin Bell

It was Alexander Pope who observed that “a little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.” The Roman writer Publilius Syrus noted that it is “better to be ignorant of a matter than half know it”. Never have such warnings been more applicable than in studies of the media coverage of the Darfur crisis.
It should not have been unexpected. It is a simple matter of fact that a significant amount of the international press coverage of Sudan over the past decade has been questionable.

Disinformation and propaganda have been an ever-present particular feature of most, if not all, wars over the past 50 years or so. Sudan in general and Darfur in particular have been no exception. The international news media have been an obvious target for those who wish to manipulate the way in which conflicts are presented. This is for obvious reasons. International “reporting” is in many instances the only image many outside observers will have of the country itself. International press coverage is also sometimes the only material many commentators and even legislators will have in mind when addressing issues either directly or indirectly related to Sudan. Journalists have in many instances managed to get away with some appalling reporting on Sudan. There has been a mixture of simply bad journalism and misinformation. The latest examples of questionable journalism have focused upon the war in Darfur.

Speaking in December 2004, Chris Mullins, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, noted the dysfunctional nature of much of the media coverage of the Darfur conflict. After viewing a British television news item on Darfur, he stated that the news item was “the first one to acknowledge there are actually two sides in this dispute” – that is to say 18 months after the war had begun. It is a sad reality that Mullins’ comments can be applied virtually across the board with regard to media coverage of the Darfur crisis.

It is worth placing the reporting on Darfur into context. Over the past decade or so the international news media have carried a number of deeply questionable claims about Sudan. These have included allegations that Sudan possessed and manufactured weapons of mass destruction. These were, of course, particularly grave allegations to have been made. On 20 August 1998, the Clinton Administration launched cruise missile attacks on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum alleging that the plant was making chemical weapons as part of Osama bin Laden’s infrastructure of international terrorism. The Clinton Administration made several, widely-reported, claims about Sudan and the factory – all of which were repeated in the media. Every one proved to have been false. After carefully assessing the claims The Observer newspaper spoke of “a catalogue of US misinformation, glaring omissions and intelligence errors about the function of the plant”. These claims are now accepted internationally to have been unfounded.