From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: WHAT?!?!?!
Date: 27 Dec 1992 16:39:20 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org> writes:
>  Photographers and journalists
>on the scene repeatedly report that their editors told them that
>'people aren't interested in starving African children.'  This is
>exactly the same reasoning used to suppress news about the Ethiopian
>famine in 84.  And of course, when the news got out, people were not
>only interested,but demanded in great numbers with great vehemence
>that something be done.

The media ignored the situations, in both Ethiopia and Somalia, for a
while.  Then they realized that the starvation was a Great Cause.  Which I
define by the following three characteristics:

	1. it is a severe problem.  (so people will be interested in it.)

	2. it is something people do not know about.  (so that they will be
	   hungry for news on it.)

	3. it is something for which, at first glance, there is an extremely
	   simple solution.  (so that the solution need not be explained;
	   people can be left to infer it on their own.)

Clearly both the Ethiopian and Somalian starvations meet these three
criteria.  In both cases the situation was not generally known before the
story "broke".  In both cases there was an obvious solution: send food.
(Other Great Causes currently active include the war on drugs and the
efforts to confiscate guns.)

If such a Great Cause exists, the TV stations can boost their ratings and
the newspapers can improve circulation by covering it intensively.  And if
all the media sources cooperate, the impact of the story is much greater.
But the people in the media are not omniscent.  It has to be hammered into
their heads that items (1), (2), and (3) above are present, before they make
the decision to intensively report the story.

Which is not to suggest that there is a conspiracy which makes this choice.
All that is required is for one news outlet to "break" the story in such a
way that (1) through (3) are apparent to the other news outlets.  Then the
other news outlets will follow the example of the first.

But there is a constant search for new Great Causes.  The result of this is
that the media tends to make common cause with those groups which tend to (1)
exaggerate the severity of problems, (2) invent new "problems", and (3)
portray everything as having a simple solution.

This means that they espouse the ideas of liberals far more than they
espouse conservative ideas.  Yet it is an alliance of convenience only, as
is shown by the war on drugs -- an instance where the media are allied with
conservatives.  

The Ethiopian situation was a prime example of the media taking the liberal
viewpoint.  You will perhaps recall that around the time of the massive
publicity, there was a concert, offered by a group of well-known musicians
who called themselves "Band Aid".  The concert was nationally televised, and
the television audience was exhorted to contribute to the relief effort.

A year later, in a small item in the back of a newspaper, I found an
accounting of how the money had been spent.  50% of the money had been spent
on "administration".  30% had been spent on food.  I do not recall where the
article said the other 20% went.  Perhaps it was spent on transportation.  So
half of the money went to line the pockets of the people who organized the
event.

But that corruption was minor compared to what went on in Africa.  There was
plenty of food piled up at the ports at the same time as people were dying
in the interior.  The government would not provide trucks to transport the
food, and this was a Marxist government which owned all the trucks in the
country.  Very well, decided the aid workers: we will bring in our own
trucks.  The government agreed to this on two conditions: that the trucks be
new Mercedes-Benzes, and that they be turned over to the government after
the relief operation.  At least one aid organization quit in disgust at that
point.  For it had become evident that the government was using the famine
to kill off people in areas which were controlled by antigovernment rebels.
Relief efforts would have messed up this policy.

There is currently no famine in Ethiopia.  This is because two years after
the great famine and publicity, the problem of the government obstructing
food distribution was solved.  And it was solved in the most conservative,
cold-war fashion imaginable: the rebels won the war.


--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat."
		-- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987
Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:717 alt.politics.org.un:210 alt.president.clinton:1238 talk.politics.misc:65125 alt.politics.bush:14869