This self-respect and sense of self-worth, the innermost armament of the soul, lies at the heart of humanness; to be deprived of it is to be dehumanized, to be cleaved from, and cast below, mankind.
Laura Hillenbrand (Author)
The Oxford Dictionary defines dehumanisation as “The process of depriving a person or group of people of human qualities.” Renowned sociologist Erving Goffman, whose publications have become standard sociology references, explained dehumanisation as any time someone reduces a human being to a single characteristic, especially if it is a negative one.
Jehane Noujaim is an acclaimed Egyptian-American film director. While speaking about her international multimedia event Pangea Day she said, “If you can laugh with somebody and relate to them, it becomes harder to dehumanize them.”
Most foreign correspondents based in Africa appear to have no trouble mingling with the residents. One would presume that, among the factors taken into account while contemplating which journalists to send to Africa, the individual’s compatibility with the place would be paramount. Most of the correspondents seem genuinely happy to be here. One gets the sense that they truly have made this continent their home. They interact well with the locals and even make some friends. In the context of Noujaim’s quote, they have no problem laughing with the locals.
Yet, there is a clear disconnect between the journalists’ perceived view of their new home and the stories that they report. It is almost like they live in and report about two distinctly different places. Anecdotes about their day-to-day life here are pretty much generic routine experiences. Some good people/events, some bad people/events, some exciting adventures, some horrifying tragedies. Their daily grind seems typical of any correspondent, regardless of where they are based.
The narrative in their reporting however, paints a picture of complete anarchy. The running themes being turmoil, ineptitude, irrationality and boorishness among others. They may be capable of laughing with them, but if how they report about the locals is anything to go by, they are either incapable of or unwilling to relate to them.
Media Representation of Africa
Africa has long been presented to the western world as a dark, destitute continent, badly in need of deliverance. This bleak portrayal was initially perpetuated by explorers, missionaries and colonialists. In post-independence Africa, this narrative continues to be peddled – with slightly varying but nevertheless negative themes – by the media. The western media in particular.
This is not to say that the information put out by the international media about Africa is false. There is however, a lack of balanced representation in their reports. The information might be factual, but considerable portions of the story will go unreported. Incidentally, these are portions that are very much pertinent to the story. The narrative is so one-sided (presumably to stick to the negative running themes mentioned above) that the entire account ends up fairly distorted. The context of the story is lost.
“Hotbed of Terror”
Ahead of President Barack Obama’s visit to Kenya in July 2015, CNN sent out this tweet.
“President Obama isn’t just heading to his father’s homeland, but to a hotbed of terror.”
This tweet was followed by a television report with the following caption:
While Kenya has suffered a spate of attacks from the Somalia-based terror group Al-Shabaab, it is by no means a ‘terror hotbed.’ The Global Terrorism Index report for 2015, the same year of CNN’s branding of Kenya as a terrorism hotbed, does not list Kenya in the top 15 countries for terrorism. In fact in that same report, Kenya is ranked in the same category as China, Russia and Israel. Yet CNN certainly wouldn’t describe a visit by the US president to any of these countries as a visit to a terror hotbed.
Also when you take into account that this report is from the year that Kenya suffered its worst terror attack in 15 years, a picture of just how far off the mark CNN was in their reporting becomes clear. Kenyans on twitter took on CNN with the hashtag #SomeoneTellCNN, forcing CNN executive vice-president and managing director, Tony Maddox to travel to Kenya to issue an apology. He said in part, “It is regrettable and we shouldn’t have done it. There is a world at war with extremists; we know what a hotbed of terror looks like, and Kenya isn’t one.”
While this misrepresentation and bias can be grating, the most worrying aspect of how the international media reports on Africa is way darker and much more disheartening. It is an approach which has grim, cruel roots and whose consequences can be tragic. It is the more harmful and even dangerous kind of reporting, the one that comes with a huge sense of moral disengagement and lessened personal responsibility. This is the reporting that happens whenever a tragedy has occurred and particularly where there has been loss of life.
The Double Standard
When 29-year-old Omar Mateen opened fire and killed 49 people in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, the images that we saw on our TV screens were of people hugging each other, consoling each other and coming together to make sense of a terrible tragedy. Over the next few days, news reports and articles were full of heartwarming stories of people who went out of their way to help friends and strangers. There was a real sense of the community, and the country as a whole, coming together. The message to terrorists was clear: We will not be intimidated by cowardly acts of terror.
Whenever a tragedy occurs in the west, the stories told by the media are those of bravery and resilience. Those of courage, tenacity and heroism.
On 15th January 2019, gunmen attacked the DusitD2 complex in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 21 people. The images broadcasted on international media reports were of people fleeing, terrified people being led away crying, camera footage of the gunmen in action and burning cars. Over the next few days, while local news reports told stories of heroes who risked their lives to save others, and of Kenyans coming together to help wherever they could, the international media focused on examining the existing threat that is posed by Al-Shabaab and where Kenyan intelligence might have gone wrong. The message was clear: This is a frightening place to be and your safety is undetermined.
Whenever a tragedy occurs in Africa, the stories told by the international media are those of terror and hopelessness. Those of hysteria, despair and dread.
Dehumanisation of African Life
Until we learn that other lives are equally grievable and have an equal demand on us to be grieved – especially the ones that we’ve helped to eliminate – I’m not sure we’ll really be on the way to overcoming the problem of dehumanization.
Judith Butler (Philosopher)
Moral Disengagement: Disregarding Injurious Consequences
Psychologist Albert Bandura, originator of the social cognitive theory, presented in his paper, Moral Disengagement In The Perpetration Of Inhumanities, that one of the mechanisms of moral disengagement is the disregard or distortion of the effects of one’s actions. When the Dusit D2 attack happened, The New York Times published this gruesome, contemptible report, containing images of dead Kenyans sprawled across restaurant tables. Kenyans were rightfully incensed. The insensitivity of such a major publication circulating such gruesome photos of the victims was appalling. To do so while the attack was still ongoing was disgusting to say the least.
Incoming East Africa bureau chief and author of the offensive report, Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura was flippant in her dismissal of offended Kenyans.
She then issued a lukewarm apology in a tweet which she deleted shortly afterwards.
The ‘apology’ was replaced with a statement from The New York Times, seemingly an attempt by the publication to explain why they published the offending photographs. Despite the hue and cry from Kenyans at not only the insensitivity shown, but also at the fact that international media houses never publish such gory images of school shootings and other acts of terror in their own countries, The New York Times has to date not taken these images down.
This is textbook moral disengagement. A complete disregard of the anguish that the decision to publish these photos caused Kenyans. The dismissive tone with which they handled the backlash simply confirms their indifference.
Moral Disengagement: Diffusion of Responsibility
In The New York Times’ explanation of their decision to publish these gory images, they make numerous references to “the editors in New York” choosing which photos to publish. Not once do they mention the individual who made the ultimate call, not once do “the editors” that made this decision explain their train of thought in doing so.
Bandura refers to diffusion of responsibility as yet another aspect of moral disengagement. He states, “Group decision making is another common practice that gets otherwise considerate people to behave inhumanely. When everyone is responsible, no one really feels responsible……. People act more cruelly under group responsibility than when they hold themselves personally accountable for their actions.”
And in a classic move at diffusion of responsibility, The New York Times shifted the conversation from the morality of their actions to the operational details and efficiency of their specific jobs.
The Psychology of Dehumanisation
Sherry Hamby PhD, founding editor of the American Psychological Association Journal, Psychology of Violence, writes that dehumanisation, like other moral disengagement techniques, are designed to get people to accept behaviours that they would otherwise immediately recognise as unethical and unfair.
It is clear that the international media has completely different standards when it comes to reporting about Africa. However, their approach when there has been a tragedy and loss of life, can no longer be termed as misrepresentation.
These reports consider Africans to be devoid of the same emotions as themselves and their people. In their eyes (and their reporting) the African’s grief is not as intense, his resolve is not as firm, his right to privacy is not as important, his very life is not as valuable and his exasperation at all this is not justified. They have stripped the African of human qualities and emotion, and thus, by all definition they have dehumanised him.
This is why a leading publication can be dismissive about circulating photos of dead Africans without a care about whether the next of kin has been notified. It is why whenever there are reports of a conflict in Africa, there will be no stories about majority of the citizens who want no part in, or are actively trying to stop the conflict. The reports will however be chock-full of of terms like tribesmen, warlords, militants, rebels, mercenaries: terminology that causes the audience to see these people as less human.
It is why the loss of African life will either be underreported, or deemed not newsworthy enough and not be reported at all. It is why when 57 Africans from 12 different countries lost their lives in the recent Ethiopian airlines crash, The Associated Press tweeted this:
The danger in normalising this kind of dehumanisation is the overall consequence of seeing one group of people as less human, as less capable of experiencing the intensity of emotions like you do. It lies in the fact that this is the sentiment that enables unspeakable atrocities around the world: slavery, torture, genocide etc.
It is true that the international media has come a long way in how they report about Africa. There have been massive gains and the narrative is getting more balanced, perhaps in part due to the rising availability of technology in Africa, giving more of the locals the opportunity to not only see how their stories are reported, but to also comment on them. There has also been an increase in the effort to highlight positive stories about Africa.
It is understandable that the international media, and particularly foreign correspondents, face a challenging job with unique constraints. They have a duty to tell an authentic story about their host country, but they have to report it with their readers back home as the primary target audience. It is reasonable that with this situation comes a unique set of challenges, especially with regard to writing a report that balances both responsibilities. Being in a business that is characterised by rushing to be the first to get information out to the audience certainly does not help.
It is said that the basic tool to fight dehumanisation is empathy. A re-humanisation of sorts needs to take place. As a basic starting point, perhaps the international media and their foreign correspondents need to practice the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” There cannot be different reporting standards based on different sets of ethics regarding the value of people’s lives and the validity of their emotions.
Albert Bandura sums it up perfectly: “Regardless of whether inhumane practices are institutional, organizational or individual, it should be made difficult for people to remove humanity from their conduct.”