While it’s easy enough to criticize the media for its coverage, if you were the editor, would you make the same decisions? The following section asks you to put yourself in the shoes of a news editor or producer. What decisions would you make about Africa coverage?
Consider this photograph of President Clinton’s visit to Africa in 1998. Clinton visited six countries in Africa. He began his trip in the West African country of Ghana where he was enthusiastically greeted by one of the largest crowds ever in his presidency. For a few moments, the crowd pushed toward the President (as crowds tend to do) and he shouted at them because he thought a woman might be crushed against a fence. Mostly, however, Clinton spent his time giving a speech to the many Africans who had patiently and peacefully gathered to hear him talk.
During this welcoming ceremony, Ghana’s president, Jerry Rawlings, also gave a talk to the crowd.If you were the editor, what part of that scenario would you give the most attention to? The brief moment of a pushing crowd or the peaceful throng collected to hear the first U.S. president to visit Ghana?
What might be the consequences of running the first photograph? What would that image convey to readers? Would it fit with previous stereotypes or would it present a more positive image?
If you chose the second photograph, what message do you believe it conveys about Africa? Why did you chose to run it?
The first image tends to play off of old stereotypes about Africa — portraying it as a continent full of “teeming masses” of indistinct people. Here, the people of Ghana are reduced to nothing more than their hands. Grasping hands may remind us of previous stories the Western media have covered about African famine. Photographs like this appear to dehumanize Africans.
The second image shows the Clintons and the Rawlings as equals. All face the camera and no one dominates. Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media tended to run photographs of President Clinton alone or with the various leaders of countries he visited such as Jerry Rawlings or Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, in the background — almost like props. Their wives — like most African women in U.S. media — were even more invisible. By leaving these folks out or de-emphasizing them, it conveys the impression that these countries don’t really have any leaders, that the only real leader in these visits is the American.
