Radio Silence

(Photo: Congolese rebel leader Laurent Nkunda)

The ongoing crisis in the Democractic Republic of Congo (DRC) continues to simmer, and continues to get international attention. (Listen to a BBC interview with rebel leader Laurent Nkunda here, where the rebel leader threatens to overtake all of the Congo).

It is, in a way, uplifting to see such a tragic situation maintain a hold in headlines and political chatter-- all in the hopes that all that scrutiny and talk will somehow lead to a settling of a crisis whose tangled history runs long and deep.

But, as author and journalist Michela Wrong writes in The Guardian, one can't help but watch the coverage and wonder "Why Congo?"

"Part of me rejoices in this explosion of international concern, on the principle that anything focusing attention on this troubled region cannot be bad. But Congo's crisis is not unprecedented, nor is it unrivalled. To people who know the continent, there's something of an arbitrary quality as to how one crisis seizes the public imagination and others go ignored."

The sheer numbers involved in the DRC crisis (some five million dead since the 90s and hundreds of thousands now displaced), but others have made similar arguments, wondering why some crises (among others, Darfur, Kenyan elections, Zimbabwe elections) garner varying degrees of public attention while others (such as Somalia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, and, say, the rebel fighting in northern Uganda) do not.

That question touches on one of the many layers to media coverage of Africa. One other question-- which could at times conflict with the question of 'Why not coverage of more crises?'-- is the challenge of how best to report on non-crises issues in Africa. That can of course mean many things, but one is simply how best to report in such a way that western readers better understand everyday life in any given African country or region.

There are a dwindling number of media outlets willing or able to spend money on covering Africa. Even those that are able to do so are working with reduced manpower and resources. At times, unfortunately, the decision on whether or not to cover a story or a region is made based on whether there is money in the budget to do so.

This means reduced crises coverage (relating back to Ms. Wrong's point), but also fewer reporters and resources to do the kind of everyday reporting that allows foreign audiences to understand, for instance, what it is like for a country (or continent for that matter) to try to gain a foothold in the global economy when three-quarters or more of the population does not have electricity and businesses must operate with limited power access, poor roads and, in places, high insecurity. Or uplifting stories of music, dance and art.

In A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedy and Hope of Africa, New York Times correspondent Howard W. French writes of his mission to touch on those non-crises stories and give his readers a better understanding of western and central Africa. In doing so, he explains to readers (and I suspect himself) why he struggled to succeed;

"I had decided to return to Africa as a journalist in 1994 because I wanted to dig into the kinds of stories about African people and culture that do not often get told. In the beginning of my tour I had done a fair bit of that, but then Nigeria exploded, followed by Liberia and Ebola and the Kabila invasion, and too many smaller crises to recount.

In short, I became something of a glorified fireman, despite my best intentions. In the process, though, I came to appreciate more than ever why it is wrong for us to push African news-- and not just the riotously colorful features that one editor once described to me as the continent's "oogah-boogah"-- to the margins."