The Western Journalist in Africa

In 1982, as the air force-led coup attempt in Kenya unfolded, we sat glued to our transistor radio listening to the BBC and Voice of America (VOA). In fact, the more the oppressive the Moi regime censored Kenyan media, the more Western media became the lifeline through which we learned what has happening in our own country. But in 2013, I and many other Kenyans saw the Western media coverage of the Kenya elections as a joke, a caricature. Western journalists have been left behind by an Africa moving forward: not in a straight line, but in fits and starts, elliptically, and still full of contradictions of extreme wealth and extreme poverty, but forward nevertheless. 

A three paragraph article in Reuters offered the choice terms “tribal blood-letting” to reference the 2007 post-electoral violence, and “loyalists from rival tribes” to talk about the hard-earned right to cast a vote. Virtually all the longer pieces from Reuters on the elections used the concept of tribal blood-letting. CNN also ran a story in February of this year that showed five or so men somewhere in a Kenyan jungle playing war games with homemade guns, a handful of bullets and rusty machetes – war paint and all.

But very few people watching that video of the five men playing warriors, practicing in slow motion how to shoot without firing their weapons and slitting throats with the unwieldy machetes took it seriously. Rather, it was slap your knee funny. Last week Elkim Namlo (turns out it is Michael Holman in real life-Ed.), in the Kenyan paper The Daily Nation, wrote a piece satirizing that kind of reportage. The first sentence in the aptly titled, “Foreign reporters armed and ready to attack Kenya,” reads in part that the country is “braced at the crossroads…amidst growing concern that the demand for clichés is outstripping supply” and that “Analysts and observers [have] joined diplomats in dismissing fears that coverage of the forthcoming poll will be threatened by a shortage of clichés.” That particular CNN footage certainly supplied the high demand of clichés and stereotypes.

This is not to say that the threat of violence is not real. On election day, a separatist organization raided a police station in Mombassa, resulting in 15 deaths. The president-elect and his running mate will be appearing before the ICC to answer charges of crimes against humanity relating to the post-election violence of 2008. And with the runner-up Raila Odinga going to the courts (as opposed to the streets) to dispute the electoral results, we are not out of the woods yet. So there is a place for the kind of journalism that is in touch with the hopes and fears embedded in Kenya’s democracy.

For western journalism to be taken seriously by Africans and Westerners alike, it needs Africans to vouch for stories rather than satirizing them. I am not saying that journalism needs the subject to agree with the content, but the search for journalistic truth takes place within a broad societal consensus. That is, while one may disagree with particular reportage and the facts, the spirit of the essay should not be in question. But Africans are saying that the journalists are not representing the complex truth of the continent; that Western journalists are not only misrepresenting the truth, but are in spirit working against the continent. The good news is there have been enough people questioning the coverage of Africa over the years that Western journalists have had no choice but to do some soul searching. The bad news is that the answers are variations of the problem.

Michela Wrong, in a New York Times piece shortly before the Kenyan elections, debated the use of the word “tribe.” She acknowledged that the word tribe “carries too many colonial echoes. It conjures up M.G.M. visions of masked dances and pagan rites. ‘Tribal violence’ and ‘tribal voting’ suggest something illogical and instinctive, motivated by impulses Westerners distanced themselves from long ago.” But she concluded the piece by reserving her right to use the term. She stated that “When it comes to the T-word, Kenyan politics are neither atavistic nor illogical. But yes, they are tribal.” The term tribe should have died in the 2007 elections when Africanist scholars took NYT’s Jeffrey Gettleman’s usage of the term to task. To his credit, Gettleman stopped using the term.

If you have Wrong insisting on using a discredited analytical framework, you have others who position themselves as missionaries and explorers out to save the image of Africa. But their egos end up outsizing the story. Martin Robbins last year introduced his five-part essay on Kenya/Africa with the promise to tell misrepresented or rarely revealed truths about Africa. He was, he announced, “exploring the ways we were manipulated and misled by a procession of public officials, NGOs, activists and spokespeople; examining the reasons why a disturbingly high proportion of what we hear about Africa is just plain wrong.” His mission was however foiled by an ego that pushed out the search for the promised truths to create room for himself at the center of the story.

In “Grandma Obama’s support for domestic violence the second of his five pieces, he writes, “President Obama’s angry granny stared impassively into the distance, as her rabbits relentlessly fucked each other around us. One ventured near her ankle, as if wondering whether to hump it.” Why destroy the subject of your reportage? Why impose the anti-establishment I can use fuck whenever I want young-writer-cigarette-drooping-from-lower-lip-angst over an old woman whose views most activist Kenyans disagree with?

The wildlife has been replaced by the horny rabbits circling Grandma Obama’s feet – a joke that succeeds only in turning Obama’s grandmother into a subject of scorn for holding views held by millions of men and women worldwide. Rather than read about the fucking rabbits, I would rather read about why she holds the opinions she does and what those in support or opposed to her views are doing. I want to see her opinions in relation to the larger society. In other words, I would rather read something useful rather than something that establishes its authority by destroying the subject of the reportage. There is no difference between the well-intentioned Martin Robbins imposing his ego over his African subject and the terrible reporter who yells Africa is a hopeless, violent, tribal, and bloody continent

The irony though, or perhaps the point, is that when Robbins is writing on issues outside of Africa his Livingstone alter ego is in check. For example, read his essay on “The new, old war on abortion” — yes, it’s an opinion piece, but his ego does not choke the hell out of the subject.

You have still others who see the question of how the Western media reports about Africa as fundamental and in need of intellectual discussion. Jina Moore’s essay in the Boston Review, “The White Correspondent’s Burden: We Need to Tell the Africa Story Differently,” is vastly different from Robbins’s essay in content, style and goal. Whereas Robbins’s Kenya writeups are ultimately about his heroic ego, armed with irony and sarcasm, Moore’s essay is seriously, and I think honestly, trying to understand why white journalists make the choices they make.

Her essay can be divided into three parts. The first part describes the problem – the Africa is one, Africa is violent, hopeless reportage. The second part, where her essay really begins, tackles the historical and philosophical reasons for what is essentially a racist trope that will simply not go away. First she says, it is not widely accepted that the West is responsible for the most of the suffering, “centuries of slave trade, followed by a near-century of colonialism and its attendant physical and structural violence, from the rubber fields of the Belgian Congo to the internment camps of British Kenya.” In spite of the obvious direct correlation between slavery or colonialism and destitution, the idea of a good moral agent emerged. But more than that, she argues, this moral imperative became more about the giver than the recipient. So now it is not about helping Africa per say, it is about having a moral and ethical Western civilization; we are civilized because we help those that we abuse. Call it a fast track to getting to heaven or remaining relevant in Hollywood. When this moralization is transposed into reporting, Africans becomes the “subject of compassion” and not “the subject of a story.” There is not much to disagree with there.

All this provides a reminder to journalists that history matters and that they should also look beyond the effects of poverty and violence and talk about the causes – African leaders, corporations that mine wealth without giving back, arms companies etc. In other words, let’s look at all the actors instead of seeing Africa outside present-day global economic political processes.

The third part of Moore’s essay mainly deals with the choices that the reporters make, why they think they have to make them, and the consequences. She talks about Howard French, formerly with the New York Times, who writes about tragic stories because he would otherwise feel guilty if he told a happy story and leave the atrocities unexposed. This is a sentiment with which human rights activists in the Congo, Kenya and elsewhere would agree.

It is the lesson that Moore takes from this that I disagree with. She argues that “We can write about suffering and we can write about the many other things there are to say about Congo. With a little faith in our readers, we can even write about both things—extraordinary violence and ordinary life—in the same story.” On the face of it, it does read like a sound choice, to show the tragedies and at the same time show day-to-day living. That is, until you think about how Western reporters write about extraordinary violence in their very own backyards.

In the West, tragedy after tragedy, the journalist does not forget the agency of the victims, and their humanity. The 2010 London riots, or rebellion, depending on your take: In equal measure the rioters and the fed up shop owners who started cleaning up after the rebellion — the heroic street sweepers. The August 2012 Sikh temple massacre: yes, the violence but also how a rainbow community came together to stand against extremism. The 2012 Colorado movie shootings: the brave boyfriends who shielded their girlfriends and died protecting them. The 2011 Tucson shooting: Gabrielle Giffords and her recovery.

September 11: yes, the terrorists, but also the firemen who died saving others. School shootings in the US: the brave teachers and students who at the risk of life and limb rose in defense of others. The War on Terror: the individual soldiers losing souls, limbs and life in a war that is bigger than them. And Hurricane Katrina: yes, the black people looking for food were portrayed as looters and the whites as survival experts, but most stories also contained something about how the people were trying to keep a sense of community and rebuild their lives.

But when it comes to writing about Africa, journalists suddenly have to make a choice between the extraordinary violence and ordinary life. It should not be a question of either the extreme violence or quiet happy times, but rather a question of telling the whole story within an event, even when tragedy is folded within tragedy. There are activist organizations in the Congo standing against rampant war and against rape as a weapon. The tide of the post-electoral violence in Kenya in 2007 turned because there were ordinary people in the slums and villages organizing against it — that is, people who stood on the right side of history as opposed to ethnicity — in the same way Americans across the racial spectrum stood last year with the American Sikh community.

In any situation, there are those who perpetrate and those who, defenseless and weak, still stand up at great cost for what is right or just. It is the nature of humanity – that is why we are still here, as a species. We struggle often against forces stronger than ourselves. Sometimes we triumph and just as often we fail. The question for Western journalists is this – when it comes to Africa, why do you not tell the whole story of the humanity at work even in times of extreme violence?

Comments

comments

23 Comments
  1. What a beautifully written tour de force… on another note, I for one am very happy that things have not descended into violence with the Kenyan election results on the weekend… I do trust that it will remain the same after the courts’ verdict in Mr. Odinga’s challenge to the election results…

    http://dreampoetica.wordpress.com/

  2. Good read. The west is a commercialized place where quantity is always and gladly accepted over substance (quality). They enjoy the idea or story of the hero, their only mistake is at all times, they consider themselves the prince charming; the hero blasting through the iron door killing all and saving the princess. A land of fictionalized characters. Their media always portray Africa as the underling, who foolishly keeps on making mistakes year in, year out. How wrong? We are learning day by day, through our own sweat (charity excluded), progress is been made.

  3. Nice piece but ironic perhaps that Kenyan-sounding satirist Elkim Namlo is in fact a pseudonym for none other than Michael Holman, a very British man and longtime Financial Times journalist. Some westerners get it right.

  4. It’s great to see a thoughtful piece about all these articles, putting their ideas in conversation with each other. Thank you.

    I think, actually, we’d agree about this issue of choice, too. Most journalists frame this as a choice — Jeff Gettleman for example makes clear, in the part of his speech I use in my article, that he feels and responds to this alleged choice in and with his work — but I argue in my piece, or try to, that it’s a false choice, and that part of our job is to see more than only violence. Thank you for extending the point so eloquently.

  5. Glad you took PC fundamentalist Martin Robbins to task. But you’re wrong about the riots – even the liberal papers barely managed to contain their rage and their was a heavily racist element. It’s also worth nothing that of course stories within the West get a lot more coverage and therefore room for the double narrative. Africa, thousands of miles away, will never be treated fairly in foreign media any more than the West would in the African media.

  6. Thanks for this interesting article. You definitely have a point here. However, why are we so much occupied by the way ‘the West’ is reporting on ‘Africa’? How are we actually reporting on the West? if at all. Let them write their stories on whatever they think is the African reality. Because honestly I think there are some incredibly serious and worrying things going on right here in Kenya at this moment. Things we should have a serious conversation about, instead of focussing on the way Kenya is being reported by some foreign correspondents. Right now I am amazed by our very own media and the way Kenyan journalists are reporting on ourselves. I am desparately trying to find some critical analysis of the elections in the mainstream media. Perhaps I missed it, so if anybody can guide me, please do. We are supposed to have free press in Kenya. Well I am wandering what that actually means.

  7. Great stimulating article.

    If we are going to bristle at or dismiss misrepresentations of Africa and what Africa is not – we do need to say, from time to time, what Africa is.

    @Anthony: It is ironic that Elkin Namlo is no other than Michael Holman but it is even more ironic that Mr Holman is Michaela Wrong’s partner/husband. I understand he is more Zimbabwean than British. So it is a case of White Africans getting it right….sometimes.

  8. This is deceptive writing meant to divert our attention from the past and current problems facing Kenya’s UNION. Fact, all our current domestic problems do not originate from the west. Time to clean our house and avoid scapegoats. Ethnocentrism “tribalism”, ethnic favouritism, corruption and dysfunctional democratic institutions is real in Kenya. Yes the western media coverage still needs to improve its coverage of the continent, (check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfJn8HCKO8g&feature=player_embedded) but lingual battles with western media will not resolve the ineptitude of our electoral system, judiciary and the executive. Let us be honest and just with Africa or specifically Kenya’s domestic hurdles.

    Question: Why place the photo of jubilant Jubilee party team lead by Uhuru Kenyatta?

    Jaja Yogo.

  9. Great piece, well argued and beautifully written. It would have been revolutionary 10 years ago. But this is 2013, and I think we spend too much time worrying about how the West protrays us. Africa has transformed tremendously in the past 20 years, but instead of putting our intellectual energy into helping it make even more progress, we use too much of it to moan or snigger about how mediocre Western journalists called Kikuyus and Luos ‘tribes’. Should we care? Many kenyans use the word tribe all the time, and the worst examples of stereotyping can can be heard in the streets of Nairobi. Let’s create, let’s build, let’s innovate. That’s the way for our countries to gain respect from their own people and the rest of the world.

  10. A very well composed piece, and very nice to read. And I’ll put my hand up & admit that I’ve been an emotional, compassionate journalist in parts of the great continent in my time, and I’ve probably over victimised some people in some of those reports. However, I feel increasingly that although there’s still masses wrong with ‘Western’ coverage of ‘Africa’, we’d all be better off if more Africans started writing about their continent and giving us alternative narratives. Too much time (again, I’m guilty of this) is spent bashing western journalists (there’s a lot of crap: I bashed Justin Webb on BBC Radio 4 just the other day for his paternalistic comments on Kenya finally becoming ‘modern’). But what I’d love to read more of on Kenya, for example, is a Kenyan’s — or a Ugandan’s or a Ghanaian’s or a Malawian’s — view of the elections there. There are plenty of super-excellent western journalists, and Michela Wrong is definitely one of them (I also really like the way she insists on certain concepts and terms in her work, and challenges knee-jerk disgust at ‘tribalism’), and I’d hate it if they stopped doing their work… but let’s hear more from excellent African journos too. Let’s read their blogs, and their pieces. Let’s link to their work too. For sure, someone like Wrong does link to their work all the time. And I read lots of work by Angolan journalists, but I’m beginning to wonder if the Western journalist in Africa bash isn’t getting a bit dated. Stop looking back, and start looking forward. Let’s see what *is* being done, not what’s *not*. That’s as much a message to myself as anyone else.Moreover, I’d also really like to read more by Africans & Asians & Latin Americans writing about *us*. I’m still dying to read that Kenyan (Brazilian/Cuban/Vietnamese etc) writing about Britain: *that’s* what I really really want to read.

    And can I ask: why does Holman not use his own name? Is it because he’s taken more seriously if he doesn’t appear to be ‘western’, or is there something else going on? Can someone explain? (That’s not a criticism: it’s a question).
    5 minutes ago · Like

  11. Great post. Thanks! On a semi-related note, the President of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh is definitely worth watching. He has led impressive reforms, including important public health reforms.

  12. the west should see africa as a people with diversity just like the western peoples.they should also aviod potraying africa as “BACKWARD” all the time in their media because africa has a lot of good things to talk about rather than war,starvation,poverty and underdevelopment.

Mailing List

Sign up for email updates!

 

Not the continent with 54 countries







©Africa is a Country, 2016