November 12, 2022
In the lens of Pan-African media practice
BY WORKU BELACHEW
Part I
The
African-Union-led Permanent Cessation of Hostility Agreement (PCHA)
formally signed on November 2, 2022, would not only set the way for
peace to reign in Ethiopia, but the entire process has once again
branded Africa as a continent that is gifted with the wisdom and
capability to translate the buzzword ‘African solution to challenges
facing the continent.’
The critical questions here are: To what
extent have African media houses that have a relatively wide online
circulation practiced Pan-African journalistic practices to eventually
achieve the aspirations of Africans? And do African media approach
sensitive issues such as peace and security in a different way as
compared to so-called global media? This piece of work attempts to give a
bird-eye view of news reporting of some global media and certain
notable African media houses concerning their framing of news stories on
the PCHA event.
The news items of the media houses that also have
high online visitors are observed in relation to some key aspects that
have also become patterns in the media reporting of the conflict in
Ethiopia. For instance, the phrases “unhindered access,” “communication
shutdown,” and “starvation” have been appearing in most media reporting
of the conflict. On the other hand, “African solution to an African
problem,” “AU-led peace talks,” and “Silencing the guns” have frequently
been mentioned. Many mention the latter in the context of fulfilling
Africa’s aspirations expressed resolutely in Agenda 2063.
It
requires a rigorous study to determine as to why the patterns appear in
the media outlets but let’s see some theories related to issue in
discussion.
Mass communications theory have it that media houses
make conscious decisions in choosing what to report and how to report a
kind of event which take us to the concept of “Media framing”. They
frame a kind of event deliberately to influence public opinion, as to
available literature, see more on https://masscommtheory.com. But one
cannot overgeneralize the fact that the framing is the sole decision of
the media houses.
A comparative media study by Hallin and Mancini
(2004) suggests that there are four “dimensions” that play a part in
influencing the media’s decision. Hallin and Mancini’s dimensions are:
Political parallelism, Journalistic Profession, Media market and Role of
the State. Political parallelism has to do with whether there is link
between media houses and political parties or journalists political
affiliations and so on. Journalistic Professionalism on the other hand
is about the degree of autonomy of the journalists. According to their
study, there are internal and external forces that exert influence on
the journalists, not to mention journalists’ ethics …: What is more,
Media Market delves into the circulation of newspapers or the outlets.
Last but not least is the role of the state – restrictive or supportive.
The Pan-African aspirations
It
is important to attempt to see what the aspirations of Africans are
clearly and succinctly. Of course, some of them are expressed in black
and white in the popular document of Agenda 2063. The rest comes under
various topics. As regards the latter, the Pan-African Vision of 2063
says it all: “An integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by
its own citizens, representing a dynamic force in the international
arena. Here one can easily see that we Africans have a vision of
achieving peace through the efforts of our own citizens.
The
document, Agenda 2063, #8, also under ‘African Aspiration for 2063’
states the confidence in the people of Africa in dealing with conflicts
using African wisdom. Part of the aspiration reads: to “realize her
[Africa’s] full potential in development, culture and peace and to
establish flourishing, inclusive and prosperous societies.”
Concepts
such as “peace” and “realize […] full potential” may stand out in the
aspiration. And this tells us that Africans have the determination to
unlock their full potential and take peace and other matters into their
own hands. Or put it this way, though war and conflicts are not unusual
in Africa, the initiative and practice of acting proactively and
reactively to deal with the problems should be a matter of Africans and
their institutions. This calls for the struggle to lessen, if not
completely avoid, foreign meddling. Often, people use the catch-all
phrase “African solution and African problem”—a term that African
scholars are highly debating on claiming that it fails to properly
reflect the challenges Africa has been facing. Somehow, the “African
Solution” works despite the direct and indirect influences on the
decision of Africans and their institutions.
But the term “African
problem” raises many questions. Do African problems really originate
only from the conflict of interest among people of a given nation? Yes,
conflicts are unavoidable. But there are potential causes of conflicts.
Say for instance, interstate border wars in Africa, in most cases, are
related to colonial demarcations. Geopolitical interests and actions to
dominate the big market and other resources of Africa at least play a
great part as well. Last but not least, aspiration #4 of Agenda 2063
explicitly argues and puts mechanisms to fend off potential and actual
challenges of peace and security in Africa.
ASPIRATION 4. A peaceful and secure Africa
Mechanisms
for the peaceful prevention and resolution of conflicts will be
functional at all levels. As a first step, dialogue-centered conflict
prevention and resolution will be actively promoted in such a way that
by 2020 all guns will be silent. A culture of peace and tolerance shall
be nurtured in Africa’s children and youth through peace education.
How some global media framed PCHA
The
10-day peace talks held between the delegation of the GoE and TPLF
started on October 24/25, 2022. The world had eagerly been waiting for
whether the talks resulted in closing the two-year deadly chapter of war
in Ethiopia. November 02, 2022, was the date scheduled by the African
Union Panel to announce the results. Media houses representing both
international and domestic ones were on the alert to break the news, no
matter what. But the announcement scheduled at 4:00 in the afternoon was
postponed by a few hours. Time had been ticking and the scheduled hour
finally came. On and after the conclusion of the event, media houses
reported about the PCHA in various ways but two frames were highly
observable— the so-called “pressure frame” and the “pan-African frame”.
CNN-
Its headlines read ‘Warring parties in Ethiopia agree on ‘permanent
cessation of hostilities. The story was published on November 3, 2022.
CNN’s story properly named the parties as the “GoE” and “TPLF.” The
first paragraph of the story that media practitioners rather call it as a
“lead sentence” is framed from the perspective of Disarming,
Demobilizing and Reintegrating (DDR).
“Ethiopia’s Tigray rebels
will eventually “disarm” and “reintegrate” with national forces,
according to the statement. “We have also agreed on a detailed program
of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration for the TPLF
combatants, taking into account the security situation on the ground,”
it read. The phrase “will eventually” is important here. It is a public
knowledge that the CNN has not been impartial in the two-year war in the
north. And maybe, “eventually” could mean, after all the bloody events,
the result is “DDR”. For anyone who contemplates the CNN’s barrage of
disinformation campaign, it wages against Ethiopia, the final
Pan-African solution of resorting to peace might not be welcome. The
story actually quoted the statement made by the AU High Representative
for the Horn of Africa Olusegun Obasanjo. Obasanjo’s statement is
—minutes long. But only the “DDR” perspective was picked by the CNN.
On
the same day, the accord was signed, Aljazeera published a story
headlined: ‘Ethiopia: Government, Tigrayan forces agree to end two-year
war’. The organization of the story that the media used was just a mix
of “DDR” and “pressure-framing”. Here is its lead story: “The parties in
the conflict in Ethiopia’s northern region of Tigray have agreed on a
“permanent cessation of hostilities”, the African Union mediator said,
just more than a week after formal peace talks began in South Africa.”
It
continues: the parties agreed on “orderly, smooth and coordinated
disarmament” along with “restoration of law and order”, “restoration of
services” and “unhindered access to humanitarian supplies”. The usage of
the frame, whether intentionally or unintentionally tells us that most
media are more interested in reporting on the dichotomy of winner/loser.
One
can get a relatively different framing in a report published by
Reuters. While it broke the news of the signing of the PCHA, describing
it as a “dramatic diplomatic breakthrough.” it also highlights the fact
that the process was an AU-led one—a fact that other media outlets shied
away from mentioning.
In the second paragraph of its story,
Reuters wrote this: “Just over a week after formal peace talks mediated
by the African Union (AU) began in the South African capital Pretoria,
delegates from both sides signed an agreement on a “permanent cessation
of hostilities”.”.
Yet, DW’s news presentation seemed to have
zoomed in on the “Pan-African framing. “The first three paragraphs of
the news story, not to mention the lead story, in one way or another,
had mentioned the role of the African Union. Both the headline and the
lead sentence attempted to give due credit to the AU-led efforts.
CGTN’s
news story as well could be described as a “Pan-African framing” of the
event. The presentation of the entire story is quite mesmerizing for
any reader who wants to get a different perspective, the writer
believes. Let’s have an overview of the news story. The media house
itself has a motto that goes: ‘See the difference. But, is there really a
big difference?
The news is headlined ‘Ethiopian government and
TPLF sign peace agreement in South Africa and presented with a
nine-paragraph story highlighting some key concepts that have become a
pattern in the media reporting of the northern conflict. Some of these
are; “Cease hostilities;” “African Solution to African Problem;”
“orderly, smooth and coordinated disarmament;” along with “restoration
of law and order,” “restoration of services;” and “unhindered access to
humanitarian supplies;” “AU High-level Panel;” “communications shutdown
of internet and telephone services in Tigray region has been among
world’s longest”.
One can irrefutably say that only two phrases or
patterns appear as pan-African issues—“African solution to African
problem;” and “AU High-Level Panel”. The rest of the five phrases/terms
are often used by most western media houses and one middle-eastern media
mentioned above.
If we take a look at one of the terms, we can
infer the purpose of the framing, whether or not the media house did it
intentionally is still debatable. But the news story tells us this:
“…communications shutdown of internet and telephone services…” The thing
is that the story informs the reader that the government has shut down
communication and the internet at all. The argument is exactly the
“blame term” that most western media and rights-based institutions have
widely used. On the flip side, the government of Ethiopia says
communications infrastructure was damaged by the antagonist force in
what could be described as a strategic move to weaken the central
government’s capacity to control the tragic event.
For its part,
TRT World published a story under the headline of ‘A New Dawn.’ It also
did a follow-up story of ‘Excellent News’. In both stories, the media
house neither reproduced the western media narrative nor did it have a
Pan-African perspective.
The Ethiopian Herald November 12/2022
Also posted by https://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2022/11/ethiopias-au-facilitated-peace-accord.html
