Responsibility and Journalism

Today I read an interesting Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, All Ears for Tom Cruise, All Eyes on Brad Pitt. In this article, Nicholas Kristof begins with his disappointment with President Bush and his administration for their reaction to the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. He claims that, in addition to his belief that Bush "barely manages to get the word 'Darfur' out of his mouth" the administration has been passive about its response after naming Darfur the first genocide of the 21st Century.

Kristof goes on to criticize the media for it's lack of coverage of the genocide in Africa. He claims that it is shameful that the American media covers Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson more than the killing of hundreds of thousands in Africa.

Kristof's idea that the most disturbing fact about the genocide in Darfur is that America and the American media is ignoring it is immensely foolish. The real tragedy is due to three factors.

The first is the first fact that Kristof completely ignored. In the past decade, the UN has a frightening habit of refusing to classify a "genocide" as a "genocide," as through their charter the UN must act to stop a "genocide." It happened in Rawanda, and it happened again with Darfur. Anyone who watches the news (evidently not Kristof) would remember that Colin Powell made the first official statement that Darfur was a genocide, in the hopes that the UN would act; it didn't.

The second factor is the idea that America has the responsibility to quell any armed conflict, and is responsible for helping with any international disaster in the world. When the US attacked Iraq and Afghanistan we received nothing but international condemnation for our actions. When the US Navy kept hundreds of thousands of people in Indonesia alive after the tsunami with 24 hour-a-day airlifts that no other military could muster, we were criticized for "not doing enough" and "not working fast enough." It seems that the US is responsible for all natural disasters in the world, but can only act with the international community's approval. Bizarre.

The third and final factor is the most strange. Kristof believes, as do many journalists, that the media is responsible and is charged with acting as a check on the government. He believes that the only thing more shameful than Bush's apparent inaction is the media's refusal to cover Sudan.

Kristof and the Times needs to realize that 1)Bush and his administration were the first government to urge the UN to act (as is the UN's charter) 2)if America would send a military force to Darfur to stop the killing we would be massacred by the international community (and by journalists at the NYTimes) and 3)it is the media's job to report the news, and nothing more. If Kristof thinks that the media is charged with reporting the stories that are more "important" and that check government policies, he should write an article that is factually accurate and worthwhile, as well as one that is not on the opinion page.