In March, the United States of America cut funding to the United Nations appeal for Yemen, greatly limiting access to health care services and exacerbating food shortages. Now, Yemen, a country that was already war-torn and extremely impoverished, is on the verge of famine and is facing the world’s worst current humanitarian crisis. One would think that a country where 80 percent of the population is in need of humanitarian aid would be a top news story, covered by every news outlet and inciting enormous public outrage. However, this is not the case. Take the September 6 issue of the New York Times as an example: instead of putting this story on the cover of the international section, they decided to put it at the bottom of page sixteen, under an article about virtual learning and next to a Lawyers of Distinction advertisement. Stories like this, and the means by which they are marginalized show the racism, xenophobia, and white-washing of media that is so prevalent in America and other western countries.
Whether it is an explosion in Beirut, a military attack in South Sudan, or ISIS fighters taking over a port city in Mozambique, events that occur in African, Middle Eastern, or other countries in the Global South will not be given as much media attention as similar events in Western countries. This is because news networks, as well as individual journalists, favor stories that viewers will be able to relate to on some level. A white, middle class American is going to have a harder time sympathizing with a malnourished child in Yemen than a white American going through the same thing. Whether it is due to race, religion, gender, nationality or economic status, people tend to sympathize and empathize with those most similar to them.
This obvious journalistic preference leads to many consequences, both immediate and long-term. The short-term ramifications are pretty apparent; when journalists choose not to report traumatic and unjust events, the people who have suffered will not be able to get the help they desperately need. However, when the media gives a lot of attention to an event, it not only informs people, but it often pressures Western governments to give support to those affected. A more deep-rooted and long-lasting consequence of biased media coverage, however, is the normalization of penury and disaster in the global south. For instance, when a spotlight is put on Western destitution but not on foreign destitution, then people will think of Western poverty as the alarming and urgent issue. This, in turn, disregards those going through struggles not highlighted in the news.
Another glaring issue with news coverage of the Global South is how journalists choose to portray the people and countries that they bring attention to. For example, when journalists and news commentators reported on the Ebola outbreak in 2014, instead of reporting with the purpose of shedding light on the disastrous ways in which it affected West Africans, many in mainstream media turned it into a symbol of fear, intensifying a form of otherism often used to demonize people from various African countries. When President Obama sent aid to Liberia, Fox news commentator Keith Albow responded by saying “His [Obama’s] affiliations are with Africa…not us. He’s their leader.” This comment both vilified Liberians, and portrayed them as anti-American.
When trying to find ways to correct Western media’s faults and prejudices, we need to recognize that it is impossible to completely eliminate all bias in our country. We live in a predominantly white nation, and a society dominated by Western culture. As a result, Westerncentrism is so embedded in our minds that we may never look at news from the Global South the same way we look at American news. However, even though we may never be able to get rid of implicit biases, if journalists tried to report on the world in a neutral way, and stressed the importance of events that happen everywhere, it could enable America to open its eyes and see people as people, no matter their race, culture, or citizenship.