85 Between Victims and Perpetrators: Analyzing the New York Times Coverage of the Genocide in Rwanda Zehra Hirji Harvard University This article explores, in depth, the New York Times reporting on the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. While the conflict is often considered to be a failure on the part of the international community for their lack of response, what role, if any, did the media play in the representation of genocide? The Times covered the events on the ground every day of the violence, but how did the story unfold to the public and what are the implications of such reporting? This article hopes to analyze the events as they were portrayed by the Times and explain the significance of such reporting. Introduction group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Again and again, we declare “never again” for genocide. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, “Not on our watch” and other rhetoric is spouted from calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole politicians and activists worldwide in response to the or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births atrocities associated with the crime of genocide. As the within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group stories unfold, as information on the terror is unleashed the to another group.”2 While the scope of this paper will not go world is presented with the opportunity to respond or to into the legal implications of the “official” United Nations do nothing, as history has often sadly indicated. But what definition, it is important to acknowledge the disputes and happens if the story is not told or if it is told incorrectly? confusion that may lie in affording the term to a specific How does the presentation of the “genocide” resonate with conflict. Additionally, the potential grey areas (for example the American populace? More importantly, what is the the term technically does not apply to victims of political presentation of genocide as it is taking place? An analysis groups and as such the mass killings in Cambodia in the of the scholarship on the Rwandan genocide reveals that 1970s would not qualify as genocide under this definition) we have insufficiently appreciated the evolution of media leave room for politicians and foreign policy advisers in the coverage on genocide. There is much to be gained from field to evade designating the term in certain circumstances. studying how the news portrayed the story as the events were That being said, in the case of Rwanda today the conflict of taking place. As the fastest genocide in recorded history1 1994 is virtually uncontested as an act of genocide against every article in the 100-day period of the genocide had the the Tutsi people of Rwanda. potential for great impact and influence on the American public and government. The New York Times plays a huge role in American discourse and is the paper that not only citizens consult to The term “genocide” was coined by Jewish-Polish scholar understand which issues are most pressing, but also what Raphael Lemkin in 1944 as a crime against humanity, politicians consult to gauge what is on the minds of the and the term was primarily developed in response to the American populace, thus in some ways helping to set the Holocaust. While the term can be employed in a variety agenda.3 However, it also receives the reputation of being of ways today, with contention among scholars as to the newspaper of the elites and “liberal intellectuals.” For its specific usages, in 1948 the United Nations General the purpose of this study, it will be regarded in the context Assembly established the Convention on the Prevention and of its strong influence on the public and its international Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to define the crime standing. How did “America’s newspaper” respond to the within a legal context. Article 2 of the genocide convention situation in Rwanda? How did the story unfold and change (as it is commonly known) defines the act of genocide as as more information revealed itself? How has reporting “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, on genocide changed since the days of the Holocaust and in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious how will it look in the future, particularly in reference to 1 “How to Stop a Genocide,” The Economist (2008), http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12773216. 2 GA/RES/260, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, United Nations General Assembly (1948). 3 Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Harper Perennial, 2002). 86 events in Darfur today? Because of America’s reluctance abroad. Whether or not the theory holds true in reality, the to intervene and the lack of great grassroots efforts on notion lends an additional significance to the US decision behalf of American citizens, it could have been naturally not to get involved in Rwanda. perceived that the New York Times had perhaps minimized reporting on Rwanda. For lack of information, confusion of Purpose of Study the situation on the ground, or more pressing issues at the time in history, it is often generally assumed by advocates Scholars have poured over the events of the Rwandan that the Times may not have devoted much coverage to this genocide in 1994, analyzing the historical setup, the details grave crisis. Surprisingly, it was discovered that the Times of the atrocities, as well as the aftermath. Gerard Prunier in covered the story in Rwanda almost every single day of his book The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide, presents the conflict, often with several articles and photos of the one of the most well-respected and comprehensive accounts situation on the ground. In the approximate 100 days of of the situation in Rwanda and the events leading up to it. the genocide (from April 6, 1994 through mid-July), the Although it is one of the earliest records, published in 1995 New York Times published approximately 144 articles on and then republished in 1997, the book provides clarifying the genocide, and an additional 50 more in the immediate information on the situation on the ground after the conflict two weeks following the formal declaration to the end of had formally ended. Analysts, journalists, and scholars alike the violence. If the survey is expanded to include news have discussed the genocide in great detail and the failures in highlights, individual captions, letters to the editor, and all Rwanda have become a powerful shaming tool for activists types of news analyses, then Rwanda was featured in the to galvanize action in today’s great human rights atrocities. Times over 250 times during the period of the genocide Literature such as Samantha Power’s book A Problem From in 1994. (This paper focuses mainly on instances where Hell: America and the Age of Genocide criticizes the United Rwanda was mentioned as a focus of the piece in the States’ lack of involvement in preventing the genocide; Times). The quantity of coverage was astounding, especially speculation indicated that the US could have easily curbed following the end of the genocide; however, the placement the violence if it had chosen to intervene. Other works, in the paper of these stories was rather insignificant. Stories such as Philip Gourevitch’s We Wish to Inform You That of Rwanda were often a feature of the front page of the Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories international section of the paper, but made the front page from Rwanda, focus their analysis and criticism upon the of the paper only eleven times during the approximately 100 United Nations and the international community for their days of the genocide. Although, in the ten days following inability to mitigate the crisis, allowing it escalate to such the end of the genocide, Rwanda made the front page at heights. Studies have yet to analyze the implications and least three times. role of the media in its portrayal of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. While scholars are quick to extend blame and The important question to consider is not if the New admonition to governments and international bodies, they York Times was paying attention to Rwanda, but rather forget the critical role of the news in presenting the story as how did it present this information? How was the story it unfolded. told and how was the situation described? What language characterized the conflict and what was the role of the word Examining the media representation of genocide is “genocide” in particular when discussing the mass atrocities crucial on a variety of different levels. To begin, it lets perpetrated against the Tutsi minority? This paper will look us retrospectively examine the situation at the time of into answering these questions directly and present an in- the genocide and enables us to comprehend the story as depth analysis of the New York Times’ coverage of the crisis it was taking place. How much information did we have? in Rwanda and the lessons to be learned from America’s Were the victims and the perpetrators clearly defined? It is coverage of genocide. The United States is an interesting often taken for granted in mainstream academia that the case study in itself because of the country’s unique Rwandan genocide is defined as the genocide of the Tutsis “exceptionalism”4 in terms of human rights and its strong by the Hutu ethnic group, but at what point did that interventionist attitudes in foreign conflicts.