Book review: John Nathaniel Clarke, British Media and the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda

This book challenges the narrative that the British media failed to alert the international community to the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, analysing coverage in the British broadsheets – The Times, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist and The Daily Telegraph, in particular – and mapping it out with data on the frequency and nature of the coverage across four phases: (1) pre-crisis, (2) genocide, (3) refugee crisis, and (4) post-crisis. The book examines the relationship between media coverage, parliamentary debate and political decision making in Britain, and the impact the print and broadcast media did or did not have on the British government and its response to the crisis in Rwanda. Conversely, it examines to what extent parliamentary debate was reflected in the media and the important ‘dual movement’ between the two. Dividing coverage into six types – field reporting, political reporting, editorials, analysis, letters to the editor, and other types of story – leads John Clarke to question commonly held perceptions: one is that there was more British reporting on the exodus of mostly Hutu refugees from Rwanda to Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) at the tail end of the genocide in July 1994 than there was during the genocide of the Tutsi minority in April, May and June. In a chart, Clarke shows that the amount of field reporting was almost equal in both phases, while it was political reporting and other types of comment on Rwanda that grew during the refugee crisis to create this impression. Similarly, he points out that past criticism that the evacuation of foreigners, especially of Europeans, received disproportionate media attention at the start of the genocide, does not hold up, with only 13 of the 778 stories published in the British press during this phase focusing on the evacuation (less than 2%). Clarke’s methodology shows us the importance of examining assumptions and the use of quantitative and qualitative analysis in doing so. Other thematic content is analysed and discussed, as well as concepts key to the reporting of the crisis – military intervention, humanitarian intervention and tribalism. Here, another argument is challenged, one held by academic Linda Melvern that, when it came to tribalism, ‘The use of this cliché 1073201 MWC0010.1177/17506352211073201Media, War & ConflictBook review book-review2022