Trinta anos depois da Etiópia, o que mudou na representação das catástrofes em África?
Published25 Oct 2014
A 23 de Outubro de 1984, Michael Buerke, da BBC, noticiava uma "fome bíblica" na Etiópia, numa reportagem que se tornou um marco do jornalismo de catástrofes e que, na época, foi retransmitido por quase cinco centenas de estações de televisão, dando o mote para várias iniciativas de solidariedade internacional, como as angariações de fundos por músicos populares em grandes concertos.
Suzanne Franks, ex- jornalista da BBC e actualmente professora de Jornalismo na City University de Londres, analisa como esta notícia foi enquadrada na época, que explicações foram tornadas públicas e quais as que não foram procuradas, por que razões e com que consequências, o impacto deste marco na forma de representar os conflitos e a ajuda humanitária em África e o que mudou, de então até hoje.
The preference for keeping the story simple omits the crucial social and political context of famine. In 1984 the authoritarian Ethiopian regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam was fighting a civil war against Tigrayan and Eritrean insurgents. It is no accident that these were the areas where people were starving because, to a large extent, the government was deliberately causing the famine. It was bombing markets and trade convoys to disrupt food supply chains. Defence spending accounted for half of Ethiopia’s gross domestic product and the Soviet-backed army was the largest in sub-Saharan Africa.
Yet this story of human-made misery was sidestepped. Instead, the reporting was about failing rains, which kept things simple for aid agencies. This also suited an authoritarian government that did not want foreign journalists nosing around. The United Kingdom government also stuck to the simple narrative. The urgent departmental response group, which met daily to brief senior ministers in reaction to the BBC news reports, called itself the Ethiopian drought group – in the belief that this was the problem.
(...)
So how much has changed since Buerk reported from Ethiopia? In 1984 the only voices were from a white reporter and a European aid worker. A contemporary news report would be more inclusive. But much is the same. Not only has the problem of the media ignoring famine until it is a catastrophe and then simplifying the explanation recurred many times, but also some of the same abuses associated with resettlement are still taking place in Ethiopia.
There is also the vexed question of stereotypical depictions of Africa. After 1984 there was much examination and criticism of “African pessimism” and negative framing of the continent. But many images used in fundraising and reporting Africa still rely on those same tropes.