Why the media ignores Boko Haram’s atrocities

First, Boko Haram’s atrocities and the scant coverage in the world media – Western and non-Western – reflect several factors that are intrinsic to Nigeria. They constitute a blatant reminder that we are not yet citizens of an effective state. The Nigerian state remains alarmingly unsophisticated and politically petty. The media coverage of Paris and […]

First, Boko Haram’s atrocities and the scant coverage in the world media – Western and non-Western – reflect several factors that are intrinsic to Nigeria. They constitute a blatant reminder that we are not yet citizens of an effective state. The Nigerian state remains alarmingly unsophisticated and politically petty. The media coverage of Paris and Borno state simply reflects the difference in state capacity, seriousness of major political actors as well as availability and deployment of resources to find the attackers.
We paid attention to the Charlie Hebdo massacre partly because of the relative strength of the French state, the discursive mobilization of the French by their leaders and the seriousness with which they contemplated finding the attackers. Nigeria on the other hand appears bent on playing politics with growing body counts and lacks the basic prerequisite for combating such an insurgency. State weakness, internal politics, particularly the North-South dichotomy and imminent presidential elections seem to appear to contribute to why Boko Haram’s victims are not top priority.
Second, the media functions on essentialized dichotomies between “us” versus “them” – good guys versus bad guys. The media needs to articulate such incidents as a clash between forces of good and evil. This dichotomy is not clear-cut in the Nigerian case. The Nigerian state ought to play the good guys, but has not done so. Allegations of human rights abuses against state agents, corruption and the historic mistrust of the state by the people have created a scenario where we patently lack heroes that are fundamental in the media coverage of such incidents.
Third, the frequency of Boko Haram massacres has worn out much of the world, including Nigerians. Human Rights Watch, for example, estimates that Boko Haram killed 2,053 persons in 95 attacks within the first six months of 2014. Simply put, it is becoming difficult to keep up with the sheer volume of attacks. What this means is that the media may also have reached saturation point as regards the attacks. Boko Haram’s atrocities have sadly become stale news, as the media has to serve fresh news to the public. The Paris attacks were relatively rare by contrast.
Fourth, colonial mentality has played a significant role in the coverage of the tragedies in France and Nigeria. This is not restricted to neo-colonial states in Africa. Henry Lawson writes in Short Stories in Prose and Verse that an Australian writer does not receive recognition from Australians until such a person receives a “London hearing”. The worth of the colonial subject in a colonial society is tied to the recognition it receives from the mother country. The same process seems to be at play as regards tragedies.
The Liberian president, Helen Johnson Sirleaf, offered apologies to the US for Liberian citizen, Thomas Eric Duncan’s transmission of the Ebola virus to two nurses in Dallas. The Guardian (UK) reports that Sirleaf phoned the mayor of Dallas to offer her apologies in addition to making TV appearances for the same purpose. Sirleaf thereby drew more attention to US victims of Ebola but offered no such niceties to the government and people of Nigeria who suffered similar fate in the hands of another Liberian citizen, Patrick Sawyer. Sirleaf may be pardoned for the oversight. However, it is quite astonishing that President Goodluck Jonathan has offered his condolences to France but has not said a word to his own people over the recent attacks. It is not clear if this is another case of colonial mentality or sheer political imperative.
This is the tragedy of formerly colonized peoples. People in former colonies often put more effort into knowing about events in erstwhile colonizer societies than vice versa. Call it colonial mentality or cultural cringe, the consequences are similar: Desire, mimicry and a fetishistic focus on what the world capitals are doing, their latest fads and collaborative mourning when tragedies happen to former colonial powers. Those concerns are often rewarded with non-recognition and indifference. As someone puts it eloquently: The dominant can afford to ignore the dominated; the latter cannot.
As may be obvious, the gap in media power between the West and the rest of the world is a factor in the differential coverage. This is about global media hegemony. The question is: Does one part of the world have an obligation to share in the tragedy of the other? Some have pointed to racism as a factor. I respectfully disagree. Why is it important that Boko Haram incidents make global news? Rather than focus on media coverage, we should be embarrassed that the issue has not been resolved. Such focus presupposes that a solution may come from overseas. Nigeria must learn to solve its problems and not expect miracles from overseas. Where has the social media performatively construed #bringbackourgirls campaign taken us thus far?
Finally, global support for any cause – despite undeniably good intentions – is fickle and unreliable. If it seems that Boko Haram victims do not receive as much media coverage, it is because their lives are not valued by multiple layers of humanity: Their country of citizenship, and its security apparatus; fellow citizens who are tired of the unending carnage and a troubled world with its own priorities. The solution lies in placing real value on the lives of Nigerian citizens. Valuing the lives of Nigerians begins with ensuring provision of security, a decent living standard, education, and other basic infrastructure. It is epic misplacement of priority to focus on under-representation of Boko Haram incidents in the world media rather than finding solutions to the problem.
The fact that several states including those with excellent track record of media repression have shown solidarity with France is symbolic. Such symbolism in and of itself does not solve the problem though it provides succor to the French. France, as is evident, does not rely on such foreign mourners to tackle the threat of terrorism. The government and the people of Nigeria must do away with collective inertia by acting strongly against terrorism that threatens to consume our society.
‘Tope Oriola is assistant professor of criminology at the University of Alberta, Canada. He is author of Criminal Resistance? The Politics of Kidnapping Oil Workers.