by Roger Mac Ginty

A predictable side debate of the dreadful attacks on Brussels relates to the relative newsworthiness of mass atrocities. The debate is most visible on Facebook and Twitter where some people choose to overlay their portrait with the Belgian flag (and before that the French flag, and before that the legend ‘Je suis Charlie’). And then others counter with statements that ask why other attacks do not merit such attention.

The issue was starkly brought into focus by a Facebook comment that ‘Enough white people have been killed in the Brussels attacks to merit Facebook to offer a Belgian flag overlay’. The implication was that white lives matter more than non-white lives.

There has always been a bias in the reporting of mass casualties. In the 1980s, the UK television comedy programme The Two Ronnies ran a sketch satirising a biased British news commentary on an overseas disaster. It ran something like: ‘In other news, there has been a massive earthquake in Egypt. English tourist Reginald Brown, aged 49 from Chipping Norton, was injured on the small finger of his right hand. He showed the usual British stoicism and is determined to continue his holiday. Tens of thousands of people also died’. The key point is that national, sectarian and racial biases are hardwired into news reporting.

But a key starting point of news reporting is an accurate account of what actually happened. In the case of Brussels, public health authorities are able to furnish the media with accurate casualty figures. But that was also the case with attacks Beirut, Quetta, Ankara – all of which experienced mass casualty bombings, and all of which are well-served by the media. But reporting of these media lacked prominence in the UK. The issue in these cases is not one of reporting – it is one of editorial choices to include (and exclude) some voices. Indeed, in virtually every conflict, the local media usually has access to what happens. Whether it is Ukraine or Yemen, the media are there.

There is a category of bombings in which there is virtually no reportage: bombings by air-forces – whether Russian, Israeli, America, Saudi, French or British. The exceptions to this category are the exceptions: the attacks on MSF hospitals or high profile ‘mistakes’. The reportage of the impact of other air forces bombings is negligible. The sheer number of air sorties and airstrikes is staggering. The US Department of Defense reported in March 2016 that Operation Inherent Resolve – the name of the operation against ISIS in Syria and Iraq – had involved over 86,000 sorties, over 10,000 airstrikes, and 22,000 targets destroyed. The much more short-lived Russian air campaign in Syria involved over 9,000 air sorties. The Saudi air campaign in Yemen in 2015 involved almost 2,500 sorties.

Despite these figures, we hear nothing of the casualties, caused. While the air forces involved release figures of sorties flown, and sometimes release information and footage of ‘targets’ destroyed, they do not release information on casualties caused. Indeed, the US military profess not to collect such figures (although this seems unlikely given the aim of trying to reduce the number of ISIS personnel). This lack of reporting of casualties caused is significant. It is part of a narrative that war is somehow anti-septic: that it can be fought cleanly. It is further insulation of western publics from the notion that they are actually at war – that their militaries are causing casualties. Western militaries, and the Israelis, work hard to promote a notion that they take extreme care in targeting. This may be the case, but we really don’t know because media reports of the impact of bombings is sparse. When NATO planes or drones bomb the ‘wrong’ target in Afghanistan – say killing a wedding party – we hear a NATO spokesperson promising a full inquiry. Can any of us honestly say that we have ever heard of the outcomes of these inquiries? If the results are released, they do not make the news.

There are casualties on the streets of Brussels and Paris (and before that London and Madrid). It is absolutely right that we hear about the impact of these attacks – especially the human aspect of individual and familial tragedies. But can we also hear about the human impact of the massive bombs in Ziten in Libya, Kaduna in Nigeria, or the 45 civilians killed by the Saudis at a market in Nehm, Yemen just three weeks ago?

Related