What do Media Censorship and Manipulation, Gates, the BBC and Circumcision Have in Common?

Internews describes itself as an "international non-profit organization whose mission is to empower local media worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability to connect and the means to make their voices heard". But one of their much trumpeted programs claims to train journalists about the 'science' behind mass male circumcision programs in Kenya and creating demand for the procedure. There's quite a difference between training journalists on the 'science' of circumcision and creating demand, and the latter generally has little to do with empowerment.

The fact that the BBC's Media Action portal, Creating Demand for Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision, which is backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has named the work of Internews as an example of best practice also says a lot more about the three institutions' shared biases than about empowerment. Even the URL bluntly states the bias.

A press release gushes: "Internews’ training approach illustrates the benefits of training journalists to report accurately and impartially on culturally sensitive topics, such as VMMC. The training resulted in some 100 news stories focused on this high impact HIV prevention procedure that were published or broadcast. What was notable was that the media did not carry any negative news stories about the topic during the period that Kenya was rolling out the medical procedure in Nyanza Province." Oddly, another version of this press release uses the term "falsely negative news stories"; I wonder which is correct? Or is any negative news story 'falsely negative'?

So where is the impartiality in creating demand for mass male circumcision? If people have reservations about circumcision perhaps they have good reasons to. But if the procedure is as wonderful as proponents claim it is, why should such aggressive demand creation be necessary? It is claimed that Internews training "does not prescribe to journalists what to cover" but that their main concern is accuracy. Yet their country director Ida Jooste, perhaps inadvertently, flatly contradicts this claim.

She says that a "critical article was published in Uganda about VMMC quoting a poor-quality study which attacked the credibility" of the often cited Randomised Controlled Trials that took place in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Without citing that 'poor-quality' study, she goes on: "Rather than wait for the Kenyan media to pick up and run the story, Internews proactively convened a round-table with journalists and VMMC experts from the National AIDS and STI Control Program, and other organizations to analyze the story and examine its scientific arguments. As a result, not a single media outlet in Kenya chose to pick up or run the sensational story."

I don't think I'd use the word 'impartial' there. Ensuring that only positive coverage is aired and that negative coverage is quashed is media censorship and control, pure and simple. This is all paid for by the US taxpayer, though it seems the UK may now have something to do with it too.

Internews also 'worked with' (should that be 'worked on'?) civil society and health agencies working in the field of mass male circumcision. When they ran a conference focusing on women's 'involvement' in mass male circumcision, "to their delight" this resulted in 25 news and feature stories. This is pure manipulation, but those involved seem to express no shame, apology or even justification for it. Joost is even cited as saying "We believe that the impact of positive media coverage, or at the very least, the absence of negative coverage, complements and reinforces traditional public campaigns aimed at creating demand and behaviour change".

The above illustrates a concerted effort by a donor (Gates), an international media outlet (the BBC, via its corporate social responsibility wing) and a well-funded US non-profit, to control the Kenyan media. These parties then openly report their successful manipulation and censorship of the media, which has resulted in completely biased coverage of a public health program that is opposed by many of those who have taken the time to inform themselves about it.

What kind of foreign donor funded public health program, only carried out on certain African populations, is so important that it is necessary to manipulate the press so that they only report positive stories and that they don't report negative stories about it? If Kenyan people had any objections to this kind of neo-imperialism, would their press even report it? If the US wanted to impose a mass male circumcision program in the UK, would the BBC also collude with Gates, PEPFAR, CDC, UNAIDS and other parties to make sure objections were not heard? This must be what is meant by 'informed consent'.

The Ever-Widening Rift Between the Media and Reality in Africa

[Cross-posted from Blogtivist]

There has been little agreement about how many albino people in Tanzania have been killed, apparently for their body parts, between 2006 and 2013. But since the middle of 2010, around 70 deaths has been a common estimate, and one which did not increase much over the following three years. The number of articles identified about these events comes to 71 in total, reaching a peak of 23 in 2009. The number of documented victims, of both deadly and non-deadly attacks, is also about 71 (some may not be albinos, some may not be Tanzanian and some may or may not have been injured or killed), peaking at 17 in 2008 and again at 15 in 2011. But only 24 of these documented incidents are reported deaths; of these deaths, only 10 are named by any of the various online sources I have examined.

[Click on image for larger version]

A list of all the sources used for collecting various data is available, which includes a timeline of events, at least as they were reported by the media. It’s not an exact timeline, with some dates referring to publication rather than the occurrence of the events, which may not even be made clear; the list of sources and other sets of data are, of course, a work-in-progress (which may never be completed).

The timeline starts about 9 years before the first report of an albino killing, in1997, when the New York Times runs an article about albinos in Zimbabwe and their struggle for equality; there are even mentions of witchcraft and superstition. Other articles during this period report similar issues, in various African countries, but there is no mention of killings or maimings. Even a peer-reviewed article in August 2006 in BioMed Central makes no mention of such events, though it notes that “People with albinism also face social discrimination as a result of their difference in appearance”.

In April 2007, the Tanzanian Human Rights Report (for 2006) lists public executions that they have recorded for 2006. One particular incident, which occurred in April, stands out: “Two brothers, Benedict and William David (29) were believed to have murdered and taken the organs of Alex Aaron, an albino. When the brothers were arrested, the villagers began hurtling stones at them until they died.” No further comment has been found about this incident, even in subsequent reports. However, a later Human Rights Report (for 2007) says that there were 20 albino people killed in 2007.

In December 2007 there were two reports of attacks on albinos, and a later report by Under the Same Sun (UTSS) names three people who were attacked, but not killed. The first mention by the BBC found relating to attacks on Tanzanian albino people was another early source of information. From this time onward, all articles mention witchcraft (or something similar) and the bestowal of wealth or some other such objective. Vicky Ntetema of the BBC (later to join UTSS) says that this is the “first time that albinos have been targeted in ritual killings” although this turns out to be incorrect according to sources that were not available at the time (such as the 2007 Human Rights Report, noted above).

Only a few months after the issue of attacks on albinos first attracts the attention of the media, the President of Tanzania orders a “crackdown on witchdoctors who use body parts from albinos in magic potions to bring people good luck or fortune”. The certainty with which witchdoctors (also miners and fishermen) are targeted, and equal certainty about magic potions which bring good luck or fortune, suggests that there may be a lot of information about these attacks that is not so easily available online; unless press reports themselves are considered to be reliable. But this is only a preliminary study. There are likely to be many parts of the puzzle that are either unavailable online or difficult to locate. (In early 2009, the government launched another initiative: “citizens will be invited to write down on slips of paper the names of those they suspect of involvement”, dubbed ‘witch naming‘ by the BBC and a ‘secret vote‘ by Reuters.)

By this time, early 2008, it is common currency (in the media) that demand for magic potions comes from people engaged in mining and fishing (for example, in the article citing the president, linked to in the previous paragraph). The number of albino people murdered is now put at 19 or more in the last year. Reference is made to a ‘growing trade in body parts’ in several articles and hints have been made about large sums of money; exact sums of money have not yet been mentioned. The BBC names a victim for the first time in late July 2008 and in the same month refers to an undercover investigation by one of their own journalists which reveals that and albino body part costs about $2,000. This figure and similar amounts crop up frequently in future articles, but it is often unclear whether it is what the ‘client’ pays, what the ‘witchdoctor’ pays those procuring the body part, etc.

Several commentators note that these vicious attacks on albinos started fairly recently (contrary to the claims of UTSS and others that they have been going on “since time beyond memory“). An article in September 2008 says the phenomenon arose some time in the last 10 years. There are several reports ofsimilar attacks in Burundi but it is claimed that the bodies/body parts are destined for Tanzania. Peter Ash, founder of UTSS, told the Vancouver Sun newspaper in a recent interview that the practice of killing albinos had only begun in the last decade, and “the killing of albinos and trafficking in body parts appears to be centered … in and around the city of Mwanza.” This statement is made in an article about the killing of two albino children in Swaziland, and claims that the attacks are ‘spreading’.

There are two reports of people trying to ‘sell’ an albino. One man is said to have tried to sell his wife for $3,000 to ‘businessmen’ from DRC. Another attemptedto ‘sell’ his friend for $250,000, but it turned out to be a sting operation by the police and he was arrested and imprisoned for human trafficking. Over the years there have also been mentions of shoes made of the skin of albino people, thedrinking of the blood of albino people (referred to as ‘cannibalism’) and the belief that having sexual intercourse with an albino woman will cure AIDS.

The exact phrase ‘luck in love, life and business’ crops up at least nine times in the literature; it is just one of many instances of the use of copy and paste journalism. One might wonder with some of the stories if we are looking at copycat incidents, copycat journalism, or a combination?

Several commentators make the prediction that numbers of attacks on albino people will increase in the run up to the elections (in 2010) because superstitious politicians will be consulting witchdoctors for potions to improve their chances of winning a seat. This prediction appears to have been incorrect, unless those making it were too modest to note their prescience after the elections.

Perhaps there were already signs that the media was tiring of attacks on albino people in Tanzania as early as mid-2010, when their rough (very rough) count of deaths had reached 71 and never really went any higher, despite there being 8 documented victims in that year and 11 the year before. The number of articles halved in 2010 and would halve again in 2011 (and again in 2012), even though the number of documented victims rose to 11 in 2011. Two out of the three articles in 2012 were about albino models and there have only been four in 2013.

There have been 9 documented attacks on albino people in Tanzania this year, including at least 2 killings (although one of those killed may not have been an albino person). So maybe the media will renew its (obsessive, bordering on pathological) interest in these attacks? Or maybe they will not; after all, the mere fact that someone has been killed under bizarre circumstances is not always enough for the media to take an interest; just as, perhaps, the appearance of a bizarre incident in the media may not be an indication that the incident ever occurred, or that its description bears any resemblance to anything that ever occurred, anywhere?

BBC Trying to Fill a Niche Vacated By News of the World?

One of the issues that crops up a lot on this blog is the kind of things that non-Africans would believe about Africans. There was a lot of media coverage (or 'wallowing', even) around albinos being targeted by witch doctors or traditional medicine practitioners in Tanzania.

The problem is not that the media covered these terrible events; the problem is that just because such events were uncovered, this doesn't mean they are just a part of Tanzanian or African life.

So a few months ago I came across an article that was specific about the gory details but silent about anything that would allow the veracity of the story to be examined. The article, run by Reuters and echoed by hundreds, perhaps thousands of others, claimed that three albino brothers were murdered, buried and exhumed so their body parts could be used for something or other.

At the time, I was working with albinos in Northern Tanzania, where this event was said to have occurred. I asked colleagues and friends, including albinos. No one had heard of this story and they had no way of knowing how to check if it were true. I even asked some Tanzania Albino Society (TAS) leaders, one of them being the chairman of TAS, said to have been interviewed for the story. No one knew anything.

I contacted Reuters, posted a message on the article and emailed the author. I received nothing except advice to contact the author. The article is still on Reuters' site. And hundreds of copies and echoes of the article are also scattered around the web for posterity.

In a similar vein, I saw a story during the week on the BBC website claiming that some Swazis taking antiretroviral drugs are so hungry that they eat cow dung to ensure that the drugs 'work'. The drugs are supposed to be taken with food.

The question isn't really about whether the story is true. Someone may have eaten cow dung, somewhere, at some time, or someone may have just claimed that they did. The question is about whether this is a story? If so, is it about Swazis, HIV, food shortages, poverty or prejudice? If you read the sort of things that Nazis said about Jews, it included references to feces, living in feces, being covered in feces, eating feces.

When you 'report' that people are eating feces, for whatever reason, are you trying to raise sympathy, or are you simply playing on the anti-African prejudices that many media outlets have been so happy to hone over the years?

The question is of vital importance. Since HIV has been pinned on Africa, African sexual behavior, African morality, and whatever else suits a story angle and media trends, many seem to have lost sight of the fact that HIV is a virus, one that makes people very sick and eventually die.

Articles appear to be more concerned with slavering over the details about genitalia, tribal practices, non-use of contraception and just about anything else except the fact that HIV is a virus, a sickness, one of many that infect Africans in grotesquely disproportionate numbers.

With rare exceptions, the media doesn't ask questions that they don't already have what they consider to be the answer. So they ask why some African countries have massive HIV epidemics, but not why any country should have massive rates of viral transmission when it is a very difficult virus to transmit, sexually, at least.

Because it is sexual transmission the media is interested in, make no mistake about that. And they have their answer: it's African sexuality, morality, behavior, etc. The men have sex with anyone they wish to have sex with, the women will do anything to have children or to get money for their families, it's all led by sexual desire, rampant brutality, inhuman behavior.

When babies and young children are found to be HIV positive even though their mothers are negative, it's attributed to the fact that they are raped by their father or by a family member. When old, no longer sexually active people get HIV they say 'even old people are at risk'. Pregnant mothers appear to get infected during or just after giving birth, and even when their sexual partner is not infected it is suggested that they simply must have had sex with someone who was infected.

The story about Swazis eating cow dung with their HIV drugs appears to be a symptom of how the media can write whatever they want, with the understanding that they are just pulling strings that people are well conditioned to respond to. The victims of anti-African prejudice are now guinea-pigs in Western drug trials and even charades that claim to relate to health, but are really just mass eugenics exercises.

I'm sure the BBC didn't give this article about Swazis eating cow dung a great deal of thought, and many of their articles look similarly thoughtless, media memes that have as little impact as some of the interstitials that appear on other news sites. But the fact that people can write and even read such an article and not protest means that the corporation has a rotten streak, whether through carelessness or design. Are they trying to fill a niche left vacant by recent changes in the media world?

Behaviour Change for Journalists

The BBC can be funny sometimes, though not very funny. The title of one of their articles runs "Is Zuma's sex life a private matter?" and they promptly answer it in the negative by writing about it. Perhaps the author would have been wiser to ask about the president's attitude towards women and equality, since they have taken the liberty of asking about his sex life. But even an organisation as well (publicly) funded as the BBC often can't resist asking the same questions as almost every other journalist in the mainstream media.

The media needs to get past the connection between HIV and sex. True, HIV is mainly transmitted sexually. But rates of HIV transmission depend on many other things, such as the relative economic circumstances of the people involved, their relative levels of power in relationships (whether ephemeral or otherwise), their levels of education and access to information, their levels of health and nutrition and the like. Indeed, the nature and accuracy of the information to which people have access may also be significant; exalted claims about the role of the media in HIV publicity campaigns certainly suggest this.

Studies have shown that there is no strong correlation between rates of HIV in different countries and levels of what is considered to be unsafe sexual behaviour, for example, multiple concurrent partnerships. In other words, some places where rates of multiple concurrent partnerships are low, HIV rates are high and vice versa. High rates of HIV transmission in South Africa are, to the extent that they are well understood, explained by many things other than sexual behaviour.

If the BBC is really concerned about HIV transmission, it shouldn't be beyond the capacity of the corporation to research the subject a bit better than the average tabloid newspaper. They could even have discussed the fact that Zuma didn't use a condom during his extra-marital relationship and is well known for being against the use of condoms. Sadly, there is very little to HIV prevention in South Africa, or any other developing country, aside from condoms.

It may never become a popular view that HIV has numerous transmission routes and that many of the circumstances in which people live and work determine whether they will be infected with HIV and whether they will go on to infect others. HIV will probably always be viewed as such an extraordinary disease that it is transmitted in isolation from people's overall health and welfare, and that issues such as gender, power and politics are completely irrelevant. But it seems unlikely that the BBC will stick its neck out and adopt an unpopular view.