Textual dimension

In terms of writing style, the 2013 issue contains a significant number of judgmental words and phrases. When writing about Lagos, the capital of Nigeria, the journalists write that it is

“a byword for chaos and skulduggery,” (Appendix II, article nr. 12). Another example is the

68

reference to Ethiopian officials’ “distaste for outside investors,” (Appendix II, article nr. 14).

In the same article, The Economist writes that the Ethiopians “manage to keep corruption remarkably subdued for such a centralised system,” (Appendix II, article nr. 14). Except for a judgmental writing style, each single article, included in this particular issue, does provide the 5W’s and 1H of the news writing formula. The use of percentages is limited: only three out of seven articles provide numbers to underpin their arguments.

Regarding the information provision, all articles - included in this special issue – provide references to socio-cultural factors to explain the events reported on. Yet, the mentioning of local factors, such as historical and cultural devel opments, is rare. In most cases, contextualisation takes the shape of domestication, e.g. in the article called “A hopeful continent”:

Africa is too big to follow one script, so its countries are taking different routes to becoming better places. In Senegal the key is a vibrant democracy. From the humid beaches of Cap-Vert to the flyblown desert interior, politicians conduct election campaigns that Western voters would recognise. (Appendix II, article nr. 10)

In this particular article, The Economist paints a picture of the Senegalese democracy, by drawing comparisons to the election campaigns in the West. Other articles of the 2013 issue also use domestication, for example by making a comparison to European supermarkets (Appendix II, article nr. 14), mentioning how many Western people have been abducted in Nigeria and Niger (Appendix II, article nr. 13), and referring to the consequences of specific events in Sub-Saharan Africa for Western investors (Appendix II, article nr. 14). Also, the 2013 issue contains articles in which certain events are explained by means of background information, while other happenings are brought forward without any mentioning to explaining factors. The article “Tired of War” has this dual information provision. In one section, the journalists refer to ethnic rivalry as an explaining factor of war in Angola, while there is no context provided to the war in Liberia. In fact, the only information given concerns the detailed war crimes done to a political leader (Appendix II, article nr. 11).

In term of sourcing, this special issue includes both Sub-Saharan African and Western voices. What stands out is the fact that most of the African sources included in the issue, have some sort of relationship with the West. An example is the following reference to an Ethiopian citizen: “The official Agricultural Transformation Agency, which aims to raise farm productivity as well as farmers’ share of profits, is led by Khalid Bomba, a former Wall

69

Street banker and staffer at the Gates Foundation,” (Appendix II, article nr. 14). While the quotes of Western origin all originate from owners of organisations and academia (Appendix II, article nr. 13, 16), the Sub-Saharan African quotes are more diverse; local business owners, scholars and combatants are mentioned (Appendix II, article nr. 11, 14, 15). Another difference between the sourcing of Western people and Sub-Saharan African people concerns the referencing. While the former are always mentioned by their name and function, the latter are often just referred to by their position in the story, e.g. “soldier” (Appendix II, article nr.

11), “a 22-year-old who started killing at seven” (Appendix II, article nr. 11), “one of the country’s leading economists” (Appendix II, article nr. 14). Despite these differences, all sources in the 2013 issue are quoted by means of neutral verbs, such as ‘explain’ or ‘say’.

These verbs do not attach any value judgement to the quotes, nor to the people providing them.

In terms of the future perspective, the magazine issue shows signs of both optimism and pessimism, but mostly limited optimism. What is meant by this, becomes clear from the following example: “Back in Liberia peace is still too tentative for prosecutions. The country is at rest now but not at peace. The government is democratically elected but feeble ,”

(Appendix II, article nr. 11). In the article, the author writes that peace has finally been established after a period of unrest. Directly after mentioning this favourable political development, the positivity of the situation is counterbalanced by referring to the limitations of the democratic functioning of the government. Another recurring linguistic element has to do with the driver of change and positive development. In several articles, the West, as opposed to Sub-Saharan Africans themselves, is praised for the successful development of the latter, e.g. in the article on the reduction of conflict:

Europeans in particular no longer turn a blind eye to gross human-rights violations in Africa. The creation of the ICC in 2002 marked a shift toward liberal interventionism, both the legal and the armed kind. Norwegian officials played a key role in negotiating peace in Sudan. (Appendix II, article nr. 11)

In other words, the intervention of Western forces is presented as another factor, building on to a more positive future perspective for Sub-Saharan Africa.

The identity frame used in this issue is the homogenisation of Sub-Saharan Africans and their countries, which is evident in the following example: “African economies differ fundamentally from some of their successful Asian counterparts… If Africa wants to emulate

70

Asia, it needs to give a higher priority to manufacturing”, (Appendix II, article nr. 10). This writing generalises all economies on the African continent into one single system of production and consumption. Meanwhile, the same is done with the Asian economy and the former is put in an inferior position to the latter. In fact, by writing what Africa needs to do, the authors give the assumption that there is a single remedy to overcome the different economic difficulties that the Sub-Saharan African countries are facing. Another example of such homogenising framing is the following:

Inevitably, Africa’s rise is being hyped. Boosters proclaim an “African century” and talk of “the China of tomorrow” or “a new India”. Sceptics retort that Africa has seen false dawns before. They fear that foreign investors will exploit locals and that the continent will be “not lifted but looted. (Appendix II, article nr. 10)

Again, the development of all African countries is stirred into one direction, as if it is one single actor; either all of the continent flourishes or all fails.

In the opening article of the 2013 special issue, the inhabitants of the entire African continent are clearly distinguished from inhabitants of the so-called ‘black Africa’ or Sub-Saharan Africa: “But most Africans no longer fear a violent or premature end and can hope to see their children do well. That applies across much of the continent, including the sub -Saharan part, the main focus of this report,” (Appendix II, article nr. 10). In another passage of the same article, this non-racialised ethnical framing is also shown: “At the end of the cold war only three African countries (out of 53 at the time) had democracies; since then the number has risen to 25, of varying shades, and many more countries hold imperfect but worthwhile elections (22 in 2012 alone),” (Appendix II, article nr. 10). Looking at the total number of countries that the journalists refer to, it is clear that the word “African” serves as a label to capture all countries on the African continent. The 2013 special issue contains only one other article, titled “Courage, mon brave”, that uses a similar non-racialised account of

“Africa”, which becomes clear from the following passage: “For the rest of Africa, however, the Arab spring is a beacon of hope,” (Appendix II, 13). In fact, this article stands alone in its references to Northern African countries, such as Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya. In the other five articles included in the issue, the authors consistently write about “Africa” or “Africans”, while only providing examples of Sub-Saharan African countries.

71

In terms of ranking frame, the 2013 special issue subordinates Sub-Saharan African to the West and in general, to the rest of the world. Most often, the comparison is not directly made, but happens through the framing of Sub-Saharan Africa as less developed, unable to take care of itself and as a consequence, in need of foreign intervention or guidance. In general, two different sorts of frames are visible. The first type of linguistic devices frames Sub-Saharan Africa and its civilizations as ‘failed’, such as in the following example:

“Guinea-Bissau fits the picture of an African state rendered dysfunctional by violent disorder,” (Appendix II, article nr. 14). The second type embraces the inferiority of Sub-Saharan Africa, as established by the first type, and subsequently suggests what Sub-Saharan Africans should do to develop: “Africa’s lot would be hugely improved if landlocked countries became less isolated. That means persuading neighbours to remove transport barriers. A lack of trade seems to spur violence and undermine governance,” (Appendix II, article nr. 13).