• No results found

IV. A cda of The Economist

IV.I 2004 Issue: First get the basics right

IV.I.I Textual dimension

In terms of writing style, the 2004 issue contains a significant number of judgmental words and phrases. When referring to, for instance, African rulers, The Economist writes that “Too many governments are predatory, and not enough are competent”, (Appendix I, article nr. 1).

However, it is not only that Sub-Saharan Africans are judged. Similarly, the author has provided his or her opinion about the people from the West: “For every dollar that foolish northerners lent Africa between 1970 and 1996, 80 cents flowed out as capital flight in the same year…” (Appendix I, article nr. 7). Next to a judgmental writing style, the articles do provide facts and shows the use of the news writing formula. In the following phrase, one can clearly detect a neutral writing style which uses numbers to put an issue into perspective: “Mr de Soto estimated that the total value of Africans' informally owned houses and farmland in 1997 was roughly $1 trillion. That is nearly three times sub-Saharan Africa's annual GDP, and more than 70 times the amount of aid the continent receives each year ,” (Appendix I, article nr. 2).

Regarding the information provision, the issue repeatedly mentions - in particularly negative - events and developments without any references to socio-cultural factors explaining them. An example is the following phrase: “As recent events in Zimbabwe show more vividly than any economics textbook could, rulers who respect neither property rights nor their own laws swiftly impoverish their people”, (Appendix I, article nr. 1). Poverty in Zimbabwe is presented as the direct consequence of a lack of property rights and trespassing of laws by the ruler. However, there are other factors, such as historical circumstances and demographic structures that affect the social-economic wellbeing of people (Ogunyemi, 2018:

426). There was not a single article in the 2004 issue that provided the relevant context and background information to fully explain the news events and put them into perspective.

62

Instead, it appears that cause-and-effect relationship are drawn too easily through the use of overgeneralizations.

The articles show a clear discrepancy between the use of Sub-Saharan African and Western sources. Local voices that have been quoted are almost exclusively politicians, from whom parts of official speeches have been brought forward. The Sub-Saharan African civilians or ordinary people that are being mentioned, are used as passive characters about whom The Economist writes. A good example in the 2004 issue can be found in the article, titled “Love and Death”:

Jean-Pierre Mihigo Chako, a teacher, also runs a bar. He has had to learn how to fend off tax collectors sent by the rebel group that controls the town, who try to charge him for every chair, for playing music, and even for having a sign over the door. “I won't die of hunger,” he shrugs. (Appendix I article nr. 5)

As shown in this example, Sub-Saharan Africans are not asked for their expertise on local political or economic issues, but mostly quoted to give the story a personal angle. The only time that an African specialist was quoted for his knowledge, concerns the following example: “George Ayittey, the Ghanaian writer, grumbles that: “Almost every black problem is explained in terms of a racialist paradigm, giving the false impression that black problems cannot be solved until racism is totally eradicated,” (Appendix I article nr. 3). Instead of using a neutral quotation verb like “say” or “concludes”, the expressive verb “grumble” was used.

Such a verb characterizes a source as more emotional and irrational, while being less in control and consequently, devalues the arguments provided (Nothias, 2014: 142-143).

Western sources on the other hand, are quoted for their expertise and knowledge: “The populace expects to exchange political support for concrete help,” says Jean-Pascal Daloz, a French academic. “That is the only way in which politics makes sense to them,” (Appendix I, article nr. 9).

In terms of the future perspective that is provided in the 2004 issue, each single article shows expressions of pessimism. One article mentions it explicitly: “One reason for pessimism, at least in the short term, is that many Africans, especially among the elite, seem to have drawn more grievances than lessons from history,” (Appendix I, article nr. 3). In other words, many Sub-Saharan Africans fail to learn from the past, which offers no hope of improvement. Nevertheless, The Economist does show some signs of optimism: “Several African countries are now less frightening places than they were. In Nigeria, for example, dissidents no longer fear being arrested and tortured since the death of the dictator Sani Abacha in 1998,” (Appendix I, article nr. 9). As becomes clear from this example,

63

hopefulness does not mean that the situation is good, instead the 2004 issue uses the term to capture a situation that is not as bad as it used to be. Another example that shows the provision of limited hopefulness is the following: “Economic growth in Mozambique has been in double digits in four of the past six years. Such successes have been too rare, however”, (Appendix I, article nr. 2). Hope is created through the example of Mozambique, but directedly opposed by the subsequent sentence stating that such a success story is the exception in Sub-Saharan Africa. With the lack of real optimism, journalists have tried to enforce hopefulness, making clear that a better future is only possible if certain requirements are met: “But if it can shake off the past, Africa might yet come round,” (Appendix I, article nr. 3). Another article goes even further by using irony to show the semblance of optimism:

“Mr Mugabe may be murderous, but not on the scale of, say, Idi Amin in Uganda in the 1970s. And at least he pretends to hold free elections; Mobutu never bothered,” (Appendix I, article nr. 9).

The identity frame used in the 2004 issue is the homogenization of the countries and inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa, such as in the following example: “Africa cannot afford to lose skills; it has few enough to start with”, (Appendix I, article nr. 5). This sentence is, first of all, ignoring the different social and cultural identities of Sub-Saharan Africans by labelling them all together under “Africa” (Nothias, 2014: 76). Secondly, stating that Africa has few skills to start with, does not do justice to the [different] capabilities of Sub-Saharan Africans – it clearly portrays them as inferior. Another example of the homogenizing identity frame is the following: “Most of the things African governments can do to reduce the risk of war are worth doing anyway: govern well, spend money on schools rather than soldiers, allow space for peaceful dissent, and avoid inflaming ethnic grievances”, (Appendix I, article nr. 4). This body part has fused the different African political powers into one entity, while also providing the same advice to this uniform government. As such, it fully ignores the differences between the political rulers of the different Sub-Saharan African countries. Similarly, it disregards the different socio-political situations in the countries, that result in different problems and require different solutions.

When analysing the ethnic frame, it is very difficult to verify whether journalists refer to Sub-Saharan Africa or to Africa as a continent, when mentioning “Africa”. There are some examples where the authors of the texts explicitly refer to specific groups of people: “The voters of Zimbabwe, for example, are relatively well educated (thanks in part to Robert Mugabe's progressive education policies in the 1980s),” (Appendix I, article nr. 9). Here, the journalists capture all voters of Zimbabwe, irrespective of race or skin colour. In other

64

articles, journalists have racialized the term “Africans”, such as in the following example:

“The phones connect, the wine is delicious and you are free to do pretty much what you want.

Other Africans are envious,” (Appendix I, article nr. 8). The context that is provided with this quote makes clear that the authors refer to Sub-Saharan Africans, instead of all geographical inhabitants of the African continent (Nothias, 2014: 76).

In terms of ranking frame, the issue places Sub-Saharan Africans in an inferior position vis-à-vis the West and in general, vis-à vis 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 and unable to take care of itself. In the 2004 issue, The Economist has repeatedly used sarcasm to make fun of the situation in the region, e.g.: “No prizes for guessing which country has the better reputation for probity,” (Appendix I, article nr. 6). In other articles, the local inhabitants are qualified as less worthy or unsuccessful: “Why has AIDS blighted Africa like nowhere else? For many reasons. Poor people cannot afford decent health care,” (Appendix I, article nr. 5).