Crazy 8s
Live 8, G-8 coverage cheerleads sending
billions of U.S. dollars to Africa
By Dan Gainor
Director, Free Market Project
Amy Menefee
Assistant Editor/Senior Researcher
Todd Drenth
Researcher
See
Executive Summary |
See Related Video |
PDF Version
    Live 8 blared onto TVs worldwide with artists from
U2 to Madonna. Even Pink Floyd reunited and performed their
signature song “Money.” That one word summed up the event more
honestly than most of the media coverage.
   Â
Organizer and rock star Bob Geldof claimed the July 2, 2005,
concerts were a way to teach people about poverty and “raise
awareness” about the crisis in Africa. Journalists didn’t just
agree, they repeated Live 8 phrases like they lifted them from a
press release. Rather than ask difficult questions, news people
gushed over celebrity pitchmen and celebrated the “good cause” of
increasing foreign aid to Africa.
   Â
CNN devoted an entire special to African poverty entitled “Can We
Save Them?” The July 2, 2005, story concluded with reporter
Christiane Amanpour saying: “We have the money. We have the ability.
But do we have the will? At concert stages and at conference tables
and here in Ethiopia, people of good will are making a start.”
   Â
The Media Research Center’s Free Market Project analyzed TV news
coverage from June 27 through July 10, 2005, and found much of the
coverage took a similar uncritical tone. More than one third of the
stories repeated the claim of Live 8 organizers that the concerts
weren’t about money.
   Â
Nothing could have been further from the truth.
   Â
The Live 8 concerts were part of a worldwide fund-raiser. Organizer
and former Boomtown Rats front man Bob Geldof used the event to
pressure wealthy nations into increasing foreign aid to Africa to
$50 billion, in addition to billions of dollars in debt relief.
Geldof timed the performance to mark the 20th anniversary of his
previous charity effort, Live Aid. This time the concerts were free
to attendees, while organizers tried to send a billion-dollar bill
to the G-8 nations, especially the United States.
   Â
Star-struck news people delivered one-sided accounts about African
poverty that were light on facts and heavy on promotion. Even after
the event, journalists carried this skewed outlook into the G-8
conference of the world’s wealthiest eight nations by harping on
America’s “low” foreign aid and criticizing the U.S. stance on
global warming.
   Â
On “Wolf Blitzer Reports,” July 5, 2005, CNN World Affairs Analyst
William Cohen was openly promoting increased assistance: “Aid to
Africa is important to Tony Blair, but it should be very important
to us as well as a great humanitarian effort that needs to be
undertaken.” Host John King responded with a view common in the
study: “Let me stop you on that point, just because I don’t think
anyone could disagree with that point.” Cohen, the former Secretary
of Defense under President Bill Clinton, followed up by saying: “We
have an obligation to help in a major way.”
   Â
While deficits are normally criticized in the media, there was
little linkage of the idea of increased aid with increased deficits.
In a closing commentary on the April 24, 2005, “Face the Nation,”
CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was highly critical of deficit spending.
“Buried in the back pages of The Washington Post [was] a story in
which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the runaway
federal deficit was getting so bad, he expected taxes would have to
be raised....We haven’t heard much about that story, have we?”
Schieffer made no such complaint about increasing U.S. aid to
Africa.
   Â
Skepticism was hard to find even when the event founder pointed out
what had happened since the last Live Aid concert. On CNN’s “Morning
News” July 2, 2005, Geldof showed how little had been accomplished
despite the previous outpouring of aid. “Africa’s got worse.
Africa’s declined economically 25 percent in 20 years. It’s the only
continent in economic decline.”
   Â
But journalists didn’t even try to connect the dots between an
influx of aid and the deterioration of an entire continent. Instead,
positive media sentiment was typical on news and entertainment news
shows alike. On July 1, 2005, A.J. Hammer, co-host of CNN’s “Showbiz
Tonight,” gave this upbeat appraisal of Live 8. “Well, this weekend,
we’re going to see the musical event that will go down in history,
and it’s all for a good cause.” He added the common claim that the
event wasn’t about money. “And while the sequel, Live 8, is not a
fund-raiser, it promises to be even bigger than its predecessor,” he
said.
 TV Leads the Cheer for African Aid
   Â
When journalists weren’t advocating aid to Africa, they were
catering to the celebrities who were doing that job for them.
Journalists remarked how they loved bands or even particular
celebrity activists. The red-carpet treatment pulled the rug out
from under any claim of objectivity.
   Â
Robin Roberts of ABC’s “Good Morning America” gave actor George
Clooney a taste of the star treatment during his July 6, 2005,
appearance in support of aid to Africa. Clooney joked about being in
the studio and Roberts responded: “We wish. And come see us any
time, George and I know it’s important work that you and others are
trying to get across. And many people appreciate that.”
   Â
Roberts wasn’t the only “Good Morning America” regular to be star
struck. On the show’s July 3, 2005, broadcast, Dan Harris admitted
that he was “a little jealous” of reporter Marysol Castro who got to
cover the Philadelphia Live 8 concert.
   Â
Castro was equally upbeat. “You know, it was truly extraordinary,
eight, 160 bands performing in nine cities across four continents.
And though Live 8 was entertainment on a grand scale, its message
was simple, end poverty in Africa.” Later in that same report,
Castro admitted Live 8 performer “Stevie Wonder still makes me weak
in the knees.”
   Â
Given the musical nature of Live 8, MTV staffers showed up with some
frequency. MTV correspondent John Morris appeared on CBS’s “Early
Show” on July 2, 2005, with this comment about the performers:
“Whether or not they’re all well versed in the issue or not, their
hearts are in the right place. I’m certain of that.”
   Â
NBC’s “Today” delivered similar support. On July 2, 2005, Lester
Holt interviewed actor Chris Tucker, saying, “You know, it’s
interesting, we’ve seen concerts, of course, raising money, but
raising awareness and raising awareness and effecting the kind of
change that this is all about, how high a bar has been set, and do
you think this will make a difference as those leaders sit down at
the G-8?” Holt added, “Well, Chris, we appreciate the work.” He
concluded the interview with, “it’s an incredible effort, and you’ve
got an incredible line-up of talent.”
 Money Changes Everything
   Â
Holt’s reference to the concerts not being about money was
commonplace. More than one third of all stories on Live 8 or the G-8
meeting that followed (43 out of 121) emphasized the event wasn’t
about money. CBS was the worst of the five networks studied. More
than half of the stories included references like this June 30,
2005, example from “The Early Show” and reporter Sheila MacVicar.
“This time it’s not about your wallets but your mind, your
conscience.” CBS is owned by Viacom, which also owns MTV, the
broadcaster of the concerts.
   Â
CNN was almost as overt. More than one third of its poverty stories
(36 percent) echoed MacVicar’s comment. Anchor Carol Lin and
reporter Mallika Kapur emphasized Geldof’s public relations ploy by
claiming the concerts weren’t about money. On CNN’s “Saturday
Night,” July 2, 2005, Lin referred to the concerts “to call
attention to the world’s poor.” She added, “Their goal, to raise
awareness about the crushing debt and trade laws that help keep
African nations in poverty.” Kapur added a line nearly ripped right
from a Live 8 press release about Geldof: “Instead of asking for
money, he’s asking the world leaders to wipe out poverty.” How? With
billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded aid, of course.
   Â
Many stories agreed that corruption has been a problem in Africa and
has limited the effectiveness of aid efforts. On CNN’s “Your World
Today,” July 4, 2005: reporter Jeff Koinage explained that “billions
of dollars in aid have been siphoned.” He went on to say that the
head of the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission “puts
that figure at more than $20 billion. Of course, the ultimate
victims of this rampant corruption are ordinary Nigerians.” Koinage
left out the western taxpayers whose leaders, according to the
report, “had just agreed in principle to forgive two-thirds of
Nigeria’s debt. That comes to about $18 billion.” The remaining $17
billion “may be forgiven by the end of the year.”
   Â
Forgiving African debt was discussed on CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight,”
on July 6, 2005. Anchor Kitty Pilgrim launched into a new refrain:
“Protesters are out to pressure the G-8 on aid to Africa, but is
more money for failed and corrupt African states really the answer?”
   Â
She “answered” that question by interviewing Charles Kupchan, of the
Council on Foreign Relations, who proceeded to criticize the United
States for its funding levels but pointed out that trying to cut
down on corruption made sense. However, Kupchan never questioned the
massive funding going to Africa.
 Meet the Press … Release
   Â
The June 1, 2005, Live 8 press release was headlined “Bob Geldof
Launches Live 8 – ‘The Long Walk To Justice.’” On the July 5, 2005,
broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning,” reporter Paula Hancocks
didn’t just repeat the sentiment, but the headline: “I’m here in
Murrayfield Stadium, where the protests will actually end. This is
the end of the long walk to justice.”
   Â
The Live 8 press release continued: “Here’s The News... This is not
a charity event. The concerts will be FREE. They are not
fund-raisers but rallying points for the largest political
constituency ever mobilised to call for justice for Africa and the
world’s poor.”
   Â
The July 2, 2005, NBC “Today” show report looked quite similar.
Reporter Janet Shamlian had this to say, “Unlike Live Aid 20 years
ago, no fund-raising, instead raising awareness of poverty in
Africa.”
   Â
News people didn’t just promote the event; they relied on phrases
spouted by concerts organizers or found in various Live 8 press
releases. The concerts weren’t part of a fund-raiser; they were
“raising awareness” as part of Africa’s “long walk to justice.”
   Â
American Online teamed up with Live 8 to broadcast the concerts. An
AOL press release about the concerts from June 16, 2005, used the
“raise awareness” comment two weeks before NBC. “Live 8 will feature
concerts in five cities – Philadelphia, London, Paris, Berlin and
Rome – to raise awareness around the world to help eliminate poverty
in Africa by encouraging the G8 nations to eliminate debt, increase
aid and adopt fair trade practices.” Another release by Nokia, a
concert sponsor, used the phrase in a quote from one of its own
executives.
   Â
On the July 2, 2005, broadcast of CNN’s “Dolans Unscripted,”
reporter Monita Rajpal continued the reliance on Live 8 talking
points. “Of course, all of this is to raise awareness. And last
time, 20 years ago, Live Aid was all about raising money, raising
funds for famine-stricken Ethiopia.”
   Â
That night, on the “NBC Nightly News,” Ron Allen used another press
release phrase. “That event 20 years ago was for money.” He added,
“Today, they say, is for justice.” Of course, Allen immediately
contradicted the statement by explaining: “Specifically, Live 8
calls for rich nations to erase more than $200 billion in African
debt. They want aid doubled and better trade deals for Africa.”
   Â
Occasionally, even on CNN, reporters broke from the pack and
explained the reality of the Live 8 events. Carol Costello did just
that on CNN’s “Daybreak” on July 1, 2005. “The purpose, of course,
is to raise money to help Africa. Unlike other charity concerns,
this effort is focused on getting rich nations to pledge aid, rather
than relying on your donations.”
America the Cheap
   Â
U2 singer and concert promoter Paul “Bono” Hewson summed up the
media approach to American foreign aid in an interview on ABC’s
“World News Tonight,” June 30, 2005. “I’m, as a, as a personality,
always going to be disappointed with the numbers. I think America
should give more.” Bono repeated his sentiment on the July 8, 2005,
CNN “Showbiz Tonight” explaining, “it’s never going to be enough for
me.”
   Â
Twenty-three stories (19 percent) made reference to limited U.S. aid
even though America gives more foreign aid than any other nation in
the world. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development, the United States has given more than $47 billion
(in constant 2002 dollars) in Official Development Assistance to
sub-Saharan Africa from 1960 through 2003. That didn’t stop CNN from
saying “the U.S. budget is quite low in terms of foreign aid,” as it
did on July 2, 2005.
   Â
The story of America’s generosity doesn’t end with public funding.
Yet, there was only one passing comment alluding to the billions of
dollars donated though American charities out of 121 stories on all
five networks. On ABC’s “World News Tonight,” July 2, 2005, Terry
Moran urged viewers to go to the network Web site to find “more on
the fight against global poverty, including the effort of U.S.
churches to help.”
   Â
That was the only reference. A June 2005 report from the Hudson
Institute revealed that private U.S. donors gave at least $62
billion to developing countries in 2003. That was three-and-a-half
times the total of Official Development Assistance the U.S.
government handed
out that year.
   Â
Despite that information, reporters relied largely on one measure of
African aid – percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That
number doesn’t take into account either charitable assistance or
military aid. Journalists used this number to claim that the U.S.
gives less than other nations, when, in reality, the U.S. gives more
because its GDP is so high.
   Â
On “NBC Nightly News,” July 6, 2005, Kelly O’Donnell admitted U.S.
donations were the highest, but stressed criticism of those numbers.
“The president can rightly claim the U.S. gives the most money in
actual dollars. But more revealing, critics say, is the U.S. gives
the smallest percentage of its wealth than any of the countries
here.”
   Â
Reporter Ron Allen took the same attitude three days earlier on the
same newscast. “Critics say smaller European countries still spend a
higher percentage of their income helping Africa.” To emphasize this
point, Allen interviewed Patrick Watt of Actionaid UK, a British
development organization that later came out and criticized even the
huge increase in funding that resulted from the G-8 conference.
Unsurprisingly, Watt downplayed U.S. contributions: “I don’t think
it’s as major as perhaps the U.S. administration have … have spun it
as being. It’s, it’s quite small money in real terms.”
   Â
When that wasn’t enough, the networks always had celebrities to make
the complaint. CNN’s “Morning News” of July 2, 2005, the same day as
Live 8, showed concert organizer and co-founder of the Def Jam music
label Russell Simmons quick to criticize American generosity.
“Americans’ perception that they give so much is wrong.”
   Â
Twelve of CNN’s stories made the point about low American aid, but
none more clearly than the July 2, 2005, special “Can We Save Them?”
Christiane Amanpour repeated the criticism. She asked British Prime
Minister Tony Blair about American foreign aid funding levels: “How
will you do it if the United States does not move up to 0.7? And
there is no indication that it will, and President Bush is being
quite firm on that.” She followed up this question by describing the
African situation as “poverty that kills, that literally kills.”
   Â
Amanpour criticized plans to link funding with reform designed at
curtailing corruption. “Is it fair to hold people who are dying
every day because they live on less than $1 a day, is it fair to
hold them accountable to their bad governments?” She continued: “Do
you think that if people in America, which pays 0.1 percent, or
people of England or Europe, who pay by now in the region of 0.3 or
0.4, do you think if people knew how little in fact their
governments do pay for foreign aid, that they would come around to
supporting their governments when they want to increase that?”
   Â
While “Can We Save Them?” was promoting the Live 8 concerts, in
turn, it used that notoriety to promote a film by HBO, “which is
also owned by CNN’s parent company, Time Warner.” Amanpour described
the film: “At first glance, it looks like a love story, but in fact,
it is a powerful political wake-up call. The girl in this movie asks
one of the key questions of 2005: Will this be the year the world
finally gets serious about saving Africa?” CNN then showed more than
five-and-a-half minutes of clips from the film including a woman
from the film making this point: “I don’t believe for a moment that
people in our country wouldn’t want you to represent their interest
if you were doing it instead of talking about saving the lives of
millions and millions of children.”
A Billion Here, A Billion There
   Â
Numbers are the backbone of solid financial reporting. The networks
rattled off a wide variety of numbers in their Live 8 and G-8
coverage – some for debt relief, some for aid, even some for
specific U.S. programs. There was little consistency on how much aid
left-wing activists wanted for Africa. Numbers ranged from a couple
billion to $200 billion or $300 billion and included little
explanation.
   Â
CNN’s Aaron Brown summarized the scope of the problem on the July 6,
2005, “Newsnight with Aaron Brown.” “Senator Everett Dirkson of
Illinois famously said, a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon
you’re talking about real money. But maybe not enough for Africa, a
continent with a lot of everything: diamonds and disease, people and
poverty.”
   Â
Reporter Ron Allen summed up the desires of activists with his July
2, 2005, “NBC Nightly News” report. “Specifically, Live 8 calls for
rich nations to erase more than $200 billion in African debt. They
want aid doubled and better trade deals for Africa.”
   Â
Viewers of NBC were likely confused when “Today’s” Lester Holt
explained the next morning that Geldof’s goal was “to squeeze $25
billion in African aid out of next week’s Group of Eight summit in
Scotland.” Journalists didn’t expound on aid increases, debt
forgiveness or the difference between the two. They also failed to
explain that there are different types of aid, such as humanitarian
aid and development assistance.
   Â
At CNN, the network mixed its numbers between $25 billion and $50
billion. On the July 8, 2005 broadcast of “CNN Live Today,” reporter
Robin Oakley chose the $50 billion number when talking about the
decisions of the summit referring to “A $50 billion boost in aid.”
Just six days before, CNN reporter Betty Nguyen had given the other
number on the network’s “Saturday Morning.” “Now, this effort is $25
billion by the year 2010.”
   Â
Compared to ABC, CNN’s approach was easy to understand. ABC
referenced six different billion-dollar numbers in just two weeks.
Viewers were confronted with everything from $1 billion to $50
billion. The July 6, 2005, “Good Morning America” actually cited
President Bush saying “I can’t give the $25 billion that Tony Blair
wants.” Later in that broadcast, George Stephanopoulos added that
G-8 leaders had agreed to $40 billion in debt relief for Africa.
   Â
The June 30, 2005, “World News Tonight” had chosen far lower
numbers. In an interview with Bono, Bob Woodruff said “You’ve said
before that another billion dollars from the U.S. could save a
million lives. But another $4 billion could change the world. Is
that what you’re pushing for now?”
   Â
No matter what numbers the networks predicted, CBS reporter Allen
Pizzey predicted they wouldn’t be reached. On “The Early Show,” July
5, 2005: Pizzey explained, “The G-8 leaders will be hoping that
protesters and everyone else will be so caught up in rock ‘n’ roll
goodwill and diplomatic rhetoric that they won’t notice how little
is actually achieved here.”
   Â
Of course, he was proven wrong when the G-8 nations agreed to
increase their aid to Africa – adding $25 billion, to bring the
total to $50 billion by 2010.
   Â
Broadcasters couldn’t even come up with accurate numbers for the
Live 8 TV audience. Those estimates were as low as the millions or
as high as more than five billion. Actual ratings for U.S.
broadcasts of Live 8 were atrocious. According to The Washington
Post article, “In Ratings, Live 8 Was Dead Weight for ABC,” “NBC's
coverage of the rain delay of NASCAR's Pepsi 400 in the same time
period drew nearly double the audience.” The overall audience for
the concerts was just more than 5 million for three networks – ABC,
MTV and VH1.
‘Fair Trade’ Not Free Trade
   Â
On “CNN Live Today,” July 5, 2005, anchor Daryn Kagan detailed what
activists were seeking: “debt relief, free trade – more free trade
and doubling of international aid.” Andrew Natsios, director of the
US Agency for International Development, explained: “The World Bank
estimates that if we had a free trading system, we could increase
the incomes of poor countries by up to $300 billion a year – a huge
amount of money that would really lift hundreds of millions of
people out of poverty.”
   Â
Natsios showed that the U.S. aid budget had increased 500 percent
faster than the European aid budget. “And when the president took
office, the total aid budget for the U.S. government, for foreign
aid, was $10 billion. Last year, it was $19 billion. We expect it
will be somewhere in the order of $24 billion this year.”
   Â
While the networks emphasized “ending poverty,” reports rarely
explained the causes of African poverty or the benefits of
trade-related economic solutions. CNN “Morning News” July 2, 2005,
reporter Paula Hancocks said “They want fair trade.”
   Â
What was meant by “fair trade” was never really explained in any of
the broadcasts. According to the
Live 8 Web site, fixing trade isn’t a problem. “It's
simple really, change the rules. Now.” The site advocated using
“trade rules to end world poverty as we know it.” Visitors were
directed to the site for Make Poverty History to learn more. There,
various short essays criticized price supports used in the
industrial world. Rather than argue for free trade, the site
advocated “fair trade” or another set of price supports that aids
third world nations by setting minimum prices for goods purchased
from those nations.
   Â
Fixing Africa’s trade deficiencies isn’t really that simple. Dr.
Roger Bate, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute,
has written extensively on poverty and African aid. Trading with
rich Western nations would be a great help to African economies,
Bate said. However, tariffs between African nations are sometimes
higher than those blocking trade between Africa and the west.
   Â
Even if trade barriers were removed, that wouldn’t provide much
immediate aid, said Dr. Marian Tupy, assistant director of the Cato
Institute’s Project on Global Economic Liberty. “Africa produces
very little,” he explained. In order to increase production, African
nations need peace, impartial court systems, private property rights
and infrastructure. Tupy said governments own significant amounts of
land and often control shipping, making it difficult to do business
in many countries.
Opposing Voices Seldom Heard
   Â
Few opposition voices were heard amidst the clamor of the Live 8
song and dance. Only 16 stories out of 121 included any dissenting
view about the African poverty situation. Many of those were lone
comments in the midst of much longer broadcasts extolling the
virtues of aid.
   Â
One of the most vocal and informed critics was “Dolans Unscripted”
co-host Ken Dolan of CNN, who dared to ask tough questions about
increased African aid. On the July 2, 2005, show, Dolan dared to
criticize the theme of the day: “Mozambique, roughly 50 percent of
the national income of that country is aid. Others are in that 25 –
many in the 25 to 30 percent. Throwing money at a country may, in
fact, discourage foreign investors, discourage individual
incentive.” Dolan added: “Where’s the $450 billion gone we put over
there, we, the world, has put over there in the last generation.
Where the hell is it all?”
   Â
While discouraging words were hard to find, there were a few. CBS’s
“Early Show,” July 2, 2005, interviewed David Rieff, author of “At
the Point of a Gun” and a humanitarian policy analyst. Rieff pointed
out flaws in the original Live Aid execution. “The first Live Aid
collaborated with one of the worst governments in African
history….the Mengistu government. [in Ethiopia] They helped a lot of
people survive. They also helped the government kill a lot of people
– not intentionally, but that was the actual effect.”
   Â
Lt. Col. Mengistu Haile Mariam is wanted in his native Ethiopia for
the crime of genocide. According to a Dec. 28, 1999, BBC report,
“Thousands of people were killed by Mr Mengistu's Dergue regime
during the period now known as the Red Terror Campaign.”
   Â
Although one Live 8 concert featured an Ethiopian survivor assisted
by the original Live Aid concert, the problems of Ethiopia received
little attention. CBS reporter Tracy Smith gave rare voice to such
criticisms on “The Early Show,” July 1, 2005. “Now you know there
are naysayers out there who say Live Aid 20 years ago raised a lot
of money, but look what happened. Two years ago, there was another
famine in Ethiopia. Nothing really changed.”
   Â
Some of the most critical comments came from the audience. CNN’s
“Showbiz Tonight,” on July 6, 2005, solicited viewer feedback on
Live 8. “But Barry from Georgia writes ‘Celebrities do not belong
there. They should stop telling my government how to spend my money
and spend theirs instead.”
   Â
The July 4, 2005, broadcast of CNN’s “Your World Today,” showed the
attitude also appeared in Britain as one unidentified male
explained: “The vast majority of the British population, they are
fed up. They are tired with aid to Africa. They believe Africa
should address its problems.”
   Â
By limiting dissent, network stories glossed over the complexity of
African poverty. Journalists could have turned to experts such as
the American Enterprise Institute’s Bate, who said of Ethiopia,
“Humanitarian food aid is one thing. Writing off debt for a country
that is basically following Marxist policies is another.” He also
gave the example of Zimbabwe, where rule of law and property rights
were destroyed, sending the economy into a downward spiral.
   Â
Another expert who could have been consulted was the Cato
Institute’s Tupy who explained that development aid won’t do any
good until African nations change the way they are governed. “I
think that money’s completely wasted.” Both Tupy and Bate could have
brought perspective to the effectiveness of humanitarian aid as
opposed to development assistance.
Global Warming Hot Air
   Â
Live 8 had the world dancing to its tune of African poverty, but the
G-8 meeting also addressed the issue of global warming. The
disparity in coverage between these events showed the marketing
power of the mega concerts. The networks reported on African poverty
more than three times as often (115 stories compared to 37 stories.)
as they did on global warming, though both issues were high on the
G-8 agenda.
   Â
Walter Rodgers, CNN’s senior international correspondent, painted an
apocalyptic picture on the July 5, 2005, “Lou Dobbs Tonight:” “Polar
ice caps retreating at an alarming rate. Oceans heating up,
expanding, threatening coastal cities. More than a few species, even
humans, may be threatened by climate change. Blame itself, however,
is flourishing.”
   Â
Blame was indeed flourishing. In eight of 37 global warming stories,
the networks blamed President Bush for keeping America out of the
Kyoto treaty on climate change. “The agreement known as the Kyoto
protocol went into effect in February, but the Bush administration
has steadfastly refused to sign on,” Rodgers went on to say.
   Â
Only Fox News reported the full story. On the July 8, 2005, “Special
Report with Brit Hume,” Jim Angle explained what happened at the G-8
conference. “[T]hey also inched forward on climate change language.
Now, President Bush made clear he didn’t want to go too far on that,
nor does anyone else in the U.S. If you look back at the latter days
of the Clinton administration when the Senate voted 95-0 to tell
President Clinton not to send that treaty up to the hill because it
would not pass…” That unanimous vote against Kyoto included former
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.),
although that was never discussed in any of the reports.
   Â
That didn’t stop the network from repeating the blame game in three
of its seven stories on the topic. Fox News did a better job on the
economic issues related to the Kyoto treaty, explaining that signing
on would have harmed the U.S. economy. The July 8, 2005, “Special
Report with Brit Hume,” made the point, but with typical TV news
spin. Fox’s Chief White House Correspondent Carl Cameron made one of
the common mistakes explaining the dangers of Kyoto. Cameron
presented economic facts as the opinions of the president. “Mr. Bush
argues Kyoto was flawed for not including developing nations and
would have cost the U.S. jobs.”
   Â
In the eight years since Kyoto was tentatively agreed to, there have
been several economic surveys about its impact on the United States.
These reports estimated signing the accord could cost the U.S more
than $400 billion per year. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration also predicted Kyoto would cause widespread
employment loss nationwide ranging from 1.1 million to 4.9 million
jobs. Those predictions didn’t come from Bush; they came from the
U.S. government in 1998 – during the Clinton administration.
   Â
News coverage of climate change has been one-sided for years. The
latest coverage mirrored results found in another Free Market
Project analysis:
“Destroying America To Save The World.” That study found similar
problems. “For nearly four years, network news programs have
presented a skewed view of global warming and the Kyoto treaty that
liberal environmentalists claim would cure it. Those same newscasts
have all-but ignored the negative economic consequences that
ratifying Kyoto would have on the U.S. The network coverage also
largely ignored scientific evidence questioning global warming
theory, while touting dramatic claims of liberal environmental
activists.”
A Detailed Analysis of Network Coverage
   Â
The Media Research Center’s Free Market Project (FMP) analyzed all
TV news and news-related programs on the five major networks – ABC,
CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News – for a two-week span leading up to the
Live 8 concerts and ending just after the conclusion of the G-8
meeting. This analysis covered June 27 through July 10, 2005, and
included 121 stories that focused on the concerts or on the issues
of African aid or climate change, which topped the summit agenda.
   Â
FMP researchers tracked coverage of the two events, setting aside
casual mentions that included President Bush’s travel. G-8 stories
relating solely to terrorism were also excluded from the analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
   Â
Network coverage of the Live 8 concerts and the G-8 conference was
so skewed that veteran reporters found themselves competing with
celebrity activists over who could make the most positive comments.
The result wasn’t journalism, it was marketing.
   Â
Celebrity pitchmen and reporters repeated the false claim that
American foreign aid is “low” and ignored not only the total amount
of U.S. contributions, but also billions of dollars in private
donations.
   Â
Network news shows gave air time to any argument about increased
taxpayer-funded aid to Africa, even when it came from the richest
man in the world. The July 5, 2005, “CBS Morning News” ran a clip of
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates urging nations to contribute to Africa
without noting the irony. “Well, if the resources are given by the
rich countries, lives can be saved,” he said.
   Â
Will the Live 8 approach to solving Africa’s problems work? It’s too
early to tell, but it is obvious that the networks rarely even
entertained the question. And that is even more amazing because
Africa has declined so precipitously since the first Live Aid
concert.
   Â
The carefully orchestrated events of Live 8 make the job of
journalists that much more difficult. To help with that concern,
here are some recommendations for better coverage:
-
Look Critically at Major Events: Journalists cover the news only;
they aren’t intended to be cheerleaders. That means that charities
and major fund-raising events need to be analyzed with a critical
eye. In this case, that would have meant a critical assessment of
the successes and failures of the Live Aid events.
-
Cover Both Sides of an Issue: This
recommendation shouldn’t be necessary, but the
Live 8 reporting was so slanted that the few critical voices were
either given little time or marginalized. There were numerous
experts who questioned the viability of aid to Africa, but the media
gave them little time.
-
Don’t Treat Africa as One Nation: Africa is a continent, not a
nation. There are 53 nations within the continent and that means 53
separate governments, business climates and problems. Journalists
need to go beyond the news shorthand and explain to readers that
some African nations are doing the right things to lift their
citizens out of poverty, while others are doing their best to limit
opportunity.
-
Focus
on the Issue at Hand: Clearly, African poverty was the issue
behind both Live 8 and the G-8 conference. All too often,
journalists got wrapped up in the petty details of the concerts
while ignoring the major problems that the event was trying to
address. An issue as complex as African poverty has multiple causes
and no simple solution.
|