The U.S. Media and International Conflict Coverage

Last year, a top official in Chechnya reported an estimated 160,000 people dead or missing as a result of conflicts between Russia and Chechnya.

The three major U.S. networks spent a total of three minutes of last year's coverage on that crisis, a clear indication of why Chechnya topped the list of the ten most under-reported stories of 2005 compiled by Doctors Without Borders.

The state of regions such as Chechnya are far from lacking in qualities of newsworthiness, however, what is lacking is the industry that makes it news.

With a region in conflict for decades and instability a norm, US media coverage is at an all-time low.

While well-respected media organizations abroad, such as the British Broadcasting Network, have picked up on the crisis in the war-torn region, US media is lagging far behind as its coverage focuses primarily on the US war in Iraq.

Because the US itself has little involvement in the conflict in the Chechen region, the US media finds little reason to devote funds to covering the struggle.

To many, such logic would make sense. With little connection to a conflict, why would an entire industry devote millions to bring a story to a disengaged public?

According to some, the answer is of moral regard.

"My own sense is that ... if there are no national interests involved, the media treatment of a crisis can be important," said Thomas Weiss, associate director of the Watson Institute for International Studies. "On the other hand, if there are national interests involved, the media coverage of a crisis is irrelevant to what a government might do. It is those areas where nothing is at stake that the media have the greatest potential for helping those in need."

Statistically, media coverage of humanitarian crises has served as a catalyst for action amongst aid groups and even individuals who are moved by the images and stories relayed.

By neglecting coverage of international crises, the US media gate keeps not only important and relevant news, but essentially, potential aid.

News organizations have argued that coverage of international crises is limited due to costs.

Weiss however, feels as though the issues of coverage are based on more than merely logistical factors, "It also seems that we have a tolerance for one crisis at a time." He continued with the example of the simultaneous crisis in Liberia and the Gulf War. Because of US involvement and focus in the Gulf War, the situation in Liberia fell by the wayside and as a result, received no attention until the region was out of control and the situation seemingly helpless.

History truly does have a way of repeating itself.

A similar, but not exact, parallel can be found today in regards to Iraq and the issues still occurring in Chechnya.

With over 160,000 people dead or missing, and many more dying, homeless and hungry, what is the situation in the war-torn region and what are its origins?

History of the Conflict

The conflict in Chechnya stems back to the 1800's. In the 1830's Czar Nicholas invaded Caucasus where he meet fierce resistance, but it wasn't until 1859 that Russia was able to conquer and incorporate the state into its empire. In 1923, Bolshevik troops occupied Dagestan and divided the region.

It was in 1944 that Stalin deported thousands of Chechens to Siberia and Kazakhstan under the suspicion that they were collaborating with Germany. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, allowing 14 regions to become independent nations. Dzhokhar Dudayev was elected president of Chechnya and as president declared Chechnya an independent nation. However, Russian President Boris Yeltsin refused to recognize Chechnya as an independent nation, sending troops into the region.

Throughout 1994 Chechnya continued its assertion of independence. Russia invaded Chechnya, thus beginning one of the bloodiest wars in recent memory. Just a year later, 10,000 Russian troops occupied Grozny and President Dudayev was killed by a Russian rocket. Though 10,000 troops occupied Grozny, a total force number of Russians reached 45,000. Uncountable numbers of Chechens were taken hostage.

1996 came with retaliation as Chechens launched a major counteroffensive using 5,000 troops in Gronzy. Russians agreed to a ceasefire. Yeltsin then ordered troops to withdraw from Chechnya. There were 70,000 people left dead after that conflict alone.

In 1999, Russian troops recaptured breakaway areas of Dagestan and Yeltsin sent 100,000 Russian troops into Chechnya. The Russian occupation of the region resulted in 250,000 Chechen refugees.

After a major seizure of a Moscow theater by Chechen rebels, and their deaths along with 100 hostages, Chechens voted in a referendum that approved a new regional constitution. This constitution however, meant that Chechnya was agreeing to give up its claims for independence. This, however, did not stop the violence.

In 2004, Russian appointed Chechen president Akhmad Kadyrov was killed in a bombing and six others were killed with 60 others left wounded.

Since then heavy warfare had broken out leaving thousands of dead and wounded and hundreds more without homes.

Chechnya Today

Sources today on the conflict in Chechnya are limited. The most recent articles and broadcasts found on the leading US media site date back to 2003. Few articles of consequence relay updated information on the situation in the region and even fewer supply accurate counts of dead or injured.

In a Boston Globe article by Catherine S. Osgood, a Harvard graduate of Russian and Eurasian Studies, Osgood described her experience disguised as a Chechen woman and living as a citizen, "It's a place of total lawlessness," she said, "...where men and guns rule, and human life carries little value."

The situation today is one of limitless human rights violations and numerous war crimes. Instead of going checked, these atrocities are used by the military itself as tactics of war. As a result of such abuses, more than half of the Chechen population has been killed or driven into exile.

Horrific crimes are being committed by the Russian troops, and are known occurrences, even documented. The American government, alongside many European counterparts, has ignored the conflict under the pretense of the "war on terror."

Former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzenziki discussed the issue of ignoring the war in Chechnya at a government meeting on the region, saying, "We're not dealing with indifference. We're not dealing with ignorance. We're dealing with tactical expediency." He continued on to say that following the events of September 11th, it was decided that it was better to "sweep this issue under the rug, even though we know better."

Though the US government itself has decided to set the issue on the back burners, the conflict in Chechnya has continued to burst into flames.

With a region so dangerous to live in, where war crimes are used as war tactics, few media organizations are willing to send their journalists to a region where there is a slim chance of survival and kidnapping is just short of being expected.

News media is made by stories that change, stories in the works, and stories that need consistent updates. Though Chechnya has the makings of a viable news story in its conflict, human interest, and international significance, it remains a story of seemingly no change.

For decades cameras have caught the same thing: Lawlessness, upheaval, death, destruction and insurmountable anguish have lined the few articles and broadcasts discussing the region.

Scott Peterson, a foreign correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor discussed the issues that journalists, like him, faced while covering international crises at a 2000 conference hosted by the United States Institute of Peace. "There are a lot of stories that are so rarely covered, and also that are very rarely covered well," he said.

When discussing how stories of foreign conflict were chosen by editors of US media Peterson commented, "...the equation is always something like, one dead American, in terms of a headline, is the equivalent of a handful of dead Europeans, which is the equivalent of maybe hundreds of dead Africans."

This striking commentary on why many international conflicts where US involvement is not present, is overlooked.

A classic, yet disturbing example is that of Rwanda, Peterson noted.

Having covered the genocide himself, he recalled how the US media lagged in covering the event because it regarded the issue as one of minimal consequence rooted in historic tribal warfare.

The genocide in Rwanda is now known to be one of the most gruesome events in history.

"Whether there were ten thousand dead or a hundred thousand dead, that really didn't factor," Peterson recalled. "There were other issues at work and unless you literally had one or two peace keepers killed, it didn't merit front page coverage."

Peterson also commented on his editors shying away from material they viewed as "old" or "overdone."

An example of such, he said, was the sanctions placed on Iraq. At first there were updated and prominent stories documenting the deaths caused by the sanctions but as time passed the stories lessened.

When Peterson asked to reintroduce the story, his editors turned it down, classifying it as old news, even though, Peterson said, the number of deaths caused by the sanctions was at an all time high.

Many factors play a role in what international conflicts are covered, but the most prominent is timeliness.

Unfortunately war, famine and destruction are not issues that rise and fall at the rate of media interest.

Regions like Chechnya are increasingly at a disadvantage. The longer the conflict rages, it becomes seemingly less newsworthy, and until something of unthinkable devastation occurs to bring it to the forefront of coverage, US media cameras will continue to pan away to a different shot.

Decades have passed and the news of Chechnya is the same as it was years upon years ago. Constant bloodshed is not new to the region. War crimes have been practiced since the beginning of the conflict. Pain and suffering is a norm for the Chechen people.

Perhaps the question is no longer why coverage is no more, but rather, what more is left to be covered.