When we compare the effect of weapons of mass destruction and mass media, many people argue that the former is more destructive than the latter.

Although this argument has some realty in it, there are objective realities where destruction by mass media outweigh destructions by weapons of mass destruction. If so, why is the international community anxious of weapons of mass destruction while it is propping up calamitous media?

The shattering effects of media could be seen from the perspectives of its little contribution to solidarity, peace and development. Unless media work is in line with poor nations and their development partners, its disparaging effect is inevitable.

It is clear that poor countries like Ethiopia, in collaboration with their development partners, industrialized countries and non-governmental international organizations, are working day in and out to pull them out of the quagmire of poverty, to fight disease such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. It is also evident that development partners are also channeling a great deal of assistance. Despite all these efforts, the media are playing adverse games on the developing nations that they hardly practice Development Journalism (DJ).

We have learned from past experiences that the media affects the totality of social, economic and political situations in a country if it is used improperly. It aggravates conflict, jeopardizes development, and distorts value systems. However, there is room for media to help poor nations in implementing their development strategies. DJ is a matter of fact. It helps nations implement strategies, policies, alleviate poverty, fight diseases, control environmental degradation, enhance productivity and promote good governance and democracy.

DJ is badly needed by African countries like Ethiopia in order to fight their arch-foe: poverty. Covering development stories of poor nations could foster solidarity, create harmony and reduce differences among people. It can also help to ensure lasting peace, stability, sustainable economic progress and national integration. However, current practices of covering development stories are insignificant. A mini-research has been conducted to confirm this idea.

The samples for the study are collected from Voice of America (VOA), Deutsche Welle (DW), British Broadcast Corporation (BBC), Radio France International (RFI), Reuters and Agence France Press (AFP). A total of 168 reports, covered from October 8 up to November 8, 2007 with reference to Ethiopia, have consulted.

Media

Type

Total reports

Negative report

Developmental report

VOA(Amharic + English)

47(61.04%)

30(38.96%)

77

DW(Amharic + English)

19 (57.58%)

14 (42.42%)

33

BBC

4( 21.05%)

15 (78.95%)

19

RFI

1( 20%)

4( 80%)

5

Reuters

10 (52.63%)

9(47.37%)

19

AFP

4(26.67%)

11 (73.33%)

15

DW and VOA gave much airtime to Ethiopian issues as they transmit in two languages: Amharic and English. This concern of covering stories from Ethiopia in both local and international languages could help in introducing the country's overall situation to the rest of the world. But the type of coverage is a matter of contention. VOA and DW covered 61.04 and 57.58 per cent negative stories respectively, which obviously could deter development efforts and escalate conflicts; whereas RFI, BBC and AFP covered 20, 21.05 and 26.67 per cent negative stories respectively, which is by far better than the two media.

On one hand, this is an indication of how development journalism is dying in the hands of media in developed and democratic countries. On the other hand, it could indicate the existence of lack of objectivity, accuracy and fairness, which could put the media themselves in an implausible position. This ill-practice of DJ could denounce the ethics of journalism. People may ask why media in developed countries exhaustively work in such an adverse way. Answers for this question may vary; but one of the reasons could be lack of interest in the development, stability and peace of the country. Failure of the reporters in sticking to objectivity could be another reason.

No matter what the reason might be, this kind of media coverage takes Ethiopia nowhere. Rather it adds fuel to the instability and insecurity of the country. Besides, it paves the way for conflict among the people. This is when it is analyzed from Ethiopian's perspective. These media need to understand that this kind of unfairness is also disadvantageous for them because it erodes their credibility.

Another bone of contention is the contents of their reports. According to the data observed, political coverage surpasses to both social and economic coverage.

Media

Content

Total

Political

Economic

Social

VOA

62 (80.05%)

3 (3.9%)

12 (15.6%)

77

DW

24 (72.73%)

2 (6.06%)

7 (21.21%)

33

BBC

15(78.95%)

1(5.26%)

3 (15.78%)

19

RFI

4 (80%)

1(20%)

5

Reuters

15 (78.95%)

1(6.67%)

3 (15.79%)

19

AFP

11 (73.33%)

1 (6.67%)

3(20%)

15

The interest of media in politics rather than economy and social issues of a country could jeopardize development plans as they usually propagate differences. If differences are unwisely propagated and aggravated, they may result in catastrophe. It is paradoxical that media that belong to development partner countries: the United States of America, Germany, the United Kingdom and France, irresponsibly covered destructive political stories at a larger scale.

A question to be forwarded to such media or their mongers is "whether it is fair and ethical to work from dawn to dusk to cut the claws of a country making efforts to pull itself out of poverty, enhance democracy and good governance?" No, not by a long chalk! It is really fact denial. Many people say they are listening news because they need to update themselves. So, they want to get accurate and objective reports; otherwise, they began to see the media along with its reporting and programs as somewhat fiction. It is, therefore, crucial for international and local media to report accurate and developmental news as possible. Besides, they had better work in line with development efforts of poor nations instead of mercilessly attacking the overall efforts in poverty reduction.