Spotting discrimination, polarisation and propaganda are important functions of the media. But to do that, journalists must be able to recognise them.
Rwandans used to make a habit of recording radio programmes on cassette tapes. It is in this way that many programmes of the infamous propaganda stations RTLM and Radio Rwanda were documented. The stories they broadcast sowed suspicion, fear and hatred against the Tutsi minority, thus their instrumental role in the 1994 genocide.[1]
Those radio stations are long gone, and their collaborators were sentenced to long prison terms. [2][3] However, the myths they produced have outlived them.[4] These days, they are being recycled as the "real" truth about the genocide against the Tutsi. Activists affiliated with the genocidal regime do so, but regular journalists do it as well. For a decade or so, we increasingly find the thirty-year-old myths at public broadcasters in Belgium[5] and the Netherlands, and in the books of internationally renowned journalists.[6] The 1994 propaganda has not yet lost its persuasive quality.
The media's blind spot was best articulated by the Belgian newspaper De Morgen, where a journalist mistook an old hate radio story for "critical questions" by the colleague who recycled it.[7] As embarrassing as the gaffe was, the newspaper refused to correct it. This is remarkable because the original story was easy to find.
After the genocide, historians and researchers from human rights organisations and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) collected the tapes of hate radio broadcasts.[8] The transcripts are available, including in French and English translations. [9] Guidance is offered in the publications of scholars who have analysed the texts.[10] But even without this knowledge, one might be able to recognise them.
When a journalist suggests that the Interahamwe militia - the killing machine of the Hutu extremists - was made up of two-thirds Tutsi rebels,[11] you don't necessarily need to know that in 1994 'large-scale infiltration' and 'collective suicide' were popular themes of the genocidal propaganda. Just ask yourself why the Tutsis would want to exterminate each other, or who defeated the government army if the rebels were busy killing their kin far away from the battlefield.
Today, the old propaganda is mixed with genuine criticism of the current rulers in Kigali. As long as they are intertwined and form a single package - a book by a lauded journalist, for instance[12] - conspiracy theories and falsifications of history sound just as plausible as justified criticism. But what if one does make the effort to study the radio transcripts and scholarly sources and ends up recognising the myths? How to communicate them to the media that overlooked them?
Not so difficult, you might think. You just send them the documentation, refer to scientific research and name some experts from universities who can explain it. Then the editors can check the information, see the light and rectify their errors. With any luck, they are less likely to fall into the same trap afterwards. But unfortunately, journalism doesn't work like that.
I once sent fragments of eight hate radio programmes that showed the entire development of a myth that the journalist in question mistook for a historical truth. With the help of specialised scientists in the Netherlands and England, I investigated whether there could be a kernel of truth in the story,[13] but that proved not to be the case.
It couldn't be much clearer. But instead of correcting the mistake, I was treated to ad hominem attacks in a newspaper[14] and on social media. I allegedly spread propaganda myself in the service of Kigali. I'm not the only one who experienced such a response. French historians who in June criticised the Rwanda Classified project for defending notorious genocide deniers and extremists were immediately accused of "blind adoration for the Kagame regime. Apparently, the bifurcation fallacy is needed to be able to rationalise sloppy research.[15]
So, disinformation in the media not only depends on an unwillingness to check facts but also on a gap between rationality and gullibility. From the perspective of a binary thinker, the world is comfortably simple. Everybody is one thing or the other: for or against, us or them, this or that. Facts no longer matter. Before you know it, you equate self-proclaimed terrorists[16] and notorious genocide deniers[17] with sincere critics and genuine dissidents.[18] If someone claims otherwise, they automatically belong to the other side, so you won't have to take them seriously.
However, cognitive dissonance[19] and shutting yourself off from documented facts will not reduce your receptivity to propaganda. And what kind of ideas are you burdening the public with then? Journalists may continue wondering how genocides keep happening, but as long as they keep publishing the same myths as the extremist radio stations in Rwanda did in 1994, the answer is already given.
References
[1] https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/hrw/1995/en/93542
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Ruggiu
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines
[4] https://kloptdatwel.nl/2024/05/06/rwanda-wie-stak-dertig-jaar-geleden-de-lont-in-het-kruitvat/
[5] https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2014/04/10/de_vele_taboes_overrwanda-peterverlinden-1-1936344/ 7 https://www.nporadio1.nl/fragmenten/vroeg/416f42af-491a-4262-abce-7334ecef1432/2022-04-07-7-april-28jaar-na-de-rwandese-genocide-is-het-land-nog-steeds-gespannen
[6] https://www.bibliotheek.nl/catalogus/titel.420984232.html/de-waarheid-over-rwanda/
[7] https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/paul-kagame-de-redder-van-rwanda-volgens-journaliste-judi-rever-pleegdehij-een-tweede-genocide~b09c5c92/
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
[8] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-11435-005 (p. 112)
[9] https://www.concordia.ca/research/migs/resources/rwanda-radio-transcripts.html
[10] https://www.amazon.com/RWANDA-MEDIAS-GENOCIDE-CHRETIEN-PIERRE/dp/2865376214
[11] https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2014/04/10/de_vele_taboes_overrwanda-peterverlinden-1-1936344/
[12] https://www.amazon.nl/Do-Not-Disturb-Political-African/dp/1610398424
[13] https://roape.net/2021/10/14/real-and-imagined-facts-in-rwandan-history/
[14] https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-07-18-writing-large-an-interview-with-michela-wrong-author-ofdo-not-disturb/
[15] https://www.eoswetenschap.eu/psyche-brein/als-je-kwaad-bent-zwart-wit-denken-lekker
[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZegIcDyowo
[17] https://survie.org/billets-d-afrique/2019/285-mars-avril-2019/article/charles-onana-le-negationniste-dereference
[18] https://forbiddenstories.org/in-the-west-and-online-rwandas-influence-machine-keeps-churning/
[19] https://www.zammagazine.com/investigations/1816-denying-a-genocide-by-investigating-a-car-accident
Jos van Oijen is an independent researcher from The Netherlands who publishes on genocide-related issues in various online and print media.
