Moral Combat: Advocacy Journalists and the New Humanitarianism

A striking feature of media coverage of post-Cold War conflicts has been the emergence of a ‘journalism of attachment’, or ‘advocacy journalism’, which explicitly rejects neutral and dispassionate reporting in favour of moral engagement and seeks to influence Western public opinion and policy. This chapter first outlines the claims of advocacy journalists, examining how they view their work as an improvement on past practice. It then considers the examples of Bosnia and Rwanda — both key conflicts for the development of this style of journalism — which suggest that it can have disastrous consequences. Our understanding of these conflicts has been distorted by simplistic narratives of good versus evil, and the sympathies developed by some reporters have led them to welcome attacks on those designated as unworthy victims. It is argued that the journalism of attachment should be viewed in the context of broader political changes during the post-Cold War era. Although often presented as a critical and oppositional stance, its real significance lies in the promotion of a morally loaded, human rights-based discourse which has echoed and encouraged the development of similar themes by powerful Western governments. Journalism which advocates tough military intervention by Western powers has often left the consequences of actual Western involvement largely unexamined.