How the Australian media cover humanitarian issues
This article reports on the quantitative analysis of a large-scale study of the coverage of aid and humanitarian issues in the Australian media in 1999. It should be read in conjunction with the qualitative analysis (forthcoming in AJR). The analysis indicates there are large variations in the amount and type of information on these issues available to Australian audiences, depending on their geographical location, print/television/radio and public/private media preferences. For some audiences, including private sector outlets in all media outside the SydneyCanberra-Melbourne media reach, extremely limited information is available on these issues. There are marked differences between mastheads/sections/programs within particular media outlets, and between print/television/radio media. Across all media there is a tendency for saturation coverage ofa small number ofissues, most notably East Timor in the period of our study, and the exclusion of coverage of a broader range of issues, events and regions. Coverage tends to be organised around themes of conflict and violence, to tocus on certain international regions and to ignore or underplay others, to be sourced from international media outlets and to favour spokespeople notfrom the people most directly affected by the issues being reported.
Aid Workers, Intelligence Gathering and Media Self-Censorship
The relationship between aid workers and intelligence gathering in conflict zones and the media response has been highlighted by several recent events in Kosovo, Somalia and East Timor. The over-riding issue is a critical one for journalists; in times of conflict do the principles of balanced reporting suffer to support the 'home' side?
Self‐Determination, Wellbeing, and Threats of Harm
David Rodin argues that the right of national-defence as conceived in international law cannot be grounded in the end of defending the lives of individuals. Firstly, having this end is not necessary because there is a right of defence against an invasion that threatens no lives. However, in this context we are to understand that ‘defending lives’ includes defending against certain non-lethal threats. I will argue that threats to national-self determination and self-government are significant non-lethal threats to the wellbeing of individuals that can justify lethal defensive force. Therefore the end of defending individuals can ground a right of national-defence against a ‘bloodless invasion’. Secondly, Rodin argues that defending lives is not a sufficient condition for military action to be national self-defence, because humanitarian intervention is military action to defend individuals, and such action is in deep tension with national self-defence. I will argue that a reductive account, grounded in claims of need and threats of harm, can justify principles of both intervention and non-intervention on the same grounds; that is, protecting the wellbeing of individuals.