The Overemphasis of Tragedy

Via Charles Kenny, Karen Rothmyer writes about the overwhelming negativism of media coverage of Africa:

[T]he main reason for the continued dominance of such negative stereotypes, I have come to believe, may well be the influence of Western-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international aid groups like United Nations agencies. These organizations understandably tend to focus not on what has been accomplished but on convincing people how much remains to be done. As a practical matter, they also need to attract funding. Together, these pressures create incentives to present as gloomy a picture of Africa as possible in order to keep attention and money flowing, and to enlist journalists in disseminating that picture.

The problem, as Kenny explains, is that even though this tactic of overemphasizing the negative works in any individual case, painting an overall picture of total despair is counterproductive. Futility is one of the key props of the rhetoric of reaction. If people don't realize that past efforts have helped achieve meaningful progress, they start tuning out particular situations and completely despairing of helping.

We've recently on the internet seen Libya hawks and Libya doves agree that killing people via aerial bombardment isn't a very cost-effective means of helping people. Under the circumstances, it's a bit mysterious why killing foreigners seems to be the most politically feasible way of getting the American political system to expend resources on trying to help foreigners. I think this too much tragedy issue may be part of the story—endless tales of woe lead people to have an exaggerated sense of futility about almost all efforts to help foreigners at the same time but nationalistic sentiment simultaneously creates an exaggerated sense of the efficacy of military force.