Precious Chatterje-Doody, Lecturer in Politics and International Studies
Emma Connolly, PhD Candidate in Politics and International Studies
Georgina Holmes, Lecturer in Politics and International Studies

28th February 2023

In this roundtable Emma Connolly, Georgina Holmes and Precious Chatterje-Doody explored the ways in which the media not only report events but also shapes them. The discussion looked at three case studies where political violence is presented through official and bottom-up media and considers the implications around commemorating and interoperating such events. The discussion sits within the broader framework of Ralph Keyes’ 2004 idea of “Post-Truth”, where facts have less influence than appeals to emotions and personal beliefs, resulting in a cherry picking of evidence that is presented to the public. That media has, in many ways, exercised this role for a long time would be true, yet in the new digital world such interventions are more immediate and seek to actively shape the reporting of events. From the Christchurch Mosque attack to Rwanda and the war in Ukraine, different platforms face differing kinds of dilemmas over the ownership of memory and how it is used within political debate and discourse.

Emma’s analysis focused on the use of Twitter in commemorating the Christchurch Mosque shootings, of 2019, in New Zeeland; when a white supremacist, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, killed fifty-one worshipers and wounded forty. The shock felt after the event was expressed through a range of media including Twitter, which Emma argues lets us see in real time the way narratives of commemoration develop. The official response from the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, was to say that though these people might not have been born in New Zeeland it was their chosen home and such an attack was an attack on all. She used the Māori term Kia Kaha, which can be translated as “stay strong”. There was a clear attempt to set the narrative of the attack as one against a progressive liberal society by something from outside of it. New Zealanders had to stay strong and stand together. However, Emma observed that a counter narrative also emerged at the same time, which also used the same term, but pointed to problems within New Zeeland society. This narrative emphasised historical racism and past policies to the Māori community, the problem was not from outside but was within the community. In commemorating the events at the Christchurch Mosque Twitter became a key platform for official and counter commemoration, but as Emma observed, this was not liner in its development, but was circular and simultaneous, with both versions employing the same hashtag of Kia Kaha and the idea of staying strong.

Moving from New Zealand and commemorating an act of terrorism, Georgina focused on Rwanda and commemorating the genocide of 1994. The events of 1994 were sparked by the shooting down of the plane of Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the Hutu president of Burundi. This act sparked the massacres within Rwanda as part of the ongoing civil war between the Tutsi led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and extremist Hutu administration. However, the groundwork had been laid by Hutu propaganda through the radio station R.T.L.M and the magazine Kangura. Here the Tutsi population were systematically demonised, as were certain Hutus. After the genocide the narrative was taken over by the victorious Tutsi led RPF. Georgina argues that the government of Paul Kagame decided to construct a narrative that created clear borders around what happened, which did not necessarily reflect the complex experience of the survivors, but crated a story of the establishment of order by the RPF and how Rwanda had been transformed into a stable, peaceful, modern state. This official version was successful in framing what happened in the western media and has been used to promote Rwandan policy in the eastern Congo and Great Lakes region. Rwanda is seen as stable and open, in contrast to the eastern Congo where it is perceived that state structures have collapsed, to be replaced by armed groups, such as the M32 militia. The M32 had emerged from what had been Hutu groups that fled across the broader after the genocide. Here it is argued, by Georgina, that the official commemoration of the events of 1994 are played out as part of Rwandan foreign policy. The M32 are presented as lawless and the bringers of disorder, while Rwandan military influence within a neighbouring a sovereign state is depicted as offering stability and protecting against dangerous groups. However, the evidence is more mixed and Rwandan influence, it has been suggested, has fuelled the conflict, as it enables groups to take advantage of mineral wealth in the region, which has benefited Rwanda. The dominant official narrative then shapes how others see the region and there remains little opportunity to achieve reconciliation and come to terms with what happened.

The final discussion, presented by Precious, focused on how competing forms of commemoration of the Ukraine war have developed from above and below and the way they frame that conflict. Precious suggested that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the media has played a key role in permitting those in power, be it Yeltsin or Putin, to shape the agenda. In the Chechen war, particularly the Second Chechen war, media management became a priority for the Russian state, echoing the US after the Vietnam war. Reporters were embedded into forces and tightly controlled, what they saw was determined by the authorities and the message managed. This provided a way to frame the narrative and was developed further with the rise of digital media and through the presence of RT and Sputnik – two state linked media outlets.  In the Ukraine, Russia attempted to use its media assets to promote the idea of provocation and after this the linking of its actions to Soviet glory within the Great Patriotic War against fascism. These official narratives were subverted both from below and from the other sides official presentations. From below Putin faced action on digital media from Russian anti-war activists, that subverted and challenged the states version of events. From the Ukrainian side, news events, such as Zelenskyy’s visit to wounded service men, which contrasted to Putin’s less relaxed and epenthetic visit to a military hospital, caught the attention of the international media. Unlike Russia the Ukraine has benefited from interventions from below, where images of resistance and ideas of nationhood have been performed by ordinary citizens in support of their government, examples of which can be found in the use of social media to promote the images of the Ukrainian nation. Though this has not been without challenge, such as the image of a young girl with a lollypop and a pump action shotgun. Though the picture was shared on social media as indicative of the nation’s resistance, it had been staged and was worryingly reminiscent of the child soldiers encountered in conflicts in Africa. Despite these issues the media war has proved a successful space for the Ukrainians, who have been able to shape the narrative of the conflict, particularly in the media of the west, which links to strategic political goals.