Newspaper Editors Shoot Back At Kristof's Darfur Complaint

By: Joe Strupp New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof's attack on the press for underreporting the atrocities and genocide in Darfur, which ran in today's paper, has drawn the ire of some newspaper editors who said they are doing the best they can with what they have.

Limited resources, as well as a war in Iraq, terrorist coverage, and, some admit, a lack of understanding or interest by readers in the Sudanese region's problems, are all part of the reason that the Darfur story is not top of budget.

James F. Smith, foreign editor of The Boston Globe and a former African correspondent, agrees that more Darfur attention could be given, but said that is the case for many foreign hot spots. "Nicholas Kristof may be very upset about Darfur, but there are other places that need attention," he said, noting a Globe two-page spread on life in the Congo that ran two weeks ago. "We felt the need to tell people about that, too. I have groups in here all the time -- from India, Venezuela -- who say we don't write enough about them, either."

Jim Willse, editor of The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J. had the same explanation. "We don't have anywhere near as much as we'd like to have," he said of Darfur reporting. "Papers our size are constantly having to make choices on anything to cover. I agree Darfur is worth more attention than it is receiving. But we cannot be in all the places that are newsworthy."

Steve Butler, foreign editor of Knight Ridder, said he has been hampered by having no African correspondent since his last one left in December. "We have been keeping our Iraq coverage going and that is a more important story," he said. "It has U.S. soldiers there, people are very interested in it, and it lends itself better to breaking news."

Kristof's column, which slammed broadcast and cable outlets even harder than newspapers, complained that too many news outlets were ignoring the African bloodshed in favor of tabloid news such as the Michael Jackson trial and "runaway bride." The media "need to show that we serve the public good -- which means covering genocides as seriously as we cover, say, Tom Cruise," he wrote in part. "In some ways we've gone downhill: the American news media aren't even covering the Darfur genocide as well as we covered the Armenian genocide in 1915."

Kristof singled out his own paper and The Washington Post for praise on this issue, however.

Most editors who spoke with E&P agreed that the Darfur story should get more attention due to its seriousness. But, each reminded Kristoff of the realities at today's daily papers. Budget cuts, other worldwide stories like Iraq and terrorism, and limited reader interest, require a broad approach, they said.

"If we don't cover the Michael Jacksons, that will be our demise," said John Yearwood, world editor of The Miami Herald. "That is what the public wants. But, we ought to make the commitment to also give Darfur or Rwanda attention if we can."

There are "a lot of issues to cover in Africa," said Martin Baron, editor of The Boston Globe, who said he has just one correspondent for the entire continent. "We have made a lot of efforts using stringers to cover Darfur, and the local people here who have done a lot to provide help. I can't imagine what [resources] we could give up to cover it more."

USA Today Foreign Editor James Cox also pointed to the numerous areas of international coverage just as deserving as Darfur that are not properly pursued. "None of us in the American news media have done enough to cover Darfur," he admits. "But that could be said for almost any story in Africa. How many stories are unfolding in Latin America, too? We get to them when we have the resources to and when we think the time is right to be there."

Cox pointed to a two-day series USA Today ran in May on Darfur, stressing the difficulty the paper had in even getting a visa for reporter Rick Hampson to travel there. "It was excruciatingly difficult to get the permission," he said. "We had an application that had been stalled for months."

Unfortunately, many editors also admit a lack of reader interest and understanding of the Darfur situation, a story that remains complicated and continues to evolve.

"It is confusing and it goes one step forward, one step back," said Ned Warwick, national foreign editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We are served best by doing the step-back-and-take-a-look enterprise story every couple of weeks."

Butler of Knight Rider agreed, noting, "Darfur is a different character of coverage. It lends itself more to feature stories."