Search results
should be explained: as systematic genocide or as an outbreak of spontaneous ‘tribal’ violence. In the literature there is near-universal agreement that it should be understood as genocide, but many critics have found that ‘tribal’ explanations were preferred in media reporting. This point is most often made in relation to early coverage (Livingston and Eachus 2000: 218), although a study of British
though such a policy ‘required a conspiracy of silence about atrocities committed by parties who were not considered aggressors’ (Woodward 1995: 323). In the literature, the ‘Serbian aggression’ thesis tends to predominate (Cigar 1995 ; Rieff 1995; Cushman and Mestrovic 1996 ), including in histories of the conflict written by journalists (Vulliamy 1994 ; Malcolm 1996
Somalia, intervention was seen as justified by the country’s lack of statehood: ‘statelessness was acknowledged to be a threat to … international society’ (Lewis and Mayall 1996: 94). How far did these novel justifications of outside involvement attract critical analysis and commentary in news coverage? In the literature, censure of the mission’s shortcomings is often tempered by