There has already been ample analysis of how the militant takeover of federal buildings in Oregon is being covered and the double standards at play.

Let’s recap what happened: a group of heavily armed white men seized government buildings in a wildlife compound and demanded that land held by the federal government be forfeited. They also want two men accused of causing fires on these lands to be exonerated to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence. At one point, a group leader said they would kill or be killed to meet their demands.

The group does have a legitimate claim regarding the use of mandatory minimum sentences, which are used far, far too often for too many offenses. In many cases, mandatory minimums should be seen as “cruel and unusual punishment” and a violation of the constitution.

But the larger goal to seize land from the government and the tactics that have been used so far go way beyond the realm of peaceful protest.

American news source ABC initially ran a headline that read, “Peaceful protest followed by Oregon wildlife refuge action.”

Imagine if these men were black or Muslim.

In a country like the US, it’s almost certain that they’d be called violent, extremely dangerous thugs or terrorists.

Would the National Guard have already been deployed? Would armored vehicles be surrounding the compound? Would conflict and violence have already happened? What kind of criminal charges would the militants face (if black or Muslim) when captured?

These are complicated questions but they all point to undeniable racial and ethnic biases in the US.

A series of comical hashtags appeared on Twitter over the weekend that add another dimension to the events. “Yallqueda” and “Yeehawdists” are two names for the militants that draw direct comparisons to Islamic terrorism.

So beyond the double standard within the United States, what would happen if this event was happening in Libya, the CAR or any other developing nation?

If a group of armed men seized a government building in Pakistan or Rwanda and announced that they were willing to fight to the death to meet their demands, how would this be covered?

The country where this was taking place would probably be cast as careening toward instability. Predictions of governments unraveling and larger uprisings would be made. A potential coup would be warned against. The economy in the affected country would be cast as doomed by some.

The groups would be called rebels, insurgents or terrorists and would be seen as threatening civil society. The call to fight would be viewed as an appalling lack of concern for human life.

Ultimately, the picture would probably be black and white, good versus evil, chaos versus civilization. The purpose of the armed group would be ignored, minimized or distorted. And, broadly speaking, there would be little to no nuance to the coverage.

Too often US coverage (and global media for that matter) of events around the world lacks nuance. It fails to appreciate the complexity of situations. Understanding the complexity of a situation takes time and patience on behalf of the audience, but it’s how events should be understood.

Sometimes situations really are stark. Sometimes there is a stark good and a stark bad. But more often than not there's a lot of gray area. 

Now imagine if people around the world learned of the Oregon standoff and quickly decided that the US was too dangerous to visit--all the way from San Francisco to New York.

Imagine if travel bureaus around the world stopped or warned their citizens away from traveling to the US until the violence subsided. And imagine the compounding effect this could have: hurting the economy, fanning the conflict, alienating populations, etc.

This would probably never happen (despite the epidemic of mass shootings).

But this kind of quick calculus is applied to other countries: isolated events in a specific region are exaggerated or generalized to make an entire country seem dangerous.

And it’s the type of calculus that completely ignores the nuance and context of a situation.

If US coverage of the Oregon standoff delves into the motives and background of the incident, then audience members should expect the same from coverage of global events.

Part of being a global citizen means understanding that nothing happens in a vacuum. Countless variables affect all that happens in the world and news organizations must do their best to convey and interpret this complexity.

People in the US are outraged that the militant takeover in Oregon is being handled by the media and law enforcement so delicately, with an abundance of empathy, while so many other situations are not.

But flipping this outrage on its head perhaps gives insight into a better route for everyone. If all events were treated as complex, then there’d be a lot less murder and outrage in the world, and far less dismissal of countries that need development aid on the basis of a small group of extremists. 

TopicsCurrent eventsCitizenshipNewsOregon

Editorial

Demand Equity

How would coverage of the Oregon standoff change if it happened in Africa?

By Joe McCarthy