Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

The worst humanitarian crisis and people displacement

198 replies

ImmediateReaction · 10/03/2025 19:51

Sudan.

Barely on the news. Channel 4 currently is discussing the worst humanitarian crisis currently ( its NOT occurring in Gaza). People are actually REALLY starving and eating rats and leaves from the trees.

No marches, no flag waving, no slogans, no student interest, no protest on campus, no symbol wearing. We all know exactly why. No interest at all.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
OpheliaWasntMad · 12/03/2025 22:25

Odras · 12/03/2025 22:17

I think it has been answered why it’s doesn’t have the same audience interest.

Non profits do seem to be fundraising on Sudan which suggests it’s raising money. But I’m not sure if that is quite Irish centric as famine is obviously something Ireland has an affinity with.

I do find it so strange that the OP implied that antisemitism causes a lack of interest in Sudan when it is racism against Africans which is part of the reason that there is less interest in Sudan.

Imagine asking if anti Russian sentiment had caused a lack of public interest in Sudan. People wouldn’t even entertain me. They would accuse me of being a bot.

“I think it has been answered why it’s doesn’t have the same audience interest.“
I don’t think it has been answered at all.
And I’m not sure you second paragraph sheds much light on the subject. ( or your 3rd or 4th paragraph)

ImmediateReaction · 12/03/2025 22:43

OpheliaWasntMad · 12/03/2025 22:25

“I think it has been answered why it’s doesn’t have the same audience interest.“
I don’t think it has been answered at all.
And I’m not sure you second paragraph sheds much light on the subject. ( or your 3rd or 4th paragraph)

Indeed, some of the comments bear little relevance to what was said or the thread topic and make no sense.

I stopped bothering answering the ones who insist I say what I didn't say. Not sure if it's reading comprehension or deliberately misunderstanding but it's a bit pointless really.

OP posts:
Scirocco · 13/03/2025 05:59

OpheliaWasntMad · 12/03/2025 22:25

“I think it has been answered why it’s doesn’t have the same audience interest.“
I don’t think it has been answered at all.
And I’m not sure you second paragraph sheds much light on the subject. ( or your 3rd or 4th paragraph)

While there are areas of the media in which Sudan does get coverage and audience interest, it doesn't get as much coverage as it should by mainstream Western news outlets. I think there are quite a few contributing factors...

The conflict, starvation and deaths have been going on for a while now. Mainstream news outlets tend to give prominence to articles about new, acute events in preference to longer-term situations. This happens with other conflicts too - eg Ukraine, Israel and Palestine used to be in the news more than they are now. People want to read and publish new articles about new, exciting things, rather than the same or similar articles. It happens with things that aren't conflicts too, eg Brexit, which dominated headlines for a period and then faded away from the front pages even while issues were ongoing.

It's a civil war in a country which was not a major player in international politics prior to the conflict. Many people didn't know much at all about Sudan prior to the conflict (they might not even be able to find it on a map). What may be perceived as "the internal politics and struggles" (quoting someone who explained to me why they weren't interested) of a country about which many people have little pre-existing awareness or interest, doesn't generate the same amount of attention (and revenue) from readers, who often have more interest in things with which they feel more directly connected. People don't tend to go, "Oh, there's something horrible happening somewhere I've not heard of - I'd better find out more", in the same numbers as they flick or scroll past to read about Trump or welfare reform or crimes committed closer to home. Because it's a civil war in a country which wasn't particularly influential globally prior to the conflict, the situation doesn't have the same international impact as, for example, one of the longstanding 'superpowers' of the world being involved in a war against a neighbouring country in circumstances which are causing alarm across Europe.

Racism against Black people and Africa. Mainstream media coverage tends to focus on things which are of interest to readers. Many readers of UK media (as an example - other countries have the same issue) are less interested in news from Africa and news about Black people than they would be about similar news elsewhere in the world. So, articles about events in Africa don't get the same attention and don't get the same prominence as they might if the geographic location or demographics of affected people were different.

The majority of people living in Sudan and affected by events there are Muslims. It's often said on here that people don't pay attention when Muslims are killing Muslims. There's a degree to which that is reality-based. There is less attention paid to situations in which Muslims are caused harm, than is the case when harm is being caused to people who aren't identifiably Muslim or presumed to be Muslim. This can be seen in people's engagement with mainstream media, ranging from attitudes towards individuals (eg less sympathy for a victim of a crime or an accident) to interest in large-scale news events. Maby people pay more attention to articles and events in which they can continue to reinforce their pre-existing concepts of Muslims as 'other', 'backwards' and 'dangerous'. News coverage of Sudan is therefore doubly affected by prejudice.

Perceived lack of UK/other Western involvement or support for a 'side'. While people who follow the situation will be aware of how different countries around the world, including Western countries, have had different levels of involvement, the impression given to many people is that the West is largely not directly involved, other than expressing concerns and sending aid. So, there's less of a feeling of personal investment or responsibility. Many people would broadly agree with statements saying how the loss of life is tragic and with sending aid, so there can be a sense of the government "doing what they can". When that happens, people can feel like they don't need to follow the news about something as much, because "it's very sad, but the government's doing what they can, and there's no point getting myself upset about it" (again quoting someone who explained to me why they didn't want to read about Sudan and other conflicts like Sudan). In contrast, when people disagree with what they see their government doing, they can feel more personal responsibility to educate themselves and express their opposition.

OpheliaWasntMad · 13/03/2025 07:40

Scirocco · 13/03/2025 05:59

While there are areas of the media in which Sudan does get coverage and audience interest, it doesn't get as much coverage as it should by mainstream Western news outlets. I think there are quite a few contributing factors...

The conflict, starvation and deaths have been going on for a while now. Mainstream news outlets tend to give prominence to articles about new, acute events in preference to longer-term situations. This happens with other conflicts too - eg Ukraine, Israel and Palestine used to be in the news more than they are now. People want to read and publish new articles about new, exciting things, rather than the same or similar articles. It happens with things that aren't conflicts too, eg Brexit, which dominated headlines for a period and then faded away from the front pages even while issues were ongoing.

It's a civil war in a country which was not a major player in international politics prior to the conflict. Many people didn't know much at all about Sudan prior to the conflict (they might not even be able to find it on a map). What may be perceived as "the internal politics and struggles" (quoting someone who explained to me why they weren't interested) of a country about which many people have little pre-existing awareness or interest, doesn't generate the same amount of attention (and revenue) from readers, who often have more interest in things with which they feel more directly connected. People don't tend to go, "Oh, there's something horrible happening somewhere I've not heard of - I'd better find out more", in the same numbers as they flick or scroll past to read about Trump or welfare reform or crimes committed closer to home. Because it's a civil war in a country which wasn't particularly influential globally prior to the conflict, the situation doesn't have the same international impact as, for example, one of the longstanding 'superpowers' of the world being involved in a war against a neighbouring country in circumstances which are causing alarm across Europe.

Racism against Black people and Africa. Mainstream media coverage tends to focus on things which are of interest to readers. Many readers of UK media (as an example - other countries have the same issue) are less interested in news from Africa and news about Black people than they would be about similar news elsewhere in the world. So, articles about events in Africa don't get the same attention and don't get the same prominence as they might if the geographic location or demographics of affected people were different.

The majority of people living in Sudan and affected by events there are Muslims. It's often said on here that people don't pay attention when Muslims are killing Muslims. There's a degree to which that is reality-based. There is less attention paid to situations in which Muslims are caused harm, than is the case when harm is being caused to people who aren't identifiably Muslim or presumed to be Muslim. This can be seen in people's engagement with mainstream media, ranging from attitudes towards individuals (eg less sympathy for a victim of a crime or an accident) to interest in large-scale news events. Maby people pay more attention to articles and events in which they can continue to reinforce their pre-existing concepts of Muslims as 'other', 'backwards' and 'dangerous'. News coverage of Sudan is therefore doubly affected by prejudice.

Perceived lack of UK/other Western involvement or support for a 'side'. While people who follow the situation will be aware of how different countries around the world, including Western countries, have had different levels of involvement, the impression given to many people is that the West is largely not directly involved, other than expressing concerns and sending aid. So, there's less of a feeling of personal investment or responsibility. Many people would broadly agree with statements saying how the loss of life is tragic and with sending aid, so there can be a sense of the government "doing what they can". When that happens, people can feel like they don't need to follow the news about something as much, because "it's very sad, but the government's doing what they can, and there's no point getting myself upset about it" (again quoting someone who explained to me why they didn't want to read about Sudan and other conflicts like Sudan). In contrast, when people disagree with what they see their government doing, they can feel more personal responsibility to educate themselves and express their opposition.

Thank you very much for taking the time for such a long detailed reply. That’s very good of you.

I agree with many of your points . The point about the internal nature of the conflict ( Muslim vs Muslim) is interesting. I’m not convinced the lack of interest is down to religious or racial prejudice but I do think it might be because people pay more attention to an easy “villain/ victim “ narrative rather than a messy internal conflict.

Back in my day a news report of the Ethiopian famine inspired Geldof/ Band Aid etc so I think if the media reporting is powerful enough and skilfully engages public attention then things can change. “Where there’s a will there’s a way”

I don’t think the lack of interest in Sudan is rooted in racism / Islamophobia or antisemitism.

I think the lack of impassioned and powerful reporting ( compared to what we see on Ukraine or Gaza) might be largely to do with the fact that there isn’t an obvious link to our own interests and also because, sadly, there are too many other competing issues ( all of which deserve attention )

OpheliaWasntMad · 13/03/2025 08:25

My other thought was regarding the view from journalists that there is a “lack of audience interest “.
I think there is a “chicken/egg” element to this as audience interest increases if the reporting is impassioned and powerful.

Odras · 13/03/2025 09:22

Yes I agree. the news report in Ethiopia captured attention because 1 million people had died and people were walking around looking like skeletons. So basically those shocking images spurred action. It’s all about content at the end of the day. Just saying that 10 million have been displaced is meaningless to people without accompanying “content” that spurs people into action. There are times when just a few strong images have changed how people view something like that famous execution of a prisoner photo and the Naplam girl in Vietnam.

It’s undeniable that there is less interest in Africa generally. Whether that is racism or not I don’t know. But we can safely say there less interest because Sudan is in Africa.

ImmediateReaction · 14/03/2025 10:36

OpheliaWasntMad · 13/03/2025 08:25

My other thought was regarding the view from journalists that there is a “lack of audience interest “.
I think there is a “chicken/egg” element to this as audience interest increases if the reporting is impassioned and powerful.

Agree

OP posts:
MushMonster · 14/03/2025 12:35

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/mar/10/drone-attacks-killing-hundreds-of-civilians-across-africa-says-report more targetted attacks on civilians reported here.
This time with drones.
Have you seen soldiers chased by drones? Even if they clearly surrender, these things follow them till they are well dead.
Imagine if you are not even prepared for combat and one of those just finds you as a target on your way to the store.
What to do I am not sure, but that something needs to be done against those who target civilians that is for sure.

Drone attacks killing hundreds of civilians across Africa, says report

Calls grow to control military use of unmanned aerial vehicles which, despite claims of precise targeting, are claiming civilian lives

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/mar/10/drone-attacks-killing-hundreds-of-civilians-across-africa-says-report

ImmediateReaction · 14/03/2025 13:25

I think drones are used more and more in conflict areas now

OP posts:
MushMonster · 14/03/2025 17:30

I know. And heavier bombs. And more airplanes.

But.. on civilians!
That is the point. Attacks aimed at civilians.
We see it in Gaza, Syria, Sudan, Congo, Ukraine... They aim to kill civilians or starve them or steal children and bomb hospitals and power stations. And they are getting away it at the moment.

MushMonster · 14/03/2025 17:52

Authoritarianism is on the raise.
Sectarianism is on the rise.

Or, at least, they appear to be.

ImmediateReaction · 24/03/2025 07:55

"In an era of rolling crises, Sudan stands supreme. By some margin it is the world’s largest, most devastating humanitarian catastrophe. Every metric confirms it is worsening. Thirty million Sudanese need aid to survive; half of them are children. Fighting has precipitated the worst famines in decades. Atrocities mount daily. More than 12 million Sudanese are at risk of sexual violence.

Such statistics are not cutting through. As Africa’s third-largest country implodes, the west looks away. “International donors are fiddling as Sudan burns,” says a senior UN official."

OP posts:
Angliski · 24/03/2025 08:27

See also Yemen. A friend was working on the coordination of relief here in UK. It was so dire and depressing that she had to resign for the first time in her career.

ImmediateReaction · 24/03/2025 08:30

Angliski · 24/03/2025 08:27

See also Yemen. A friend was working on the coordination of relief here in UK. It was so dire and depressing that she had to resign for the first time in her career.

It's so sad, so many people in lots of countries.

OP posts:
ImAChangeling · 24/03/2025 09:01

It is partly to do with reporting practicalities.

Gaza is only 140 square miles and is surrounded by countries where journalists can base themselves and report on what’s happening with less risk to their own lives.

Sudan is the third largest country in Africa. A lot of the conflict is far from borders and travel within the country is very dangerous.

I agree also that there is an element of racism probably. The situation is truly sickening.

MushMonster · 24/03/2025 19:12

Even if the public is not bombarded with daily headlines, a weekly report/ reminder should be there. Even just to say things are still the same. Report on the UN meetings. The diplomats trying to talk to ours, for example.
And according to the article, several parties have said they would send help, but it has not happened.
Really, the thing to do is cut the arms supply. Hopefully they will take short time to become less untouchable without the guns and aid can get in without the soldiers stealing it all.

OP posts:
OP posts:
OP posts:
ImmediateReaction · 25/03/2025 08:19

Just some updates. Tension with Chad. Brink of another civil war in South Sudam.

OP posts:
ImmediateReaction · 25/03/2025 09:04

"Arms Embargo Violations:
Despite a UN Security Council arms embargo on Darfur, recently manufactured weapons and military equipment are being imported into Sudan and then diverted to Darfur.
Amnesty International has called for the UN Security Council to expand the arms embargo to the rest of Sudan and strengthen its implementation, monitoring, and verification mechanisms.
Human Rights Concerns:
The constant flow of arms into Sudan is fueling the conflict and causing immense human suffering.
Amnesty International has documented the use of weapons and ammunition by parties to the conflict who stand accused of serious human rights abuses. "

OP posts:
Odras · 27/03/2025 06:01

That’s something international governments could do then. Put pressure on these countries to not sell weapons.

Hopefully the UN Security Council expand the arms embargo.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page