Search

This article argues that historical frames we often find in news media discourse can skew the way we perceive distant wars, and that this can have a knock-on effect on international humanitarian response within a cosmopolitan framework of global justice. Drawing on an empirical exploration of recent "humanitarian interventions" in Ethiopia, Somalia and Rwanda, the article shows how historical frames largely reinforced the elite-dominated news frames of "their crisis", and "not ours", which explains the delayed international intervention to end it. I conclude that the non-intervention, or delayed intervention, of the international community on humanitarian grounds to end these crises was informed more by historical empathy/distance frames than empathy/critical frames in the mainstream Western news media discourse. (Contains 21 notes.)

This article argues that historical frames we often find in news media discourse can skew the way we perceive distant wars, and that this can have a knock-on effect on international humanitarian response within a cosmopolitan framework of global justice. Drawing on an empirical exploration of recent 'humanitarian interventions' in Ethiopia, Somalia and Rwanda, the article shows how historical frames largely reinforced the elite-dominated news frames of 'their crisis', and 'not ours', which explains the delayed international intervention to end it. I conclude that the non-intervention, or delayed intervention, of the international community on humanitarian grounds to end these crises was informed more by historical empathy/distance frames than empathy/critical frames in the mainstream Western news media discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]