ABSTRACT
In a crisis, media professionals and humanitarian aid providers must negotiate the delicate balance between thorough and consistent coverage, and a drumbeat that leads to hysteria, misery and fatigue. In this article, I compare the media coverage cycles of the Ebola crisis in Liberia to those of the Second Congo War in the DRC. I examine the hysteria and personalization that occurred in reporting the Ebola crisis, and find that with health outbreaks such media themes can swing the international community into action but can also create unnecessary fear in countries far from the affected areas. Sensationalized and inaccurate media representations can also be detrimental to effective international responses. By contrast, after an initial dramatic crisis, ongoing conflicts such as the war in the DRC often become background noise relegated to the back pages of major newspapers, if covered at all outside of the affected region. In addition, media coverage of even a global health threat, let alone a war, will decline as a crisis drags on. But without continued media interest the international community’s response becomes dulled or muted and atrocities can be overlooked despite a continuous or increased need for assistance and diplomatic efforts.
