It’s time to recognize and change the media’s costly Africa bias

Even when unintentional, media bias can do measurable economic harm to entire nations, new research indicates. The economies of African countries are negatively impacted by media bias to the tune of 4.2 billion U.S. dollars in inflated interest payments annually, according to The Cost of Media Stereotypes to Africa. The study by Africa No Filter and Africa Practice reveals that by reinforcing negative stereotypes, ignoring positive stories, and misrepresenting African issues through ethnocentrism, media bias could be costing Africa billions per year in high borrowing costs.

In the financial world, negative media coverage heightens perceived risk, which impacts investor sentiment and sovereign bond yields. The research findings indicate that news coverage of African elections focuses disproportionately on negative issues such as violence and election fraud when compared to non-African countries with similar risk profiles. For example, the term "violence" was found to be highly associated with Africa in media headlines - especially in election coverage - even when the content of the article didn't warrant it. Western media also tends to perpetuate misunderstandings and oversimplifications, such as referring to Africa as a monolith, neglecting to convey the complexities of individual African countries and events.

Global Africa media bias revealed

The study included a comparison of news coverage from seven global media giants: Al Jazeera, the BBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Financial Time, Reuters, and The Economist, all of which are commonly used by foreign investors to keep abreast of international economic and political news. The material covering African countries was compared to that of non-African countries with similar risk profiles.

Negative sentiment in global media reports was found to be more prevalent in articles about African countries during elections when contrasted with comparable Asian countries during elections, even among countries with similar political risk scores.

• An astonishing 88% of content about Kenya and 69% about Nigeria demonstrated negative bias, compared with 48% of content on Malasia, which has a similar medium risk profile.
• Egypt's coverage was more than twice as likely to be negative (66%) than Thailand's (32%), even though both countries are classified as high-risk.

Overall negative bias was still present but reduced when a greater variety of media outlets were added to the equation, highlighting the importance of a diverse media landscape.

Election headlines and buzz words

Media headlines pertaining to African elections were often found to contain negative words, even when the text of the article didn't align with the negativity of the headline, clearly demonstrating an Africa bias. The word "violence" or "violent" appeared much more often in headlines about Kenyan elections (5.8%), and Nigerian elections (4.4%) than in coverage of elections in Malaysia (.1%), Thailand (0%) and Denmark (0%).

The report found a significant increase in negative bias when covering elections in African countries, compared to elections in non-African countries with similar political risk profiles. For example:

• Use of the word "rigged", or "rigging" appeared in 16% of the articles about Kenyan elections, but in 2% of those about Malaysia and 0% of those about Denmark.
• The word "corruption" or "corrupt" was found in 43% of the articles about South African elections and 28% of the articles covering Nigerian elections, compared with only 2% of those about Denmark's elections and 20% about Thailand's elections.

News around election periods was analyzed because that content is most likely to be covered by global media outlets.

The financial cost of media bias

Media representation impacts investor sentiment and perceptions of risk, influencing investment decisions and borrower interest rates. Comparing differences in bond yields and media representation between countries with similar political risk profiles reveals the disadvantage that negative media slant confers upon African countries. For example, while both Egypt and Thailand are considered high-risk, Egypt's bond yields tend to be around 15% compared with Thailand's 2.5%. The difference translates into significantly higher repayment costs.

Bond yields were disproportionately high even for low-risk African countries compared to their non-African counterparts. For example, South Africa and Denmark both rank as low in political risk, yet South Africa's average quarterly bond yields range between 8.3% and 8.5% while Denmark's range from 0.5% to negative 0.2%. Report authors calculate that if the difference in negative media sentiment was adjusted, South African bond yields would decrease by 0.05 %, resulting in big savings on interest repayments for the country.

The media can improve it's Africa coverage

The New Global Media Index for Africa, produced by Africa No Filter, The Africa Center, and University of Cape Town, investigated a thousand news articles from twenty leading global media outlets. The researchers found that many of shortcomings noted in the report can be mitigated by acting on the following goals:

• Broader Representation: Interview more diverse sources, including ordinary African citizens, women, and people from marginalized groups. Current coverage focuses on powerful men and elites.
• Geographic Scope: Encompass a wider range of African countries. Many organizations treat the African continent as a monolith, hindering understanding of individual countries and narratives.
• Topic Diversity: Provide greater balance by covering the arts, culture, innovation, technology, and positive development.
• Depth of coverage: Delve deeper into narratives to better inform audiences about Africa's complexities.
• Critical Self-Examination: Regularly assess news practices and content to foster more accurate and nuanced coverage of African countries.

How to improve election coverage

Due to heightened news bias around elections, Africa No Filter released How to Write About an African Election: A Guide. The guide encourages media organizations to engage in more complex and nuanced coverage around elections by exploring unique angles, including stories of human interest and grassroots mobilization. Key take-aways:

• Move away from the old "war room" approach to election coverage, which relies too heavily on official announcements and pre-scheduled events. Instead, notice stories of civic activity, peaceful government transitions, and democratic advancements.
• Practice solutions journalism by highlighting positive initiatives, innovations, and successes.
• Engage with the youth. Africa has the youngest population in the world. 78% of new voter registrations in South Africa are people aged 16 to 29, according to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), debunking the idea that young people are disengaged from politics. The guide suggests amplifying the voices of young citizens, as well as engaging them with platforms and formats they prefer.

The takeaway

The good news is that coverage of African countries has improved over the past 20 years, according to The Cost of Media Stereotypes to Africa, trending towards more positive tone and content. However, global media still tend to emphasize articles about poverty, problematic leadership, disease, corruption, and conflicts when reporting on events in African countries.

Considering the new data, it's critical for media leaders to raise awareness of the tendency toward negative bias when it comes to coverage of African countries. In addition to the impact on bond yields, it is likely that negative press also has an impact on African tourism, development funding, foreign direct investment, and other potential revenue.

DE&I