New York Times: Supporting Sudan One Ad at a Time

While human rights activists and others applaud New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof for his coverage (by subscription) of Sudan, some are appalled at the paper’s business side for accepting an eight-page advertising insert singing the praises of the government of the African nation, which is widely considered responsible for genocide against its own citizens. The supplement lauds Sudan for facing a "peaceful, prosperous and democratic future," and, according to felixsalmon.com criticizes the media for being "focused almost exclusively on the fighting between rebels and Arab militias."

Human Rights Watch program director Iain Levine tells Daily News columnist Lloyd Grove that when he saw the ad "I practically fell off my seat on the subway …. I could not believe it."

"Would the New York Times run an advertorial extolling the charitable works of Osama bin Laden?" asks Felix Salmon. "Would it run advertisements from Nambla, or from the Ku Klux Klan?

If the price was right, who knows. Felix wonders what Kristof was thinking of his employer running these disgraceful advertisements. Considering that the paper's news division hasn't distinguished itself on covering events in Darfur (and only pushing the story to the forefront after refugees from the Darfur genocide started getting pushed into neighboring Chad - threatening to become a regional conflict), and Kristof has been the one shining light on that heart of darkness, there's no doubt that this particular story will not get any coverage either.

The fact is that Darfur's inhabitants have been on the receiving end of a genocidal campaign by the janjaweed who have the blessing of the Khartoum regime. We've even got major US leaders on both sides of the aisle making that point. US action has been limited to assisting the African Union's peacekeeping efforts, but those efforts are coming to an end and the UN is on the precipice of stepping in. No doubt that the violence will once again spiral out of control, just as it did when the UN stood idly by as Rwanda tore itself appart in 1994 resulting in the genocide of more than 800,000. Considering that China and other nations are blocking any kind of action against Sudan, a stalemate at the UN means only more suffering for Darfur unless another group (NATO?) or nation (US?) takes the lead.