By Enock Sithole
When Western reporters file from Timbuktu or Lagos, and when local journalists file from the same streets, they are often describing the same facts to very different audiences through different prisms.
That difference matters. It shapes investment decisions, foreign policy, and everyday perceptions of what Africa is and where it’s going as we reported in the last edition. The faultlines are not simply about geography or byline, they are about power, resources and whose frame becomes the default.
Scholars and media analysts point to two related problems. First, Western outlets have long been criticised for “single-story” reporting with an emphasis on conflict, disease, corruption and crisis that flattens complex realities into easily consumed narratives. Second, many African newsrooms, far from being a corrective, often reproduce those frames, whether because they rely on the same international wires, lack resources for deep reporting, or compete in commercial markets that reward sensational copy.
Kenyan journalis, Nanjala Nyabola captured this double bind when she argued that African media are “not always trying to cover the continent for the continent” but often echoing global news flows that prioritise the dramatic over the contextual.
Evidence from the literature
Recent academic work confirms and fleshes out those observations. A 2024 framed-content study of how Western outlets cover African technological innovation found a persistent tendency to treat African successes as exceptions rather than signals of structural change, a framing that perpetuates surprise rather than explanation. That pattern matters because it changes what subjects receive resources and follow-up.
Other studies show the mechanics of the problem. Content analyses and ethnographic work have documented how many African outlets “borrow lenses” from Western journalism education and international wires, adopting genres and angles that do not always map to local civic needs. The result is not just a mismatch of tone but a training pipeline that channels young reporters toward overseas models of what counts as important journalism, wrote Vincent Obia, Ismail A. Ibraheem and Charles C. Onwunali in a 2022 article.
As we reported in last week’s article, this framing is not only an academic gripe. To reiterate, a 2024 policy analysis estimated that negative, stereotyped international coverage costs African countries billions each year by inflating perceived investment risk and raising borrowing costs. Biased narratives have measurable economic consequences, from sovereign debt pricing to investor appetite. That makes the debate about framing a matter of finance as well as fairness.
Why Western coverage often looks the way it does
Several structural drivers help explain why Western outlets gravitate to certain frames:
- Resource allocation. Foreign bureaus are expensive and shrinking newsroom budgets mean fewer long-term beats and more reliance on stringers or agency copy. When deadlines pressure reporters, dramatic moments get covered and slow-burn stories do not.
• Audience expectations. News values in Europe and North America reward conflict and catastrophe, with those story types attracting clicks and attention.
• Knowledge hierarchies. Editors and desk teams who have little lived experience of African societies may default to familiar tropes rather than seek nuance.
These drivers are widely documented and suggest that declining foreign coverage budgets, newsroom centralisation and editorial gatekeeping all push coverage toward a narrow palette.
Why African media sometimes repeat the same frames?
Why don’t African outlets simply tell the fuller story? Three constraints are common:
- Funding pressures. Independent investigative work is expensive. When donors are inconsistent or advertising markets weak, newsrooms prioritise stories that sell.
• Syndication and wire dependence. Many African papers and broadcasters reprint or summarise Western reports from Reuters, AP or AFP, extending international frames into local markets.
• Political and legal risk. In countries where governments restrict press freedom, reporters may avoid adversarial angles for safety or survival.
Research and newsroom interviews show that these pragmatic constraints often lead to coverage that looks like Western reporting, even if produced locally.
Signs of change — and limits to optimism
There are bright spots. Local investigative collaborations, often supported by cross-border networks, have produced accountability reporting that global outlets then amplify.
Data journalism labs and university partnerships are training journalists in explanatory and solutions-oriented reporting. Initiatives seeking to “reframe” Africa, pushing stories about entrepreneurship, governance reform and climate adaptation, are gaining traction albeit at a slow pace, wrote Malawian journalist, Greory Gondwe in his work Framing the Schemata: Western Media Coverage of African Technological Innovations.
What would better coverage look like?
Researchers and media reform advocates converge on a few practical prescriptions:
- Invest in local capacity. Sustainable funding for local investigative teams, data units and regional bureaus reduces dependence on rehashed copy.
• Rethink training. Journalism education should balance international standards with locally appropriate beats and ethical frameworks, so reporters cover health systems, markets and governance with context.
• Diversify sources. Audiences and editors should demand and elevate local voices, translators and experts whose lived experience counters outside caricature.
• Measure impact. Funders and editors should track not only clicks but civic outcomes and ask and respond to the question: did reporting lead to policy change, public understanding, or social accountability?
These steps won’t erase Western bias overnight, but they shift incentives away from the shortcut frames that have dominated for decades.
The remedy
The story of how Africa is told is, ultimately, a story about power: who pays, who trains, who edits and who gets amplified on the global stage. Fixing coverage requires both structural fixes such as money, training, safety and cultural change through respecting plural African perspectives.
As recent studies and policy reports make clear, the stakes are high. Skewed coverage costs reputations, money and, in some cases, lives.
The remedy starts with journalists, African and African, agreeing that the continent deserves more than single stories. Journalism, media and communication education has an immense role to play in helping both African and Western find this remedy.
Image by Jeff Kweba via Pexels
This article was originally published by Ajen Newsletter on December 9, 2025