Strauss (2007). What is the relationship between hate radio and violence? Rethinking Rwanda's 'radio machete'. - Article summary

It is often thought that during the Rwandan genocide, the radio conditioned, facilitated and legitimized violence and became a tool for the mobilization of genocide. It is also often thought that the radio was a voice of authority.

The claim that the radio indirectly instilled ideas that led to violence and issued orders that directly led to mobilization have three primary weaknesses:

1. The claims are incompatible with mainstream political communication research.
2. The literature on Rwanda imply a simplistic and improbable model of agency.
3. The discussions of media violence are often not situated in a broader discussion of the dynamics of violence or of an assessment of rival explanation.

The claims of the effect of the radio on the genocide in Rwanda reflect the hypodermic needle theory. There is often no attribution of agency to the listeners of the radio. The dynamics of violence are often simplified in the account that the radio is accountable for the genocide.

However, it is not clear what the effects of the radio were exactly and it is possible that the radio did not reach all areas where violence against Tutsis occurred. The onset of violence in Rwanda was not simultaneously.

The broadcast range of the radio cannot account for the time of onset of the violence, meaning that the radio cannot be the sole trigger of the genocide. It might have been the case that the radio served to bolster and encourage those who were committing violence.

Perpetrators often claim that the radio was not the primary cause of joining in actions to commit genocide. Face-to-face mobilization and social ties were the primary factors through which ordinary citizens joined the genocide. However, it is possible that the radio catalysed the more hard core among the broader pool of perpetrators. The radio, most likely, had conditional and marginal effects.

The war in Rwanda led to legitimization of the killings (1) and created a sense of uncertainty and fear (2). This led some people to become radicalized and led others to believe killing was necessary.

The media effects were probably catalysing hard-liners (1), reinforcing messages (2) and framing public choice (3).