International and regional media have been accused of consistently misrepresenting the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), failing to provide an accurate and nuanced portrayal of the situation. Experts argue that this misreporting is, in some cases, deliberate, designed to push a specific narrative about the actors involved. In other cases, it stems from a lack of effort to fully understand the complexities of the conflict. This issue extends beyond Western outlets to regional media in neighboring countries, which often rely on flawed international narratives.
Dr. Frederick Golooba Mutebi, a researcher and political analyst, appearing on Rwanda Broadcasting Agency (RBA), criticized the media’s role in shaping misconceptions about the DRC conflict. “Media across the world misrepresent what is happening in Congo; they misreport it. Some of it is willful because they want to portray a certain image of certain actors in the theater, while others simply fail to apply themselves to understanding the real issues,” he said.
Most reports on the crisis focus narrowly on the M23 rebel group and allegations of Rwandan support, while neglecting the root causes of the M23 insurgency and the grievances that fuel it. This, Golooba argued, distorts the entire conversation and prevents meaningful engagement with the underlying problems in eastern DRC. “You read reports on the Congo crisis, and they’re all focusing on M23 and who is supporting M23. The question of what M23 represents or what lies at the root of the crisis doesn’t seem to interest many people,” he added.
The consequences of these misrepresentations have extended beyond media coverage, shaping the policies and actions of regional players. When Kenya initially deployed troops to eastern DRC, the rhetoric surrounding their mission was highly militaristic, with many observers expecting the Kenyan army to “crush” M23. Golooba noted that this reflected a fundamental lack of understanding. “It was only after the deployment of Kenyan forces that President William Ruto was briefed and began to understand the realities on the ground. That’s when the narrative shifted from a belligerent approach to recognizing the need for a political solution,” he said.
‘’There is this idea that somehow, because they are few [FDLR], and they can’t invade Rwanda and seize territory and hold on to it, therefore they are not a threat’’.
Researcher and political analyst Frederick Golooba Mutebi delves into the FDLR threat to Rwanda, stressing that…
‘’There is this idea that somehow, because they are few [FDLR], and they can’t invade Rwanda and seize territory and hold on to it, therefore they are not a threat’’.
Researcher and political analyst Frederick Golooba Mutebi delves into the FDLR threat to Rwanda, stressing that… pic.twitter.com/zjp4yd94b5
— Rwanda Broadcasting Agency (RBA) (@rbarwanda) February 4, 2025
Western media outlets play a key role in influencing perceptions, as many regional and local news organizations rely on them for information. “We all consume a lot of international media, and unfortunately, some of our regional and local media depend on news agencies based in the Western world,” Golooba observed. “So, what they report is what we consume, and what they produce is what our own media reproduce.”
This cycle of misinformation has led to widespread misconceptions, particularly regarding M23. The dominant narrative portrays the group as a violent militia responsible for mass atrocities, with Rwanda allegedly supporting it to exploit Congo’s resources. However, experts argue that this simplification ignores the deep-rooted historical and political context that gave rise to the movement. “People have been seduced by this idea that M23 is simply a violent group, and that Rwanda’s involvement is purely about mineral resources. The whole story then becomes completely distorted,” Golooba said.
South Africa’s stance on the DRC conflict is an example of how distorted narratives can shape policy decisions. Analysts argue that Pretoria’s involvement is driven by two main factors: economic interests in the DRC that benefit certain South African elites, and long-standing misinformation about the crisis. “South Africans have been fed these distortions for so long that their government’s belligerence in the DRC is based on a false premise,” Golooba noted.
He also highlighted the ongoing threat posed by the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a militia composed of elements responsible for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. Despite some downplaying the group’s influence, Golooba warned that the FDLR’s goal is not necessarily to seize and hold Rwandan territory but to destabilize the country by attacking key sectors. “There is this idea that somehow, because they are few, and they can’t invade Rwanda and seize territory, they are not a threat. But their aim is to dismantle Rwanda’s system. They have openly stated that tourism is a key target,” he said.
Experts agree that the failure to address the root causes of the conflict, combined with decades of misinformation, has fueled cycles of misunderstanding and miscalculation. Until international and regional actors acknowledge the complexities of the crisis—beyond the simplistic villain-versus-victim narrative—lasting peace in eastern DRC will remain elusive.