A photograph that has circulated in Western media for decades. You probably know it without being told which one — the emaciated child, the dusty landscape, the outstretched hand, the fly on the face. It has appeared in countless charity campaigns, documentary films, and news reports. It has raised billions of dollars. And it has done something else simultaneously, something far less discussed: it has embedded a particular image of Africa so deeply into the global imagination that it shapes diplomatic relationships, investment decisions, trade negotiations, and foreign policy calculations in ways that most policymakers would be reluctant to admit but that the evidence consistently suggests are real and consequential.
That image is not Africa. It is one reality within a continent of 54 countries, 1.4 billion people, 2,000 languages, ancient civilizations, modern megacities, technological innovation, and political complexity that defies any single representation. But global media — dominated for most of the modern era by Western outlets and their editorial frameworks — has consistently chosen particular representations of Africa over others, and those representations have consequences that extend far beyond the world of media into the architecture of international relations.
This is the context in which a deceptively simple but enormously consequential question becomes urgent: does the way African nations represent themselves in global media actually change foreign policy outcomes? Not what others say about Africa — what Africa says about itself, how African governments and media institutions project their countries and their continent to the world, what narratives they choose to tell, and whether those choices translate into tangible differences in how foreign governments engage with them. It’s a question that cuts through diplomacy, media theory, political psychology, and the economics of international investment to ask something fundamental about the relationship between representation and power in a world where information shapes reality as much as reality shapes information.
The Representation Gap That Still Defines the Starting Point
Before we can discuss how African nations represent themselves, we need to honestly acknowledge the baseline from which that self-representation operates. The global media landscape remains profoundly unequal in terms of whose voices carry weight, whose narratives reach global audiences, and whose perspectives shape international understanding of events. For most of the post-colonial period, coverage of African countries in major Western media outlets has been characterized by a set of recurring themes — conflict, famine, disease, poverty, corruption, and humanitarian crisis — with strikingly limited coverage of economic development, technological innovation, cultural achievement, political progress, or the ordinary complex texture of daily life across the continent.
This coverage gap is documented by media research rather than asserted anecdotally. Studies of major Western news outlets’ Africa coverage consistently find that coverage spikes during crises — war, famine, epidemic, political collapse — and falls dramatically during periods of relative stability and progress that arguably deserve coverage for different reasons. The mathematical result is a body of international coverage in which Africa appears primarily when things go wrong, producing an audience understanding of the continent that is systematically skewed toward its worst moments and most difficult challenges.
This baseline matters enormously for any discussion of African self-representation because it defines the environment into which that self-representation is injected. A government communication effort, a pan-African media organization, a national public diplomacy campaign — all of these operate in an information ecosystem where the dominant existing frame has been set by others, and where shifting that frame requires not just competing for audience attention but actively countering an established narrative that has had decades to calcify into assumption. Self-representation doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens against this specific background, and understanding that background is prerequisite to evaluating what self-representation can realistically achieve.
How Narrative Shapes Foreign Policy: The Theoretical Foundation
The argument that media representation affects foreign policy outcomes is not a fringe media studies claim — it has a substantial theoretical and empirical foundation in international relations research, political psychology, and communication studies. Understanding that foundation is important for evaluating whether African self-representation in global media can translate into concrete foreign policy differences.
The most foundational mechanism is what scholars call “framing effects” — the documented phenomenon whereby the frame in which information is presented shapes how audiences evaluate and respond to it in ways that go beyond simply receiving different information. When a country is consistently framed in global media as a zone of instability and humanitarian crisis, foreign policy decision-makers who consume that media develop a cognitive framework for understanding that country that shapes their subsequent policy instincts — even when those instincts might diverge from what more complete information would support. The frame becomes a filter through which new information is interpreted, making it both resistant to correction and actively generative of policy approaches consistent with the established narrative.
This is not a minor effect operating at the margins of foreign policy decision-making. Research on how political leaders actually process information about foreign countries consistently shows that media framing plays a significant role in shaping the mental models that senior officials bring to policy decisions — particularly for countries that they don’t have direct, extensive personal experience with. For most foreign policy decision-makers in Europe, North America, or Asia, their understanding of most African countries is mediated primarily through news coverage. What that coverage tells them — what frame it places around those countries — matters enormously for the assumptions they bring to bilateral relationships, aid allocation, trade negotiations, and security partnerships.
Rwanda as the Most Studied Case Study
If you want to understand whether strategic self-representation in global media can actually change foreign policy outcomes for an African nation, Rwanda is the most extensively documented and most analytically instructive example available. The trajectory of Rwanda’s global media image from the 1994 genocide to its current position as one of Africa’s most internationally engaged and foreign-investment-attracting nations represents one of the most dramatic transformations in national self-representation in modern diplomatic history.
The Rwanda of the international imagination in the immediate post-genocide period was defined entirely by the catastrophe of 1994 — by images of mass violence, by the catastrophic failure of international intervention, by the trauma of a society that had turned on itself with horrifying speed and completeness. This was a representation grounded in real events that deserved to be understood and remembered. But it was also a representation that, if it remained static, would permanently define Rwanda in the global imagination in ways incompatible with the kind of international engagement the country needed for reconstruction, development, and recovery.
What followed was a deliberate, sustained, and remarkably sophisticated national self-representation strategy. Rwanda positioned itself internationally through a combination of strategic hosting of major international events, aggressive investment promotion campaigns that emphasized stability, governance, and technological ambition, a high-profile anti-corruption narrative that made Rwanda stand out from regional peers in the perception of international investors and donors, and the personal diplomatic and media engagement of President Paul Kagame — a figure who proved exceptionally skilled at presenting Rwanda’s story in language that resonated with international business and policy audiences.
The foreign policy outcomes of this self-representation strategy are measurable and significant. Rwanda’s foreign direct investment flows increased dramatically over the period during which its global media image was being actively managed and transformed. Its relationship with multilateral institutions evolved from one primarily characterized by humanitarian assistance to one involving genuine development partnership and increasing Rwandan influence in those institutions.
International companies established regional headquarters in Kigali. Rwanda secured major international event hosting — World Economic Forum Africa meetings, major sports events, international conferences — that would have been unthinkable given the country’s earlier global image. Whether one agrees with every aspect of Rwanda’s governance or every element of its self-presentation strategy, the evidence that strategic representation affected tangible foreign policy outcomes is difficult to dispute.
Ethiopia and the Complex Consequences of Narrative Struggle
Ethiopia provides a contrasting and more complicated case study in the relationship between African self-representation and foreign policy outcomes — one that illustrates both the potential and the limits of narrative management when underlying realities are genuinely contested and difficult.
Ethiopia has one of the most complex and sophisticated traditions of national self-representation in Africa. It is the only African nation that avoided colonization by European powers, which gives it a distinctive historical narrative and a particular pride in national sovereignty that shapes its approach to international engagement. For much of the post-Cold War period, Ethiopia was represented in global media primarily through the frame of famine — the 1984-1985 famine and the Live Aid response that it generated created an international image of Ethiopia that proved extraordinarily persistent and difficult to shift despite genuine economic progress in subsequent decades.
Ethiopian governments — particularly during the period of rapid economic growth in the 2000s and 2010s — made considerable efforts to promote alternative narratives emphasizing economic development, infrastructure investment, and Ethiopia’s role as a hub for African diplomacy through the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa. These efforts achieved some success. International investment in Ethiopia increased substantially. The country was increasingly discussed in international business media as an emerging economy with genuine growth potential. The narrative frame was shifting.
Then came the conflict in Tigray beginning in 2020 — an extraordinarily complex, multidimensional civil conflict that generated intense international media coverage and triggered significant foreign policy responses including suspension of aid from some donors, diplomatic pressure from Western governments, and sanctions. The Tigray conflict demonstrated with painful clarity the limits of strategic self-representation when underlying conditions generate genuinely newsworthy, crisis-category events that international media covers intensively. The Ethiopian government’s attempts to manage the international narrative of the conflict — through media restrictions, official communications, and diplomatic engagement — produced mixed results against the weight of international reporting and advocacy.
The Ethiopia case illustrates a foundational tension in the relationship between self-representation and foreign policy outcomes: self-representation strategies are most powerful when they’re building narratives in the absence of competing major events, and least powerful when major events themselves drive the international news cycle in directions that governments cannot control through communication strategy alone.
The Role of Pan-African Media in Shaping Collective Representation
Individual nation-state self-representation is one dimension of the question we’re examining, but there’s an equally important collective dimension — the emergence of pan-African media organizations that seek to represent the continent as a whole to global audiences. The development of outlets like Aljazeera’s Africa coverage, the growth of African-headquartered media like NTV Uganda, Channels Television in Nigeria, South Africa’s public broadcasting organizations, and increasingly the global reach of digital-native African media organizations represents a structural change in who tells Africa’s stories to the world.
This pan-African media development matters for foreign policy for reasons that go beyond individual country narratives. When African perspectives on global events are carried by African media organizations with global reach, the informational inputs that foreign policy decision-makers receive include those perspectives alongside the Western editorial framings that have historically dominated. This doesn’t guarantee that those perspectives will be heard or that they will shift policy — but it changes the information environment in ways that create at least the possibility of more balanced understanding.
The challenge for pan-African media in this role is the structural inequality of the global media landscape — the same inequality that defines the baseline we discussed earlier. African media organizations, however excellent their journalism, operate with fraction of the resources available to major Western outlets. They reach global English-language audiences at a scale that is still considerably smaller than that of CNN, BBC, or The New York Times. And they face the same algorithmic disadvantages that all non-Western media face in information environments where platform recommendation systems tend to amplify already-prominent sources over emerging ones.
Soft Power and the Cultural Diplomacy Dimension
One of the most underexplored dimensions of how African nations represent themselves in global media and what that means for foreign policy is the cultural dimension — what scholars of international relations call “soft power,” the ability to attract and persuade through cultural appeal rather than through economic or military coercion. African nations have enormous, largely underutilized soft power assets, and the global media environment is increasingly creating pathways through which those assets can be projected to international audiences in ways with genuine foreign policy implications.
Nigerian music and film — particularly the Afrobeats global phenomenon and the extraordinary international growth of Nollywood — has done more to reshape international perception of Nigeria in the past decade than any official government communication campaign. When artists like Burna Boy, Wizkid, and Davido fill arenas in Europe, North America, and beyond, they’re projecting an image of Nigerian creativity, energy, and cultural vitality that is incompatible with the dominant crisis frame and that reaches audiences — particularly young audiences — in ways that official diplomatic communication never could. This cultural soft power has measurable correlates in increased international interest in Nigeria, increased tourism and business exploration, and increased global engagement with Nigerian perspectives on issues that matter for foreign policy.
South Africa has similarly leveraged cultural soft power through music, film, sport, and the powerful global resonance of its liberation narrative — the story of the anti-apartheid struggle and the remarkable democratic transition remains one of Africa’s most compelling stories to global audiences, and it continues to shape South Africa’s diplomatic standing and moral authority in ways that conventional communications cannot replicate. The soft power generated by cultural representation is not always directly convertible to specific foreign policy outcomes, but it creates the enabling conditions — positive baseline perceptions, credibility, goodwill — that make foreign policy engagement more productive.
The Investment Narrative and Its Measurable Foreign Policy Effects
Perhaps the most direct and measurable connection between African self-representation in global media and concrete foreign policy outcomes operates through the investment narrative — the way African countries present their economic environments to international business and finance audiences. This is a domain where the stakes are concrete, the metrics are trackable, and the evidence for representation effects is clearest.
Countries that successfully project narratives of stability, governance quality, and investment attractiveness — supported by consistent, credible media presence in the business press and investment forums that foreign direct investment decision-makers actually consume — have demonstrably different FDI attraction outcomes than equivalent countries that don’t manage these narratives actively. This is not because investors are naive or easily manipulated — they do their own due diligence. But their initial choices about which markets to investigate at all, which risks feel manageable versus prohibitive, and which countries appear on their mental maps of opportunity are powerfully shaped by the media representations they’ve absorbed.
The Kenya case is instructive. Kenya’s active promotion of Nairobi as a regional hub for East African operations — sustained through participation in international business events, active engagement with international business press, and the development of the “Silicon Savannah” narrative around the Nairobi tech ecosystem — has had measurable effects on which international technology and financial services companies established East African regional headquarters there rather than in competing cities. The narrative preceded and shaped the investment flows, which in turn strengthened the narrative and attracted more investment. Self-representation and foreign policy outcomes created a reinforcing loop rather than a simple one-directional relationship.
The Social Media Revolution and African Self-Representation
The emergence of social media as a significant channel for international information flow has created new possibilities for African self-representation that simply didn’t exist when the global information environment was dominated by a small number of major broadcast and print outlets. Twitter, now X, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok have created platforms on which African voices — from government officials to journalists to ordinary citizens to cultural creators — can reach global audiences directly, without the mediation of Western editorial gatekeepers who historically determined what African stories reached international attention.
This direct-to-audience capacity has produced some remarkable moments where African perspectives on global events bypassed the traditional media hierarchy to shape international discussion. The #EndSARS protests in Nigeria in 2020 — a movement against police brutality that generated massive international attention and significant diplomatic responses — were driven in significant part by social media activism that created a global audience for Nigerian civil society perspectives before major Western media organizations had fully engaged with the story. The social media layer created diplomatic and reputational pressure that translated into concrete responses from international organizations and foreign governments.
However, the social media channel also creates new vulnerabilities for African national self-representation. The same platforms that enable direct communication also enable targeted disinformation campaigns, coordinated inauthentic behavior aimed at destabilizing favorable narratives about specific countries, and the algorithmic amplification of crisis content over progress narratives that tends to reproduce online the same representational skew that characterized traditional media. Social media is a double-edged tool for African self-representation, and using it effectively requires sophisticated understanding of how these platforms actually work — understanding that varies enormously across African government communications offices.
The Language of Diplomacy and Who Controls It
There’s a subtle but significant dimension of the self-representation challenge that relates to the language of international media and diplomacy — literally, the question of which languages African nations’ messages are delivered in and what that means for which audiences they reach and how they’re received. The global media and diplomatic landscape remains overwhelmingly English-dominated for major international policy audiences, with French playing a secondary role in Francophone diplomatic circuits. African nations communicating primarily in their own official languages — whether those are European colonial languages like Portuguese or Amharic or Swahili — face different reception dynamics for their self-representation efforts.
This language dimension has practical implications for which African self-representation efforts actually reach the foreign policy audiences that matter. A government that communicates in English and Swahili but not in Mandarin is better positioned to influence US and European foreign policy through media than to influence Chinese engagement — which matters increasingly as China has become one of Africa’s most significant foreign policy partners. The mismatch between which languages African self-representation efforts prioritize and which languages matter for which foreign policy relationships is a genuine strategic challenge that most African government communications strategies haven’t fully addressed.
The African Union as a Collective Self-Representation Vehicle
One of the most significant but underappreciated vehicles for African collective self-representation in global media is the African Union — an institution that has the potential to project unified African perspectives on global issues but that has had variable success in doing so depending on the issue and the period. When the African Union speaks with one voice on a significant global issue — whether that’s debt restructuring, pandemic response, climate finance, or international security — it creates a media and diplomatic presence that individual African nations cannot achieve independently.
The AU’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic response, particularly the establishment of the Africa CDC and the collective advocacy for equitable vaccine access through COVAX and subsequent mechanisms, demonstrated what coordinated African self-representation in global media can achieve in terms of foreign policy outcomes. The African group’s unified messaging about the injustice of vaccine inequality reached global audiences through media channels in ways that shaped international discourse about global health equity and contributed to negotiated outcomes on vaccine sharing and IP waivers. This was not just optics — it reflected and reinforced a genuine diplomatic positioning that produced measurable policy changes.
The limitation of the AU as a self-representation vehicle is the limitation of any collective institution made up of 54 genuinely diverse member states with different interests, different relationships with major powers, and different communication priorities. Achieving unified messaging across that diversity is a political achievement in itself, and the frequency with which it can be achieved is necessarily limited by the underlying political dynamics of African continental diplomacy.
The China Relationship and Its Media Dimensions
No discussion of how African self-representation in global media affects foreign policy outcomes would be complete without engaging seriously with the China dimension — the rapidly evolving and enormously significant relationship between African nations and China that has its own complex media dynamics and its own implications for how representation shapes outcomes.
China’s media presence in Africa has grown substantially in the past two decades, with CGTN Africa, Xinhua, and China Daily establishing significant African operations and distribution. This Chinese media presence in Africa has its own implications for African self-representation — Chinese media in Africa tends to cover African stories through a frame that emphasizes development, infrastructure, and bilateral cooperation in ways that differ significantly from Western media frames, creating a different but equally selective representation that serves particular narrative interests.
From the perspective of African self-representation to the world, the China relationship creates both opportunities and challenges. African governments that have sought to diversify their media relationships beyond Western outlets have found Chinese platforms willing to carry their official communications — an alternative pathway to global audiences that bypasses Western editorial gatekeeping. At the same time, relying on Chinese state media as a primary channel for African self-representation to global audiences substitutes one set of editorial interests for another, without addressing the fundamental question of whether African nations control their own narrative.
What Genuine Strategic Self-Representation Requires
Drawing on everything we’ve examined, what does genuine strategic self-representation in global media actually require for an African nation seeking to influence its foreign policy outcomes? The answer involves several dimensions that are simultaneously clear and demanding.
It requires significant investment in national communications infrastructure and professional capacity — the trained communicators, the media production capabilities, the international media relationships, and the diplomatic communications expertise that effective self-representation demands. Many African nations have communication teams that are significantly under-resourced relative to the complexity and importance of the international narrative management challenge they face. The mismatch between what effective self-representation requires and what is resourced within government communications is itself a significant obstacle.
It requires strategic clarity about what narrative is being projected and to whom — the ability to articulate a compelling, credible national story that addresses the concerns of specific foreign policy audiences rather than defaulting to generic positive messaging that doesn’t engage with the actual questions driving those audiences’ perceptions. Rwanda’s success with the investment narrative wasn’t just about communication volume — it was about strategic precision in identifying what international investors and diplomatic partners needed to hear and calibrating the message accordingly.
And it requires consistency over time — the recognition that narrative change in deeply established international perceptions is a long-term project measured in years and decades rather than in individual communication campaigns. The patience and institutional consistency to maintain a coherent self-representation strategy across government administrations, communication directors, and shifting political priorities is among the most difficult but most important dimensions of effective African self-representation.
Measuring Outcomes: The Evidence Is Mixed but Real
Does the way African nations represent themselves in global media actually change foreign policy outcomes? Having examined this question from multiple angles, the honest assessment is that the evidence is mixed in its precision but real in its direction. The straightforward answer is yes — self-representation matters and has measurable effects — but with important qualifications about when, how much, for which kinds of outcomes, and under what conditions.
The effects are clearest and most measurable in domains like investment attraction, tourism, and economic partnership development — where the decision-making process involves the kind of reputation assessment and risk perception evaluation that media representation most directly shapes. They are real but harder to isolate in diplomatic relationships where multiple factors beyond representation interact in complex ways. They are weakest — or most easily overwhelmed — in situations where major news events drive international coverage in crisis frames that government communication strategies cannot effectively counter regardless of their sophistication.
The implication is not that self-representation doesn’t matter — it clearly does. It’s that self-representation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for favorable foreign policy outcomes, and that its effectiveness depends heavily on the underlying realities it’s representing, the resources and strategic sophistication with which it’s conducted, and the specific foreign policy domains where outcomes are being measured.
Conclusion
The question of whether African self-representation in global media changes foreign policy outcomes is ultimately a question about the relationship between narrative and power in international affairs — and the evidence suggests that relationship is real, significant, and increasingly important as the information environment becomes more contested and more central to how international relationships are formed and sustained. African nations that invest seriously in strategic self-representation — that bring sophisticated understanding of how global media works, who the audiences are, what narratives resonate with which foreign policy communities, and what it takes to shift deeply established international perceptions — demonstrably achieve different foreign policy outcomes than those that don’t.
This is not a trivial finding. In a world where the dominant narrative about Africa has been shaped by others for too long, the growing capacity of African nations and African media to tell their own stories, in their own voices, to audiences whose foreign policy decisions affect African lives, represents something important — not just diplomatically but epistemically. The world makes better decisions about Africa when it understands Africa more completely. And the transformation of African self-representation in global media — however partial, uneven, and ongoing — is making that more complete understanding incrementally more possible. The stakes of getting it right could not be higher.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific mechanisms link media representation to foreign policy outcomes?
The mechanisms connecting media representation to foreign policy outcomes operate at several levels simultaneously. At the cognitive level, framing effects shape the mental models that decision-makers develop about foreign countries — the background assumptions they bring to policy deliberation that aren’t always made explicit but that powerfully influence what policies seem appropriate or feasible. At the political level, media representations shape public opinion in democratic societies, creating or reducing political space for particular foreign policy positions and constraining or enabling what leaders can do internationally without domestic political cost. At the institutional level, the narratives that dominate about particular countries shape organizational cultures within foreign ministries, development agencies, and international financial institutions in ways that influence bureaucratic default assumptions about those countries. And at the market level, media representations directly shape the risk perceptions and opportunity assessments of investors, business executives, and financial institutions whose decisions constitute much of the practical content of international economic relationships.
Which African countries have been most successful at leveraging media self-representation for foreign policy gains?
Rwanda is the most extensively documented and analytically clear success case — its dramatic transformation from post-genocide crisis image to regional hub of stability, governance, and technology ambition represents one of the most effective national narrative repositioning efforts of the past three decades, with measurable foreign policy outcomes in investment flows, diplomatic relationships, and international institutional standing. Morocco has successfully leveraged its self-representation as a stable, moderate, strategically located gateway between Africa and Europe to secure significant European diplomatic and economic partnerships. Botswana has maintained a long-running reputation for stability and governance quality that has consistently supported favorable donor relationships and investment attraction. Kenya’s Silicon Savannah narrative has produced measurable tech sector investment and regional hub positioning. South Africa’s liberation narrative and cultural soft power continues to generate diplomatic standing exceeding what purely economic metrics would predict. Each of these cases involves specific strategic choices about narrative, audience, and communication channel that other African nations can learn from and adapt.
How does social media change the dynamics of African self-representation in global media?
Social media has fundamentally changed the architecture of African self-representation by eliminating the requirement for Western editorial mediation to reach global audiences and by enabling African voices — from governments to civil society to cultural creators to ordinary citizens — to participate directly in the construction of international narratives about African countries and the continent. This represents a genuine democratization of narrative capacity that simply didn’t exist before the social media era. However, social media also introduces new vulnerabilities including algorithmic bias that tends to amplify crisis content over progress narratives, the potential for coordinated disinformation campaigns targeting African national reputations, the speed of information flow that makes crisis events impossible to contain through communication management, and the resource requirements of maintaining effective social media presence at the scale needed to influence global audiences. The net effect is a more complex, more dynamic, and more contestable information environment for African self-representation — one that creates new opportunities for effective self-representation while also creating new risks and new demands for sophistication.
Can African media self-representation overcome the structural inequalities of the global media landscape?
The structural inequalities of the global media landscape — including resource disparities between Western and African media organizations, algorithmic advantages for established prominent sources, English-language dominance of major international policy audiences, and the entrenched narrative frames that decades of Western-dominated Africa coverage have established — represent genuine obstacles that African self-representation cannot simply overcome through communication strategy alone. However, the trajectory of change is real and meaningful. The growing reach of African media organizations, the social media revolution, the rise of African cultural soft power through music and film, and the increasing sophistication of African government communications all represent structural shifts that are incrementally changing the information environment. The honest assessment is that structural inequality can be mitigated and gradually transformed through sustained, strategic, well-resourced African self-representation, but cannot be instantly overcome. The work is long-term and collective, requiring investment across many institutions and many countries simultaneously.
What would more effective African self-representation in global media require at a policy level?
Effective African self-representation in global media at a meaningful scale requires policy interventions across multiple levels. At the national level, government communications infrastructure needs significant investment — including the training of professional strategic communications personnel, the development of multilingual communications capacity targeting key foreign policy partner audiences, and the institutional structures that allow consistent messaging to be maintained across government changes. At the continental level, the African Union and regional bodies like ECOWAS, SADC, and the AU Commission need communications capacity adequate to project unified African perspectives on global issues — including dedicated funding for communications functions that is currently insufficient. At the media development level, investment in African media organizations — through both government and development finance — would build the institutional capacity for African journalism to reach global audiences at greater scale. And at the advocacy level, African governments collectively need to advocate for reform of the global information order — including platform governance frameworks, algorithmic transparency requirements, and international media regulatory arrangements — that would create a more level playing field for non-Western voices in the global information environment.
Kathy Jane is a writer who specializes in public administration and media communication. She has 17 years of experience covering these fields and keeping up with their main trends. Kathy holds a BSc and an MSc in Mass Communication, giving her the skills to explain government and media topics in clear, easy-to-understand language.
Leave a Reply