"This ethnic conflict frame performs three functions when used by African journalists. The first is that it works to domesticate the conflict [in Darfur] by relying on already sedimented knowledge among African audiences about identity formation … The second function of this frame is based on knowing that the national media subfields in the three countries [i.e., Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa] have a nuanced understanding of ethnic identities. When asked about the role of ethnicity in Darfur, a Nigerian journalist responded, "It's a factor, religion is a factor as well. Religion shapes ethnicity" (interview with a journalist, Nigeria 2015). This approach alerts us that, as far as African journalists are concerned, ethnicity does not always have a path-deterministic relationship with violence, as some journalists in the Global North have sometimes suggested (Wahutu 2017b, 16-17). The third point is that this ethnic conflict frame works to create a sense of shared affinity between the victims and the audience in Kenya, South Africa and Rwanda while othering those framed as Arab/Muslim as being radically different. This explanation is one that was more present during my interviews with journalists. In both Kenya and South Africa, journalists often viewed as Sudan as not "real Africa." (Page 246)