Okay, the writer does make some good points - [good is a lazy word to use]. African journalists have their own challenges and setbacks, that the writer points out. I however think that the question of who is wrong and who is right is a chicken and egg one. It should be more like if someone is reporting about South Sudan, isnt it better to have a journalist from SS reporting on the issue for international/western media? because they understand - sometimes - the historical, political & cultural context of the country. If you are in CAR, cant they have a journalist - local - who understands what is going on and perhaps why people are killing each other. Of course we also have our problems. For instance, a journalist in Kampala is sent to Hoima to write a story on oil. The journalist is given 2 days to work on that story. Surely, they will get some things wrong if they do understand some of the cultural & political undertones in Hoima. For instance, Human Rights Watch released a report on the Human Rights Abuses in Karamoja as a result of mining activities. Mining in general has problems [I penned my thoughts on it here: mumakeith.blogspot/2013/10/ugandans-why-you-should-give-damn-about.html] so why is Karamoja unique? International media picked on this - and so did we - and published the findings. But then what? We all failed and perhaps should have traveled to Karamoja and find out what the problem is. Some have been there and seen what is going on, so they can tell the story from the point of view of interaction, observation & context. I think the debate should be on the type of story done not who did the story.
Posted on: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:26:57 +0000