Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 17, 2007 17:11:35 GMT
The BBC ran an article in July 2004 questioning whether Africa was too dangerous for journalists, in light of threats made against reporters there by various dictators and totalitarian regimes. BBC journalists have been banned from Zimbabwe since July 2001.
Are we to think that the various Middle East regimes and dictators are less threatening or menacing than African ones? Many would argue that Mugabe was perhaps more of a 'freedom fighter' ridding his country of 'unlawful occupation' than Palestinians, yet the BBC has had no problem vilifying Mugabe and his regime, and suffered being ousted from Zimbabwe as a result.
The only country in the Middle East to have banned the BBC for a time was Israel, because of the blatant anti-Israel reportage emanating from that area. They later reforged relations, although as most readers here are aware, the bias is still as blatant as ever.
Though Alan Johnston, the BBC Gaza correspondent, has apparently been kidnapped by Palestinians there, he could hardly be accused of being pro-Israeli in his reports. One has to wonder, considering the aggressive and virulent stance of miltiant Muslims in that part of the world, that if the media was truly expressing their freedom to relate the truth, why isn't it more dangerous there? To compare just a fraction of transgressions that these societies are engaged in, in total opposition to our values, any reporter that made these observations would certainly be putting his life on the line.
Expect the bias to continue - Africa is expendable, not so the Muslims.
Are we to think that the various Middle East regimes and dictators are less threatening or menacing than African ones? Many would argue that Mugabe was perhaps more of a 'freedom fighter' ridding his country of 'unlawful occupation' than Palestinians, yet the BBC has had no problem vilifying Mugabe and his regime, and suffered being ousted from Zimbabwe as a result.
The only country in the Middle East to have banned the BBC for a time was Israel, because of the blatant anti-Israel reportage emanating from that area. They later reforged relations, although as most readers here are aware, the bias is still as blatant as ever.
Though Alan Johnston, the BBC Gaza correspondent, has apparently been kidnapped by Palestinians there, he could hardly be accused of being pro-Israeli in his reports. One has to wonder, considering the aggressive and virulent stance of miltiant Muslims in that part of the world, that if the media was truly expressing their freedom to relate the truth, why isn't it more dangerous there? To compare just a fraction of transgressions that these societies are engaged in, in total opposition to our values, any reporter that made these observations would certainly be putting his life on the line.
Expect the bias to continue - Africa is expendable, not so the Muslims.
Is Africa too dangerous for journalists?
Jean Helene was shot dead by a policeman last October
The international human rights organisation Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has said that 2003 was not a "particularly good" year for press freedom in Africa.
The organisation cited the killings of two journalists in Ivory Coast as well as the probable execution of a third in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
It also chronicles many arrests as well as continuing threats to an independent press in Africa.
RSF said in countries like Cameroon, Gabon, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, Togo and Zimbabwe, the press was the victim of authoritarianism and a resistance to change.
If you're a journalist in Africa, what do you make of your job? Are you taking your life in your hands?
As a member of the public, do you think reporters truly reflect what you see happening around you?
This debate is now closed. A section of your comments are published below.