It is either that the private media in Zambia always intends to misinform the public or is it that the media itself exists in an abyss of reason. Reading today's Post news stories (print and electorinic), which are in effect opinions of opposition party leaders of Edith Nawaki, Michael Sata, and the fellow from SACCORD, one wonders how it can be that a country can have such inanalytic people conceived as newsworthy. There is nothing informed or meaninful that any of these persons are communicating. In short, they remind one of the noise a dog whose tail has been trapped by the door makes.
It is simplistic and uttermost a manifestation of analytic insufficiency for Nawaki to shout that RB's re-appointment of Dora Siliya is ethnical! This does not help the public. The fundamental issue is simply that Dora Silya is NOT currently conceived to be publicly acceptable. Her behaviours in the Tribunal issues did not show any evidence of her being able to instil public confidence in her execution of public office. This is the bottom line, and this has meaning to the public and not the nonsense of tribalism, ethnicity, which is utter rubbish and cheap.
As for SACCORD, I wish CSOs can take time to analyse issues before opening their mouths. We do not need uninformed statements, as they can be construed informed by lesser informed members of society.
Lastly, I sincerely wonder whether being an opposition leader means that you have the licence to talk without basis. That is innuendo, speculation and allegations. Sata surely should simply tell us of this corruption knowledge that Dora has on Rupiah Banda, that way he will be helping us. And surely, why can't the media interrogate Sata for this knowledge? What value is there in simply reporting an innuendo or allegation without requesting that the person justifies himself or herself? Well, may be this country's journalism ethics belong to the pit latrine!
Friday, June 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment