The media in the Ivory Coast

Leslie

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
I don't know what to think of this. On the one hand, it's inciting violence. On the other, it's the voice of the people? In a legitimate revolution, are the people not entitled to get their word out? Is media like radio and television an appropriate medium with which to incite violence?

hmmmmmmmmmm.
My head is exploding over this one.

.....National television and radio has been broadcasting fervent, not to say feverish, messages calling on people to take to the streets.

On occasions, the messages have strayed from the motivational to the incendiary.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan demanded what he called "hate media" be stopped immediately.

Monday's UN Security Council decision to impose sanctions on Ivory Coast was even more explicit.

It demanded "that the Ivorian authorities stop all radio and television broadcasting hatred, intolerance and violence". It also announced that anyone "who incites publicly hatred and violence" will have their bank accounts frozen and will be stopped from leaving the country. ....
Click to expand...
It's a long article, more here
 
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan demanded what he called "hate media" be stopped immediately.
Click to expand...

Ugh oh, they had better get their act together. Otherwise Coffee might demand what he called "hate media" be stopped immediately, again & again & again & again & again & again....
 
Genocide on the Ivory Coast

Didn't their neighbor Liberia just wrap up
a 14 year long civil war? Oh isn't this Muslims killing Christians
in the Ivory Coast?

Do ya suppose there was hate media in the press during the American civil war?

Yeah take to the streets but don't get in the face of French
armed forces, we know how that tends to turn out.
 
Re: Genocide on the Ivory Coast

Winky said:
Didn't their neighbor Liberia just wrap up
a 14 year long civil war?
Click to expand...

That was the (surprise!) US Marines. By request no less.
 
Re: Genocide on the Ivory Coast

well this thread failed miserably.

I thought so too, chcr. The interesting and scary bits both. I'm having a nifty debate in my head today.
 
:eyebrow:
the one hand, it's inciting violence. On the other, it's the voice of the people?
Click to expand...


:crap: Since when was the media EVER the "voice of the people?": that idea is, and always has been an ideal in the extreme, in fact it is the voice of the MINORITY who are actually have power to control the media at a given time. In this case, it is clearly another propoganda instrument, Since when was revolution and violence good for the everyday, non-political civilian that wants to get on with life; let alone survival...?
 
American Revolution turned out pretty good didn't it?

I'm thinking along the lines of grassroots media here. But even mainstream media...to cut it off entirely so that noone has access to information, however propagandalike it may be, is questionable.
 
The American Revolution had clear cut ideas & ideals from the outset. That is very uncommon.
 
I'm thinking along the lines of grassroots media here. But even mainstream media...to cut it off entirely so that noone has access to information, however propagandalike it may be, is questionable.
Click to expand...

thats true, and I agree...but in this case it is precisely the mainstream media of this country which has been hijacked, and is used as an instrument to incite hostility against white citizens and those who are in opposition to the government...especially affecting the ordinary individual that just wants to get on with life, who has the right to live in his or her country peacefully, who is neither on either side of the violence but stuck in the middle of it and being forced to evacuate their home and country because of it.

It is precisely those of the grassroots media, the dissedent voices of the ordinary people here who are being overrided and cut off by the government and supporters of the mainstream media in order to support a radical political regime. SO it is those people, those ordinary people that you should be concerned about that have no choice, not the role of media in a country which is far removed from the ideologies of the media in your own.
 
I agree, it's the right thing in "this case. But it is also a dangerous precedent, no?

How far down the line is this from the point where any anti-government/anti-whoever is in power/control statement can be considered as "hate" and banished from the airwaves? Not far imo.
 
Leslie said:
I agree, it's the right thing in "this case. But it is also a dangerous precedent, no?

How far down the line is this from the point where any anti-government/anti-whoever is in power/control statement can be considered as "hate" and banished from the airwaves? Not far imo.
Click to expand...

the thing is, the hate statements ARE the ones that are in power and are exactly what needs to be banished from the airwaves....these hate statements are messages from a corrupt government to the people as the means - it is the message OF the government, not the message against it.

But as far as your point goes, which i think is slightly different from the situation here - anti-authority voices categorised as 'hate' or, perhaps in an american context 'unpatriotic' (say, against the Iraq War, against Bush) yes, the precedent is dangerous - unfortunately, is still one that exists.

However, the context is an entirely different one - because here the anti-government voices are precisely the ones that have been opposing the predominant voice of those in power projecting this "hate" propoganda...and these are the voices which have been eliminated by this media frenzy in order to support the objectives of the political regime which is a violent and radical one inciting widespread violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top