Reporting and documentaries are completely different realms.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
Pulling the race card
- Thread starter baasvandieplaas
- Start date
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Where I said "reporting", change it to "creating documentaries which portray Apartheid in a negative light".
Edit : I'm niether supporting apartheid, nor claiming that the BBC is biased, only that your claim doesn't make sense. Find another way of proving your point.
Ok, I did that. Now, please point me where I can find anything which portrays Apartheid in a positive light. And I don't like going to white supremist sites so please avoid posting those.
Bull****. BBC is a broadcasting agency just like any other. BIASED
Thanks to BBC, CNN, oversees audiences only get to see the negative stories coming out of Africa. Positive stuff out of Africa would just not sell unless it's discovery channel material.
There is also another perception that the ministers and the people in high places are not affected by crime because of the security provided by the GVT. Even the deputy president's home has been broken into.
http://iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=vn20070219104153811C140850
Why does the ANC automatically assume the following: "stereotype that Africans are less than human, or, at least, genetically inferior"
I think the answer lies in the following, if your (that of the ANC) actions are inferior then you are inferior.
I think the answer lies in the following, if your (that of the ANC) actions are inferior then you are inferior.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
That's the point. The documentaries would have shown apartheid for the evil that it was. In other words they would come to the conclusion "Apartheid is bad". However true it is, it's still a negative report about Africa, and thus using it as evidence to refute the claim that the BBC only reports on Africa negatively is erroneous. Infact it only makes your claim weaker.
Tell me, exactly when did the news service generally report positively about things? Bad news sells. Not just bad news about Africa, but bad news all over the world. Spend a day listening to BBC/Sky/Al Jazeera/CNN and chances are you won't hear a single positive piece anywhere.Bageloo said:
And with that a perfectly civil discussion is hijacked by a "perception" pundit. Once again, I am not talking about the news reporting of the BBC, but the documentaries shot under license of the BBC. Take a hike if you don't want to participate constructively.
Xarog: what is your point? A good documentary lets the viewer make up their own mind on the facts presented during the documentary. You taking an evil era as an example of a negative documentary as a case in point does not, sorry to say. prove your point here. I would have bought it if you pointed to a documentary focusing on a neutral subject where the viewer's conclusion would be aligned to have a completely negative perception of XYZ. Bowling for Columbine is such a documentary.
What difference does it make? A documentary on a political issue is still a responsibility of the newsroom head.
Don't avoid the issue by getting technical on me. The BBC like any other broadcaster has an agenda. You said they will be more objective compared to SABC because they are from outside of Africa.
Ditto, the SABC!
Now you're talking rubbish. BBC documentaries are independently written, directed and filmed. Often independently produced documentaries are purchased and distributed under license to the BBC. And once again, as I have stated previously, it is probably extremely doubtful that the BBC has an agenda. Especially on crime - in South African. A country in no way relevant to the BBC. And yes, the SABC (being a government mouthpiece) is hardly objective. Lest we forget about their political commentators blacklist.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
OK, let's run through this one more time :Bobbymac said:
iMonga said :
iMonga said:
You replied :
A negative documentary about apartheid is still a negative report on african issues. Thus your claim that one only has to look at the many apartheid documentaries to show that such suggestions are misplaced is nothing but BS.
I'm not disputing the quality of the documentaries here, only that your reasoning for dismissing the ANC's claims are flawed.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
So why did you say :
Clearly all news stations have a tendency to report negatively on things. Thus, that the BBC may publish a negative story about Africa does not by any means mean that they have some Africa specific agenda which they are trying to promote.
Omg, you took the word "negative" completely literally then? Ok, then yes, by your genius reasoning my argument falls flat. Try and understand what I was saying - that the BBC is not in the business of making negative documentaries because (as suggested by the ANC) they have an agenda against African black people. The documentary in question was hard hitting, but not racist. The ANC, however, dismissed it as racist. How predictable.
Just to clarify: I was talking about the insinuation that the BBC portrays African people (particularly African Black people) in a standard negative light, not that the message was negative.
Just to clarify: I was talking about the insinuation that the BBC portrays African people (particularly African Black people) in a standard negative light, not that the message was negative.
Last edited:
dlk001
Executive Member
Conversely, does it mean we are possibly more objective about UK compared to BBC because we are from outside of UK.
Our opinions are still based on their news reporting in most cases isn't it? If we had external news sources "inside" those places then perhaps we can have more subjective news matter.
DigitalSoldier
Honorary Master
africa got a negative history
But to get back to the topic...
I remember a while ago when the UK awarded a tender for one of the city's in UK to build a major casino in the city BBC also reported about the crime and slums in one of the city's, and it would be a bad idea to build a major casino there.
My point is they reported on something bad in the UK none of the residents jumped the gun saying the report is racist.
Are our african leaders so insecure about their ability to rule a country that everytime something negative about them is being said they HAVE to say its racist ???
yes they are very insecure, they find fault with everything except themselves...blame it on apartheid, blame it on poverty, blame it on British Colonization...
About the SABC I don't object. No one films a documentary and later decides, i'm going to sell that to BBC. In most instances a documentary is commisioned by the broadcaster. Once it is filmed it is then subjected to scrutiny and aproval by the broadcaster before it can be aired. Like I mentioned before every broadcaster has an agenda of some sort. It might not be a written policy but it is usually implemented (in practice) through the aproval and the commisioning processes.
The SABC blacklist is a very good example of an agenda that was threatening to become written policy.