There's an article on The New Stateman called "Photographing the new South Africa," which touches on Johannesburg, and specifically, my part of town.
It's interesting, in that it tells a whole lot of suburban history I didn't know about. It also mentions my suburb directly, though not accurately or in a complimentary manner. But what I found very interesting is that the visual representation was of old, decrepit buildings. That is not a representation of my suburb or even of the new South Africa.
It's irritating when a journalist picks portions of a story that fits his story agenda and leaves out some of the facts that could balance them out. I'm not saying those buildings don't exist, but they are certainly not all there is to the area he's depicting! Actually, they don't even make up 20% of the area. Gah!
Read the piece yourself and tell me what you think.
2 comments:
This comes down to journalists (print or photo) needing to be really responsible in what they write, because it's too easy to manipulate the facts into a one-sided view to get the reaction one wants. I think it's been a problem for as long as newspapers have been in existence! That's why I hardly ever read newspapers, and when I do, I question everything I read.
Judy (South Africa)
Damaria (and Judy),
Yes, I agree with you both. The New Statesman definitely didn't get it right. I've visited Damaria and strolled with her in her neighborhood. She told me how her neighborhood is a village with people looking out for each other.
The phenomena of selective journalism makes me mad, too. Especially when I see reports of African news in the United States. Where is the line of exageration?
Janet Riehl
Post a Comment