|
It
is mainly a simplification in order to treat the fact out of its proper
context. The fact is presented as beginning and ending in itself, ie, one
tribe facing another. We should ask whether it is more correct to refer
them as “tribes” (what does that mean?) or as cultures, since
“tribe” has in general a pejorative meaning. In the moment the fact is
taken from its context, the possibility to understand the way-out is also
taken from the readers. Then you conclude they are primitive worthless
cultures making war against each other without knowing exctly why.
FM:
and what are the reasons of conflicts for you, as a journalist who knows
“in loco” the region?
BB:
there are two serious problemas in Africa that deal to many others, but we
coud state these two are the origin of most problems. One is that the
present states of Africa have had their frontiers defined by the european
colonialism.
FM:
in the conference of Berlim...
BB:
in the conference of Berlsim and its extensions. So, they are creations
that disrespect in its origin the real cultures and the limitations
historically existing in Africa. The settlesrs arrived and ignored them,
gussing that was a land of no one; so they created a superimposition with
an outside culture. The result could be no other than an aberration, as
the most african countries are nowadays. They have no linguistic or
cultural unity, and they do not have the feeling of belonging to a nation.
And the second major problem, as it is a rich continent, is the existence
of big international interests which are interfering straightly with the
local problems, as the old saying “divede and you will win, divide and
you will be a king”. Therefore, many conflicts that are believed to have
internal roots actually do not have. They are just a product of
international greed. It’s easier to exploit oil, diamons, uranium, or
whatever, within a war context. There is a fisherman’s saying which is
“a río revuelto, ganancia de pescador” (in troubled water, the
fisherman wins), ie, who will exploit will be winner. Take these two
ingredients, plus the colonial heritage of under development, and you will
have the explanation for the major part of the actual conflicts in Africa.
FM:
we read very few of Latin America in the media. We know a lot about New
York, Milan, whereas we know nothing about Bolivia, Chile... What happens
to the media? Is it for prejudice or for sponsorship? Why are we not
informed of what we are?
BB:
this is a very good question but at the seme time it’s a complex
question. For the international news, the newspapers contact certain news
agencies and the journalists prepare the page with basic news. Then what
happens? As such agencies have european or north-american origin, they are
managed by first world people. In that context, even the people who are
more conscious of their duty as citizens of the world to inform in the
actual global world, will always give priority to the first world news
because it is what they know best. On the other hand, there are huge
prejudices towards the underdeveloped world. For those agencies, the
choice of the news is totally based on the values and on the nation they
have about society: what social segment has its value absolutely increased
nowadays? It is the economy. What area within the economy? The financial
one. So, it only becomes a news what refers to finance.
FM:
that is also refered to the individualism you cited previously.
BB:
in the end, everything is related to a proposal of the society we are
submitted to. And then you realize there’s all this previous concept
that is determining the choices of the news, which countries are really
interesting world-wide and so on. They are not our choices, they are not
our priorities. They are packages that come closed. And when we contact
those agencies all this is part of the whole process. How many facts take
place in Brazil and are note reported by our media? Or, if they are, they
express a certain point of view... For example, what is happening to the
MST (Land-Less Workers Social Movement)? What is the view presented to us?
It is the view of violence, of the ones who represent danger to private
property... Instead of showing the other face of the coin, of emphasizing
the need of teaching the campers, of offering them notions of citizenship
and of self-esteem to turn those persons from excluded into brazilians
people willing to be part of the society. And then your question should be
adked in the courses of communication too. Because the kind of journalist
that is being formed, mostly, with honourable exceptions, is the
journalist that will act in accordance with that structure, that is, who
will neither question nor think critically and, therefore, will adapt
comfortably to this working structure without trying to see a little far
away.
|
|
|
