South Sudan Crisis and Responsible Reporting

please sign the petition
against this report: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/south-sudan-state-that-fell-apart-in-a-week

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/south-sudan-crisis-and-responsible-reporting?share_id=KzTerrWTSl&utm_campaign=share_button_mobile&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition#share

Dear Mr Rusbridger,   We are deeply concerned and dismayed at the coverage from South Sudan ("South Sudan: the state that fell apart in a week"), and the header used describing its author as the "first western journalist into" the country.   We are aware of the difficulties in gathering information from outside of Juba, the capital city.  However, we are extremely concerned about the risks in reporting exclusively anti-Nuer violence in one location.  We are aware that international media plays a strong role in fuelling retaliation elsewhere in the country, and we believe that your report contributes to this threat.   South Sudanese people are trying to fight the language of tribalism, hate and fear-mongering.  Now - more than ever - there is a real need for unbiased, balanced and informed reporting.  By concentrating on 'ethnic violence', particularly against the Nuer in Juba, your coverage is deeply flawed and at risk of being used as propaganda.   We also take issue with the description of the author of the article, Daniel Howden, as the "first western journalist into South Sudan."  This claim is untrue, misleading and offensive to all the African journalists, both South Sudanese and foreign nationals, who have been steadily covering the events since their very beginning, in Juba, Bor, Bentiu, Malakal, and all over South Sudan, often at great risk to their lives.  Two African journalists were detained for two nights at the beginning of the crisis, and many others are working under death threats.  They are producing clear, grounded data and informed analysis.   Being "western" is not a distinction worth mentioning - and there are many South Sudanese, African, and "western" journalists who have been working from South Sudan for some time, many of whom are still present across the country today.  We are also offended by the implication that "western" coverage may be less biased or better informed than local African media.  In many respects, the complexity of South Sudan demands experienced local coverage rather than regionally-based external journalism.   We kindly request you therefore, as the Editor in Chief of The Guardian, to issue appropriate corrections and strive to provide balanced, sensitive and nuanced coverage of a country on the brink of civil war.  We urge you to maintain the newspaper’s high standards by striving to provide a truly unbiased coverage of the devastating events unfolding in South Sudan.   Sincerely yours,   Gabriela Jacomella, freelance reporter and media trainer Aguil Lual Blunt, development professional Nicki Kindersley, researcher

international media (and irresponsible journalism)

this is: jok madut jok

What exactly is the point of journalistic reports about any incident of violence or political wrangling? Their point in my view is to first of all inform, alert the world community about what has happened. secondly, it is to try to explain the situation in such a way that the incident can be stopped so more death can be prevented. If i am right in summarizing what i believe is the moral duty of journalism, then i am not sure what has been reported in the last few days by many international journalists does any of that. We are a community here, we have many ways to resolve our own conflicts, and the context is complex. Yes, people have died in Juba at the hands of the Dinka and scores have died in Jonglei, Upper Nile and Unity, including my own immediate cousin, at the hands of Nuer. All of that killing is a few individuals for reason known to them only who are doing this. so what does it help for BBC or Hannah MacNeish to say that the Dinka-led government in Juba ordered the killing? What does purpose does it serve in view of the ethics of journalism does it serve for any one to say that these people died in the name of "tribe.?" How does that help us here as a community to stem the tide of these killings, if we keep telling South Sudanese that "oh, your kin were just murdered in cold blood by Nuer in Bentiu or in Juba by Dinka?" all without verification of the complex ethnic, historical and political issues involved? One journalist please tell me how your reporting has helped stem the violence?

---

Please do realize that i am not saying that horrific things did not happen. you will also realize that i was one of the first to describe in my two previous reports in this space about what i witnessed against Nuer in Juba. What i am now saying is that journalists, one of whom claimed today to be the first "Western Journalist" to witness the situation in South Sudan, are framing the issues in a way that does not help. I will be the last to to try to hide the truth, gun to my head or not. What i am saying that you can't go into the UN camp in Juba as a journalist and claim that you have seen or heard the whole truth. There is far more to it than just hearing one distraught Nuer or Dinka and believe them face value that what they are saying without cross-checking that against other sources. I have driven through some of these neighborhoods but the journalists are talking about "eye witness accounts" in a country where the situation is so politicized that one's opinion is not just a reflection of what has happened to them, but a commentary on what they think is the general situation. My work on social cohesion and ethnic harmony will speak for itself, instead of me defending myself. I am a person who has continuously call for South Sudanese ordinary people to forge our own way forward, away from those leaders who are trying to get to public office at our own expense. But the way the current situation is being reported as a Nuer-Dinka fight is what i object to, based on what i have seen first hand, and not from "eye-witness account."

-----

International media, BBC, Hannah McNeish, please stop spreading these lies and making the situation in my country worse. I am not saying that ethnic clashes are caused by them, but they are not helping the situation by the kind of ghastly reporting that has happened over the past two nights. please, please stop hearing from one Nuer or Dinka person about their ordeal and then making the scale of it many times than it actually is. please be careful, otherwise, you are making it far worse, and i believe that is not really what you want.

------------------------

events in juba

It’s a little bit difficult to explain the past few days’ events in South Sudan. It’s gone from incredulous to wtf? It’s easier to become emotional and talk about;

Anger. Disappointment. Confusion. Surprise. Resentment.  Fear.

First I was angry that a group of people would take for granted our hard-won nationhood and attempt a coup. Whenever people I know would talk about the possibility of a coup, I was always in the group of the naysayers. Nah, we are too proud of being a republic to risk that. Or nah. We might have our differences but really? A coup? SPLM would not dare take us back to war. We’ve waited too long to have a country to return to.

Then I was disappointed. At Kiir when it felt like the events had been overplayed- what had actually been a skirmish among the presidential guards had escalated into a night of gunfire in Juba. That was that. He need not have shown up in full military regalia to display his military credentials/ intimidate the rest of us. This was not actually an organized attempt at overthrowing his government and his reaction displayed a sort of panic.  Besides, Machar came out and said he had nothing to do with a coup.

Now im just confused. We have moved from, ‘coup? What coup? No im not organizing a coup. The old man is confused.’

To ‘I control 20% of South Sudan, and my forces continue to gain ground. I will shut off all the oil revenue flowing to Juba and will deal directly with Sudan'

So now that this is apparently a coup against a president that has become dictatorial and sat under a corrupt regime (although Machar seems to have forgotten that during the entire time he is complaining about he was a vice-presidential with some executive powers – therefore he is as culpable).  The question now being- so how is overthrowing a democratically elected government – regardless of the shortcomings – in view of the fact that elections are to be held in 2015- going to make us more democratic?  How will a military regime, serving a hostile tribally motivated and resentful population, ensure peace and stability – and no vengeance – while at the same time establishing democratic principles that they say have been over-ridden?

The worst of this is it has fueled the most irresponsible reporting ever by the international media. sensationalis, to say the least

its as though they are clamouring for an ethnic cleansing so as to have a news cycle.

i fear that this crying wolf will result in exactly what they are predicting for south sudan.

what has started as political wrangling of the worst sort (machar must be having de ja vu's of 1991) is being reported as a purely dinka-nuer thing. its disgusting. 

people out in the states probably do not have access to viable reports/ information and are listening to disinformation. This is the kind of fear that could have severe repercussions.  its already bad enough that things escalate very quickly in south sudan.

i hope the media wont be culpable in this