Pope Benedict XVI visit to AFRICA : Going beyond spiritual rhetoric

Pope's visit to AFRICA : Going beyond spiritual rhetoric.

I have read with a lot of concern and interest what many people are writing in different fora concerning the visit of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI to Cameroon and Angola during his maiden visit to Africa from March 17-23, 2009. Good and bad things are being said of the visit.

However, I may not want to consider the visit as any favour rather than that, the Pope is fulfilling his papal and spiritual obligation, though Christian Cardinal Tumi of Cameroon, whom I admire so much and with and under whom I have worked for long, sees it as a"…. blessing from heaven". (Benedictions du ciel)", Mutation online March 10, 2009. That not withstanding, we are very happy to receive the Supreme Pontiff.

We all know some speeches/statements have moved mountains, like the "…do not be afraid" address of Pope John Paul II of blessed memory to his fellow Polish people. As an ex seminarian and someone who believes he is serving God in his current capacity, my worry is that "Men of God” must go beyond spiritual rhetoric, typical of them nowadays, and address real and concrete issues which affect the lives of people daily.

Concerning addressing “pragmatic” issues, that is the more reason I have always admired and loved to listen to the homilies of Cameroonian born Christian Cardinal Tumi, during which he always relates the Bible or word of God to our daily life. In so doing he urges mankind (us) often, to change and follow God. He constantly implore leaders/politicians whom, I must admit, have a critical impact in the all our societies today, to always make efforts to lead us in the right direction. This has brought him a lot of criticisms, from those who think he usually goes beyond his limits. They often want him may be, to limit his preaching at saying “the bible says, the bibles says….”

As the Holy Father visits Cameroon and Africa , he should note this. First and foremost, the Catholic Church and most of its (shepherds) in Cameroon in particular, need serious "redressing" or "overhauling”. The numerous stories about promiscuity, extravagance and gallivanting attitudes of some of our priests including some bishops, some even go as far as bearing children, others fornicating with their students, peoples’ wives, parishioners etc must be addressed.

Mortgaging the Church and its assets for “loans”, as if to sell Jesus Christ again for FCFA 950.000. 000 as Judas did for 30 pieces of silver. This follows using a famous Cathedral in Cameroon as a security for a loan taken by one of its bishop. The serious and terrifying cases of embezzlement among others, merit papal attention. These are issues which if the Pope fails to address even in private with his priests, then his mission to Cameroon, I must admit, must have fallen far below expectations, and why not, a non-starter. If such issues are not addressed, the Church in Cameroon/Africa as has been the case in the USA, in the years to come, may have to even sell most of its buildings or assets etc, to settle problems being caused by some of its priests including bishops now. Some clergy men and women may end up in jail. The Pope must be bold enough to tell his priests and clergy in Cameroon/Africa that religious life is a vocation and not a profession. He must make them know that besides being a call, it is a choice, which those "called" can as well turn down. God gave us this freedom to choose. There is no force in it and those who have decided to live the life, MUST abide by the principles of the vocation or QUIT.These will make more meaning than for the Holy Father just to tell us that he has prayed for us.

We as human beings and also as Catholics, are not only religious, but also social, economic, and political beings. It would serve no interest if the Holy Father comes and fails to address, even in private meetings with the Head of State(s), some of the issues Cameroonians/ Africans among whom are Catholics are kind of frustrated with. If some people are looking up to the Holy Father, it is because they expect him as spriritual leader to hold SINCERE dicussions with country leaders.

We understand the Church and the Vatican as a state, and as a religious body, though with political connotations, sometimes has to be diplomatic in its approach. In my opinion, true religion must not be indifferent to injustices, oppression, exploitation, colonialism in all its forms and other vices. The Catholic Church has done much and is still doing a lot but a lot more still has to be done.

However, diplomacy though good in its own ways, must not be of too common usage in the Church because, a spade must be called a spade. In trying to always use "subtle" means to explain burning issues, the message is either lost or the meaning/importance, seriously minimized. Church leaders must not choose to dine only with those in power, the rich, and the powerful. They must not necessarily be with the opposition, but, they should stand beside the weak, the oppressed, the sick etc.

As a spiritual leader who represents hope, he must not only tell us to just keep waiting and hoping. We expect him to be courageous enough to tell those thwarting the hope of Cameroonians and Africans to at least, have some feelings for human beings and or their fellow citizens.

We expect him to speak about and against neo-colonialism and its funded wars and its economic and political domination in Africa . We expect him not only to hinge on the murder of Jews by Nazis, but, also recognise that even before that, millions of Congolese were murdered under the auspices of the Belgian King Leopold of Congo Kinshasa etc. Thousands continue to die till date because of these economic-neo-colonial driven wars. It is not about going back to the past. But we must know the present was shaped by the past and struggling during and for the present, will determine the future.

It is true that real change can only come from within, but the influence from such personalities cannot be underestimated.

Journalism and propaganda: Falling into the dragnet of politicians.

Journalism and propaganda: Consciously and unconsciously falling into the dragnet of politicians

In communication, we always want to drive home meaning in what we say. Be it business

communication, development communication, political communication, international communication or simply put Communication. Journalism is an art embodied in communication and as a matter of fact, those who practise it often master the elements of the various but inexhaustive forms of communication mentioned above. Additionally, for journalism to be distinguished, it has to respect the principles of being balance, fair, not subjective, researched, unambiguous etc.

We just finished a course titled War and Peace Journalism and think I should share with my readers my opinion, on what I have heard watched and read with amazement done by some journalists in relation to war and peace.

In brief, while Peace journalism is when journalists cover and report events in a way that suggests or provides non violent means to resolving any conflict, War Journalism is the when journalists cover and report in a way that provokes violence, hatred, conflict and other vices. They mostly do this through instigating direct or indirect division among people or through the use of propaganda.

In my opinion, war journalism is not limited to covering or reporting war. NO. Reports in areas of peace may provoke war and in some cases, reports in post war situations have reignited conflict and in cases of ongoing war or conflict, aggravated the situation.

My worry has been the choice of words, phrases and angles chosen by journalists in the coverage of events in the world today. Everybody has a right to his choice though.

However, there are certain words which many journalists have adopted and using them as common journalistic parlance whereas, these are words or concepts created by politicians, war mongers, imperialist, dictators, racists and unfortunately, “forced” them into our daily jargon.

They have then become normal words, not necessarily because we like them, but, because, many media have adopted them either consciously and unconsciously. They are used so frequently and often without attribution. As a result, many of us have reduced ourselves to acting as the mouth pieces of some world leaders.

Considering the power of the media, the continuous usage of those words have shaped public opinion, thinking and reactions. As a result, a great part of the population then turn to see see things from the angle of the politicians.

These words which are not exhaustive include “ dictator”, “international community”, “depleted uranium, “collateral damage”, “we are investigating”, “aide”, tyrants, “war on terror”, “war of liberation” “terrorists” etc. These words or phrases are created by politicians who have their agenda. It has become a tactic.

How comes that a journalist during prime time news cast, bluntly calls a sovereign and democratically elected head of state, “dictator”, without any attribution. Who is a dictator and who is not. Who is a tyrant and who is not. Is a tyrant limited to so called dictators or people allegedly democratically elected but who through out their stay in power have caused havoc, disrespected international conventions and declarations, over thrown regimes, set confusion and initiated the imposition of sanctions on weaker nations. I do not want to accused any particular media here but I have abundant examples if need be to name them.

.

“Depleted Uranium”: Uranium is used among other things to manufacture nuclear weapons. Substances of the deadly chemical have been used against civilians and war mongers created the word “depleted uranium” to kind of simplify the impact of such weapons and give the impression that their use is not bad. If at all uranium was depleted while even use it? These words should be used with a lot of caution, attribution or even avoided by media men and women.

“International community: This is quasi inexistent but for the exception of the General Assembly of the UN which can said to represent international community to an extent. NOT the Security Council. But when some “rich” or powerful nations and their allies group for their economic, political and military interests but claim to speak for the international community, it a pity that journalists often refer to them as the international community. Most of us have adopted it without question. Where is the critical mind then?

Journalists ought to defend their profession not the interest or the will of their political masters. But again, I understand that due to heavy commercial, geo political interests in the world today, real journalism has almost been buried for public relations. The only difference is that some media organs really master the arts of mixing public relations, propaganda and journalism so much so that the common man has been unable to draw the lines among them.

These very so called global or big media organs are the ones moving here and there claiming to be organising refresher courses on journalism. Are they doing it because they have the logistics and financial means or really because they have any extra or great knowledge of the noble profession?

A true journalist must not only be contented in announcing events or quoting leaders. A real journalist is not only he who attends all world conferences. He is not only the one who is on every scene covering war and conflict. It is he who has that critical mind to read the news behind human actions and events in general and reveal them to the world. Such a journalist must be able to read meaning behind all the statements and issues. That is news behind the news.

As a journalist, I am not just contented on reporting events. I am also very much more concern on how my reporting has help move the world forward in a positive direction. That will be my legacy as a journalist, development communicator.

It is but normal that any journalist who brings innovation to mainstream journalism is called an activist. That notwithstanding, it is not necessarily following the chorus that makes us good. Journalists basically inform, educate and entertain.

If in trying to meet these three basic aims any journalist has not been able to bring about any positive development, then, he has to review his approach.

In an era of the revolution of information technology and where any person can pass for a journalist by simply posting anything online, in newspaper or so, true journalist must make the difference.

I do understand that the editorial policies of some media organs may be a big hindrance to effective journalism.

I understand most journalists as individuals, are victims of the so called political correctness. What is described or prescribed by a political regime or by an editorial policy of a media organ for which he/she works, greatly determines what he/she writes or broadcast. What is your take then?