Accueil Nouvelles Vidéos Musique Photos Facebook Twitter Rencontres Newsletter Podcasts Mobile RSS

To Jean, the premise of my argument in my reply to you is based on what you said which is"just because the article does not mention everything that was said doesn't make it biased or bad journalism" and that this was about facts. If the conclusion is flawed than there must be a problem with the premise .In any case your point is well taken. Thanks for the exchange.

Mr Nzuzi Wasingu Jean Paul Mr Ilunga, le fait d'avoir peur de voir le sans de congolais couler à cause de sa détermination à sortir de l'emprise des occidentaux et de certains lèchent bottes africains, c'est ce que mr Etienne Tshisekedi stigmatise dans son intervention en Af du sud. Alors que dirait-on de 1959 avec la la demande de l'indépendance? En ce qui concerne du courage de Lumumba qui lui coutera sa vie sachant qu'il avait une famille? Il y'en a tant d'autres des exemples, cependant je te dirai simplement ne sois pas égoïste si avant nous il y a eu des courageux qui ont versé le sang pour nous, laisse pour aujourd'hui celui qui n'est pas égoïste le faire pour la génération future afin que notre beau pays reviennent à nous.

To Bismark. The premise of your argument is wrong and it is leading you to a flawed conclusion. I fail to see why you seem to think that this article was meant to be a report of the speech in Kisangani. It is not a report of the speech. And, that's why you are wrong in saying that it is biased because it did not mention everything that was said in the 2 hours speech. The article, as the title says, is about the statements Tshisekedi made since Sunday being part of "new tactics" and reminding voters of other questionable moves he has made in the past. If you are honest, I hope you will agree that in that context, you cannot call the author biased for writing the article as they did. After re-reading the article, frankly I find it quite specific and on point. You are talking about human rights violations and putting the article in context, the author very clearly mentions that on Friday Tshisekedi told his supporters "to rise up and attack the police if they feel they are being mistreated." The author mentions that Tshisekedi has lead mostly a "non-violent fight for democracy", which is why it is strange that, as a presidential candidate, he would start calling for attacks on jails just before the elections! Common man! Let's not try to defend the indefensible here. Let’s be frank and admit it, these statements were a huge mistake. Blindly following a leader, even when he makes a mistake, can lead his followers on the wrong path. Tshisekedi is not a saint, when he makes a mistake people should not be criticized and called “biased” for pointing them out. A leader who only hears praise may end up thinking he is god and allowed to do whatever he wants. Thank God, these statements didn’t have "an effect" not because Tshisekedi was not dead serious when he made them and repeated them, but because he failed to convince even his own supporters that it was the right thing to do. My God! What was he thinking? What did he think he was going to accomplish? Was he praying for a bloodbath and then a report of the elections? Because, believe me, that's what was going to happen if his supporters had launched attacks on jails. If he wants to free the “dozen” prisoners he says are being held at Makala prison, all he has to do is follow his own advice and go back to Kinshasa and walk straight up to the prison and demand their release. I am sure he knows he will be Ok because he gave his followers that same advice. Otherwise, he was sending them to their deaths while campaigning comfortably in a jet and under police protection everywhere he lands.

To Jean, thank you for addressing my posting. My posting, was not about the fact that Mr. Tshisekedi's statement in this article was factually correct or not as you put it. It was not about the accuracy of the statement. Your are the one framing the discussion along these lines, I have addressed a specific article by a specific journalist whose article I find biased. I did not make a wholesale statement painting this website's articles about the DR Congo with a particular color. I respectfully disagree with you when you say that "because this article does not mention everything that was said in the speech doesn't make biased". I will agree with the fact that you can not indeed mention everything said in a speech but a good journalist should provide the reader with a short and accurate account of the facts in a speech. We get the impression that the whole speech was about inciting people to violence. You are talking about facts, there were other facts in this speech, for example, the fact of telling Congolese to love their country the DR Congo and to love themselves and one another as Congolese, the fact of conquering fear in order to be free and use their human rights guaranteed in the constitution. By not mentioning these and other facts related to future of the DR Congo in this 2 hours speech and writing about only one fact, one is then choosing the fact that one wants the readers to read, it is thus biased. It is not accurate an account or summary of the 2 hours speech. I am sorry that statements (words) by someone in the heat of a political campaign and in a very specific context (killings, beatings, and jailings of the opposition) made you feel sick. You yourself said that these statements had no effects. I would like to know how you reacted to the report by the UN that there were 188 human right violations in two weeks of electoral campaigning in the DR Congo by the security forces against the opposition. I hope it made you feel even sicker. I did not post my previous intervention to challenge the accuracy of Mr. Tshisekedi's statement but to say that the reporting in this article was not balanced and thus biased. I did not have to mention the news agencies that you have listed because I was talking about a specific article by a specific journalist in a specific website, this does not diminish me as this is simply irrelevant to my point. The messenger did not make Mr. Tshisekedi say what he said, I agree with you. That should not prevent him from doing his job a reporter .His job is to give us the reader an accurate account and a summary of the facts of this speech. It is biased and it diminishes the messenger when only one fact out of many other facts in a speech is promoted.

To bismark, just because this article does not mention everything that was said in a the speech doesn't make it biased or bad journalism. Other news organisations reported on exactly these calls for violence. Are they all against Tshisekedi? Maybe he's the victim of a vast international conspiracy. The real question here is whether what is reported is factually correct or not. And the answer is a yes. You might not like the facts, but you cannot change the facts. Furthermore, reading Congo News Agency's website, it seems like they have written more articles over the years that are critical of the government. So, where is the bias? Should they only report on Tshisekedi when he fills stadiums in Kinshasa and not when he calls for violence? That would be what I'd call bad journalism. When a candidate declares himself president just before the elections and then calls for attacks on jails, that sounds pretty sick to me. Good thing his supporters know better. Why didn't Tshisekedi call for violence 2, 3, or 6 months ago? Was the government any better then? You also fail to mention that the UN, France, the ICC, Belgium and the United States condemned the calls for violence. Does that make your comment biased, or diminish you?. Hey, don't attack the messenger. They didn't make Tshisekedi say what he said.

This analysis is a typical example of bad journalism with a bias and an intent to paint someone with an incredible track record of non violent fight against dictatorships in the DRCongo. This man spoke for 2 hrs in Kisangani about loving the congolese and loving the congo and other facts of history and his plans for the DRCongo future. The only thing that you chose to mention is this message to congolese designed to remove their fear and be bold in order to assert their constitutionaly guaranteed right to fight oppression. The UN has issued a report saying that there has been 188 cases of human right violations against the oppositons forces in the DRCongo by the security forces since the beginning of the electoral process. The statement by Mr Tshisekedi should be understood under this context. By the way did he give arms to anyone to attack the prisons. Please be balanced in your presentations. Having a bias in your reporting diminishes you as a journalist.

That's how you win elections. Not with violence but doing a good campaign.

Please, what serious candidate calls for violence before elections? Did he realize that the government was dictatorial just now? Attacking jails is not going to win the elections. Eza kaka desespoir ya vieux nabiso. Bakosa biso te! Soyons serieux dit!

Mr Ilunga, il vaut mieux de connaitre cet adage: "les esprits faibles discutent les hommes, les esprits moyens discutent les evenements et les esprits nobles discutent les idées". Je le dis parce que il y a beaucoup de gens qui prennent position à cause de la haine développée à l'égard de la personne de Tshisekedi. Cette opinion a été faite a cause des personnes détenues illegalement par l'Etat, pour dire avant de critiquer cette opinion que dis-tu des arrestations arbitraires.

This article is irrelevant and isn't worth anything because those statments were made in regards to arbitrary actions by the DRC authorities.

 

Suivre @CongoPlanete