Respond to Kur Wel Kur: One Year Anniversary of SBS Dinka Radio
By Amer Mayen Dhieu, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Dear Kur Wel Kur,
First of all, I really like your tone of writing and the sound of your article. I mean just the sound of your article. You state both “facts” and “fictions” leaving your reader (myself) with choice of where to go. What to take out of your well research article. Your references are well put but badly articulated or should I say badly interpreted. There was fuzziness of thoughts and ideas which I didn’t understand, but before that let me go into it.
You are not alone Mr Kur, it is tradition in our community and let me forbid myself not to explain more of that. Your article sound confusing and that has already confused my still-not-yet written article. I am trying hard to grab your main points which somehow sound like criticizing, praising or recommendation. First point of which I wish you should have clarified your ground is the background of SBS leave alone SBS Dinka. In your article, you have explained the background of SBS, the main program but enormously failed to connected how various SBS sub programs came into existence and the main objectives of why they were created or formed. To my understanding, you try to understand SBS local programs including SBS Dinka using your old version of the main SBS created in 1975 mainly for purpose different to the current SBS of today. If the main SBS of 1975 was created to air special stories and movies all over the world and your recent research think the main goals of which the old SBS was formed is still the one their scope of practice is revolved today, then you are wrong.
Currently the main SBS created in 1975 to air special movies and stories around the world is still doing that, but mind you that, it has also become the leading news provider in Australian TVs. The main SBS Channels broadcast both news in Australia home soil and abroad similar to the one SBS Dinka does yet still, it provide us with movies, documentaries and film around the world which was the main goal it was form in 1975. Having various local programs such as SBS Dinka that deliver news abroad for local audiences should not be seen as rebellion form against the old SBS but another way to modernise and romanticise the old channel to fit with modern technologies or news outlet. That is my understanding. In other words it is another way of selling the old channel which is currently modernised to the local multicultural communities. Again, Mind you that SBS Dinka is not the only multicultural program, there are also program such as Greek, Arabic and so forth.
Back to the main thesis of your article, “why bitterness and sadness”. To begin with, I didn’t understand the position of world cup in your article. I can assume that you were trying to compare the bitterness and sadness in Brazilians’ Football team and the SBS Dinka’s Audiences or should I use your language, the Riek passive supporters. Though you have tried to bring the two together of which I think you did perfectly. I still feel the need of being real and offer an indulge argument instead.
First of all Brazilians’ national team was defeated by their rival in their own country. SBS Dinka is not a country nor a home to your so called Riek passive or active supporters, rather a program created by one individual like Ajak Deng Chiengkou or should it be other party and decide to air anything related to the objective of the program. Riek was invited to the program to share his view just like other government officials or civil society individuals that were interviewed in the past. If in any way Riek has failed to deliver what SBS Dinka’s audiences including yourself were expecting to hear, then how is that a defeat? Brazil was playing with Germany, Riek was participating by his own. Did he perform badly, it is none of SBS audience business and shouldn’t be count on them. If there is any disappointment caused by how the interview was conducted by Ajak Deng Chiengkou, that could be the thing I can agree with yet, it could be similar to how some Brazilians were disgusted by some of the actions from the referee during the game time.
In the middle of your paper, you talk of Riek’s supporters crying and criticising the presenter of SBS Dinka news and interviews. I don’t know if you are following everything being said about the genius program ever since the conflict started. Many small-minded people have involved themselves in war of words with the presenter just like your so called Riek’s supporters because Ajak follow his scope of practice and his program’s objectives by bringing in the participants from both sides. This tension was caused by the irritation created by the points made during the interviews mostly by those who do not agree with the government. In your view, the passive or undecided Riek’ supporters. In the previous month, it was not Riek’s supporters or undecided population who criticized the program but the “good” will people that agree with the government in daily basis. If the table has turned around of which it is Riek’s supporters who are criticising Ajak, the presenter today, then why can you be fair and state the real fact that Ajak is facing criticism on both side because he is the real “undecided” man.
Your last point which contradict miserably with your summary is how you accuse the presenter for being soft on those of Madam Rebecca and her likes leaving government supporters with tough questions of accountability or to find their hope and morale somewhere else. I don’t know what question of accountability you want to ask those of Madam Rebecca when she’s one of those groups forced to live in exile and never been listened to when she was still active advisor to the president. I also don’t know who else should Ajak ask question of accountability if not government officials because they are they one in power.
In summary you conclude with your nice words that “Journalists gears interviews in the direction they wish” and that SBS Dinka belong to all of us (Government and rebels’ supporters) and finally we should respect the presenter and the freedom of expression. Well, what a nice words to conclude the already contradicting points. Nice try.
About Post Author
