Bibliografía y otras fuentes de consulta

The qualitative and quantitative dimensions of the content analysis (6.2 and 6.3) clearly depict how the selected media represented the CDF trial (see research question 1). Clear evidence of ethno-regional prejudices are seen in the agenda-setting ability; manifested in the news selection, framing and priming strategies of both FDP and ST. And both papers to a very limited extent, strove to separate their Views from the actual News contents, which they put out for consumption at the psychological and sociological levels (see 5.1). Even though there is evidence of bias in Awoko’s reportage, that bias was not evidentially propelled by ethno- regional prejudices; and there is also evidence that the paper to a very large extent, strove to separate its Views from the actual News contents which it published; and thus attempted to a greater degree to uphold the idealised norms of ‘objectivity’ and ‘accuracy’, as opposed to FDP and ST. Essentially, to further validate the above findings, a discourse analysis is done on the main discourses that factually informed the frames and sub-frames. Moreover, the findings

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ST A FDP ST A FDP ST A FDP N V US N u m b e r o f R e p o rts

Newspaper Publication Segments

Comprehensive Representation of the Reportage

PRE-TRIAL (March 2003-November 2003) TRIAL PROSECUTION (June 2004-May 2005) TRIAL DEFENCE (January 2006- October 2006) POST-TRIAL January 2007- August 2007

137

from the interviews conducted with the journalists, who covered the CDF trial, are again subjected to a discourse analysis in a bid to further validate the above findings.

6.4.1 For Di People (FDP)

A critical analysis of the discourses that evolved from the frames and sub-frames in the qualitative content analysis appears to have revealed a case of serious ethno-regional tension, which had polarised Sierra Leone’s body-politic, even before the war started. This tension seemed to have reflected in the reportage of FDP, which appeared to have maintained a Northern posture in its News, Views and Unclassified Stories. FDP continually used words that unequivocally denote and connote negative semantic loads (Mautner, op.cit:38) against the Mendes of the South- East. It is clear from the CDF’s indictment (as enunciated in 6.1) that Norman, Kondowai and Fofana, were never charged with cannibalism, but FDP constantly reported that ‘cannibalism’68was one of the charges proffered against the CDF leaders. The intentional and continual use of the diction ‘cannibalism’ appears to have denoted FDP’s prejudices against the CDF leaders and as well demonstrates negative semantic loads, indicating how ferocious and deadly the Kamajors were.

Again, FDP described the Kamajors as ‘butchers’, ‘hoodlums’, ‘blood thirsty power ethnicists’ (see Appendix III147, 151, 152, 158, 168, 190, 203-204, 207, 208, 237) or were dubbed ‘criminals’, ‘hooligans’, ‘ritual killers’ and ‘looters’ (see Appendix III208, 233, 236-237, 246, 255-256 ). The choice of the above negative words is arguably calculated (Fowler, op.cit:1-4 Van Dijk, 1998: 241, Mautner, op.cit: 38) to drive home some negative perceptions into the minds of audiences (CSOs representatives in this case). The following inciting comments are discernible from the above publications:

68

‘Norman: Charged with cannibalism’ (Monday, 23 March, 2003). ‘Special Court told howKamajors killed and Chopped Chief and Town Speaker (headline). The photo caption states: ‘The Only Civil Defence Militia Indicted forCannibalismin the War’ (Wednesday, 23rd June, 2004). ‘Kamajors’ (headline): The photo caption reads: ‘Kamajors Militia: horrific tales of human butchery and cannibalism has soiled image of invincibility and fighting for true democracy to one of ulterior motives’!!! (Monday, 13th _{September, 2004). ‘They killed and ate Palm Wine}

Tapper!’(Headline)The photo caption indicates: ‘Norman: Chieftain Blamed for Cannibalism... (ibid)‘State of the People: SLAM ME not’ (headline) ’There were certain societies that made it a practice of feeding on human flesh or ‘yomoto’ to those that were initiated as civil defence members’ (ibid).‘Peter Penfold and Hinga Norman’ (headline). ‘Penfoldmight have eaten human flesh while dinning with Norman in Camp Zero’(FDP, Wednesday, May 7, 2003). ‘Lawyers and the Hinga Norman Propaganda’ (headline). ‘He is being charged with human rights abuses, including cannibalism. Let us give the court a chance for us to ponder how come a minister is engaged in cannibalism. If this is the case that Sierra Leoneans were chopping their fellow country- men, then the crisis is far more serious than many would want to think or accept...There are some people who have written articles justifying cannibalism during war’ (FDP, Wednesday, 28th May, 2003).

138

1. The Mendes of the South and East are blood thirsty power ethnicists; who hatched a ferocious and demonic conspiracy to annihilate Northerners during the war years in defence of their regions (Juxtapose this with the interview in transcription 2).

2. They condoned the criminality of the Kamajors, strengthened their capacity and pampered them with the much needed logistics to illegally prosecute the war (ibid).

3. The Kamajors committed despicable crimes against the people of Sierra Leone (particularly Northerners and journalists); hence they were ‘criminals’, ‘cannibals’, ‘butchers’ and ‘hooligans’; who were judiciously subjected to war crimes trials to account for their criminality (ibid).

4. ‘Their political party (the SLPP) maligned and destroyed the national army to perpetuate their stay in power through ruthless Kamajors’ protection (ibid).

5. That the army did not do anything wrong in deposing the SLPP ethnicists from power in 1997 (ibid).

6.4.2 Standard Times (ST)

ST appeared to have maintained a South-Eastern slant in its reportage and refrained from invoking words that would have portrayed the SLPP (as FDP did) as either a South-Eastern political party or a political entity that fanned the flames of ethno-regional prejudices and disenchantment. The paper did not demonise the Kamajors society (as FDP did). ST regarded the Kamajors as ‘national heroes’, ‘noble fighters’, ‘brave fighters’ ,‘redeemers’, ‘liberators’, ‘patriots’, ‘restorers of peace and democracy’, and ‘a militia group that formidably resisted the deadly junta regime’ (see Appendix III297, 301, 306-307, 322, 324, 365, 372, 435); whereas forces loyal to the AFRC/RUF junta were described as ‘coupists’, ‘criminals’, ‘so-bels’, ‘deadly junta regime’, ‘thugs’, ‘rebels’, ‘collaborators’, ‘renegade soldiers’, ‘killers’ etc (see Appendix III286, 289, 294-295, 370,

425, 442, 450, 465

139

The semantic values of such positive descriptions of the Kamajors and the persistent reference to the SLPP as the ‘democratically’ and ‘constitutionally elected government’, was arguably calculated to drive home the positive perceptions into the minds of audiences that the CDF leaders were national heroes (see transcriptions 3 and 5); the Kamajors did not do anything wrong in fighting the forces loyal to the AFRC/RUF junta (ibid), and that had it not been for their tireless resistance, the reign of terror and militarism would never have come to an end, and that the junta blatantly defiled Sierra Leone’s Constitution (ibid); and therefore had no legitimacy to govern; and hence the legitimate government was rightly restored (ibid). That was arguably how ST wanted CSOs representatives across Sierra Leone to read and interpret its pre- trial, trial and post- trial texts (preferred readings) in condemnation of the junta, but made laudable commendations of the Kamajors.

6.4.3 Awoko

Awoko’s reportage of the discourses in the main and sub-frames was slightly different from ST, but different by far from that of FDP. The paper’s semantic values of the dictions, which were carefully chosen to report the proceedings, seemed to have contained nuances devoid of ethno-regional prejudices, but they were carefully framed to achieve the paper’s desired effect on audiences. The paper did not (as FDP did) ‘attribute responsibility to either the South- Easterners or the SLPP for the reckless destruction of lives and property in Sierra Leone’; ‘neither did it accuse the SLPP of marginalising and/or undermining the army and capacitating the Kamajors at the detriment of national disintegration’; nor did it allege that ‘the South- Easterners had hatched a diabolic plan to systematically annihilate Northerners’ (see Appendix III52, 56, 80, 84 ; see also analysis between 6.3.1 and 6.3.5 for additional references).

Awoko seldom demonised the Kamajors in its coverage, though there were some instances in which the paper did publish stories containing ‘horrifying testimonies’ about Kamajors’ atrocities. Awoko also seldom used horrific images to describe the Kamajors as ‘cannibals’, ‘butchers’, ‘blood thirsty power ethnicists’, ‘criminals’, ‘thieves’, ‘hooligans’, ‘looters’, ‘killers’ (as FDP did) etc. There were so many instances in which the paper dubbed Norman a ‘national hero’; and extolled the efforts of the CDF in restoring peace and democracy to Sierra Leone (as

140

ST did). The paper often used the acronym ‘CDF’ (which is quite national) as opposed to ‘Kamajors’ (which according to FDP denote a ‘tribal army of criminals and cannibals’) in its reportage.

The very limited instances in which the paper chose ‘words’ and ‘expressions’ that denote ‘cannibalism’, ‘butchery’, ‘criminality’ and ‘killings’ on the part of the Kamajors, were restricted to only those pieces of evidence, which the prosecution elicited from their factual witnesses, which were later reconstructed and subsequently passed- off for societal consumption as news. From the perspective of Awoko, such publications can be said to be ‘quite innocuous’, ‘balanced’ and ‘accurate’; but Awoko’s critics could employ Entman’s (op.cit:52), McQuail’s (op.cit:343-344) and Tankard’s (op.cit: 101)framing devices to deconstruct such texts and prove that even though they were sourced with the testimonies of factual witnesses; they were skewed against the CDF and in favour of the prosecution.

However, throughout the period covered by this study, I could hardly discover any ‘editorial’, ‘commentary’, ‘feature article’, ‘opinionated piece’, or ‘view’, published by Awoko that described the Kamajors as ‘cannibals’, ‘butchers’, ‘killers’, ‘criminals’, ‘thieves’, ‘looters’ etc. Since such derogatory dictions, appeared not to have been used in the ‘Views’ and ‘Unclassified Stories’ and even most of the ‘News’ contents, which Awoko published between 2003 and 2007, coupled with the articles in which Chief Norman and the CDF were extolled for the restoration of democracy (see Appendix III65, 71, 103, 108-109, 111); it would be reasonable to conclude that Awoko chose not to condemn the CDF leaders, but to commend them for what did they for Sierra Leone (see transcription 6).