Anacoluthon64
31st March 2006, 01:46 AM
One of South Africa's TV stations airs a weekly half-hour actuality/news programme called "3rd Degree," which normally examines current social and political issues. The usual format is a short introduction, possibly live, by hostess/presenter Debora Patta to the evening's topic, followed by a pre-recorded report, itself followed occasionally by a short, again possibly live, discussion of the report. As the name suggests, the "3rd Degree" reports and Ms Patta have repeatedly shown themselves to exercise much admirable integrity, not pulling any punches when grilling interviewees, especially when evasion's afoot or there's a redolence of bovine ordure about.
On Tuesday this week, "3rd Degree" presented a report concerning a curious and alarming situation in our country that, I hazard, few were aware of. There is a village situated in the northeastern part of the country that serves as a place of refuge for people accused of being witches. You read that correctly - "witches." The salient facts and statistics were reported as follows: Since 1990, more than 3,000 such accusations have been reported to the police (the proper total is possibly as high as twice that figure);
Since 1990, more than 600 "witches" have died as a result of stoning or burning;
Legislation dating back to the mid-1950s renders it illegal to make any allegations of witchcraft against another person; and
Such allegations can be as glib and facile as ascribing moderate success in entrepreneurship to witchcraft.
Unfortunately, the programme made no meaningful attempt to establish whether there was any substance to the whole witchcraft idea in the first place, focussing instead almost exclusively on the human tragedy that had been brought about. This omission got my sceptical goat all agitated and ready to ram some sense into a few strategically selected crania via their associated posteriors. The next day I fired off the e-mail that follows to the TV station. Much as expected, no acknowledgement or response has found its way to yours truly - any developments in this context will be announced if and when they occur, but don't hold yer breath...
'Luthon64
-----Original Message-----
From: <...>
Sent: 29 March 2006 13:16
To: 3rddegree@etv.co.za
Subject: Whither Witches?
On the whole, I find 3rd Degree's uncompromising journalistic standard pleasing. However, last night's Charlene Stanley piece on Helena, the Limpopo Province haven for alleged witches, was interesting but also deeply disappointing in one respect. The central question of whether witchcraft has any objective reality was neatly sidestepped and glossed over as secondary to the human aspects of the situation examined by the report. Such sidestepping took the form of deference to unqualified popular opinion of the "Yes/no, I do/don't believe in witches" kind without any further analysis. Needless to say, it would be foolhardy to accept such canvassing as a valid basis on which to decide the veracity or otherwise of witchcraft. We are living in the 21st century, not the 16th.
It is my contention that addressing the question of witchcraft's supposed reality is of cardinal importance. I say this for two reasons - first, the question can be objectively probed, and, second, a cursory glance at European and American history reveals just how scary the consequences of ignoring the question can become. After all, several people in Limpopo Province have suffered injury or died as a direct result of blind, uncritical faith in the actual existence of witches, which shows this belief to be harmful, and the most direct way of challenging this profound injustice would be to publicly examine the validity of the tenets that prompted it. Apart from a small minority of voices disclaiming belief in witches, the sanest part of this lunacy is the legislation that prohibits bringing accusations of witchcraft against any person. Most likely, the promulgators understood a very elementary fact: in view of the overwhelming absence of credible proof for witchcraft's reality, such accusations have no foundation whatsoever, and hence the ban thereon.
In the pursuit of journalistic balance, it is an oft-repeated mistake merely to present all sides of a story without due regard for the quality and quantity of the evidence that supports each such side. For example, an opinion based on a biblical inference that the sun will NOT rise tomorrow is obviously far less credible than the contrary view based on much well-established science and observation, and it would be disingenuous to present these opposing views as equally valid for the sake of "journalistic balance." It is, moreover, inexcusable that the question of witchcraft's objectivity is wholly avoided by appeal to notions of cultural respect and/or political correctness; this excuse would allow such things as Nazi racial beliefs to remain unchallenged. As with the witchcraft question, Nazi racial beliefs have a moral aspect, as revealed by history and ethics, and a factual one, as revealed - again - by history and other relevant sciences such as genetics. More importantly, the moral and factual aspects of both questions stridently and convincingly refute their affirmation, and this point was, it seems, deemed unworthy of mention in Stanley's report. Thus, journalistic balance was inadequately served.
Our government has repeatedly voiced its commitment to fostering education in science and technology, and a basic prerequisite for success in this endeavour is to nurture and promote a widespread ability to analyse issues critically based on the best available evidence. Various media have a significant role to play in this context. If even just one of the abilities popularly ascribed to "witches" was in fact found to be demonstrably true, it would require revision of large tracts of several sciences; since this hasn't ever happened, it is safe to conclude that the probability is minuscule that witchcraft is anything but a delusion. No anthropologist, historian or psychologist was afforded any opportunity to provide expert opinion on the witchcraft question in Stanley's report, and this is a grievous oversight and disservice to its audience on the part of 3rd Degree that needs, I think, to be assiduously avoided in future.
Sincerely,
<...>
On Tuesday this week, "3rd Degree" presented a report concerning a curious and alarming situation in our country that, I hazard, few were aware of. There is a village situated in the northeastern part of the country that serves as a place of refuge for people accused of being witches. You read that correctly - "witches." The salient facts and statistics were reported as follows: Since 1990, more than 3,000 such accusations have been reported to the police (the proper total is possibly as high as twice that figure);
Since 1990, more than 600 "witches" have died as a result of stoning or burning;
Legislation dating back to the mid-1950s renders it illegal to make any allegations of witchcraft against another person; and
Such allegations can be as glib and facile as ascribing moderate success in entrepreneurship to witchcraft.
Unfortunately, the programme made no meaningful attempt to establish whether there was any substance to the whole witchcraft idea in the first place, focussing instead almost exclusively on the human tragedy that had been brought about. This omission got my sceptical goat all agitated and ready to ram some sense into a few strategically selected crania via their associated posteriors. The next day I fired off the e-mail that follows to the TV station. Much as expected, no acknowledgement or response has found its way to yours truly - any developments in this context will be announced if and when they occur, but don't hold yer breath...
'Luthon64
-----Original Message-----
From: <...>
Sent: 29 March 2006 13:16
To: 3rddegree@etv.co.za
Subject: Whither Witches?
On the whole, I find 3rd Degree's uncompromising journalistic standard pleasing. However, last night's Charlene Stanley piece on Helena, the Limpopo Province haven for alleged witches, was interesting but also deeply disappointing in one respect. The central question of whether witchcraft has any objective reality was neatly sidestepped and glossed over as secondary to the human aspects of the situation examined by the report. Such sidestepping took the form of deference to unqualified popular opinion of the "Yes/no, I do/don't believe in witches" kind without any further analysis. Needless to say, it would be foolhardy to accept such canvassing as a valid basis on which to decide the veracity or otherwise of witchcraft. We are living in the 21st century, not the 16th.
It is my contention that addressing the question of witchcraft's supposed reality is of cardinal importance. I say this for two reasons - first, the question can be objectively probed, and, second, a cursory glance at European and American history reveals just how scary the consequences of ignoring the question can become. After all, several people in Limpopo Province have suffered injury or died as a direct result of blind, uncritical faith in the actual existence of witches, which shows this belief to be harmful, and the most direct way of challenging this profound injustice would be to publicly examine the validity of the tenets that prompted it. Apart from a small minority of voices disclaiming belief in witches, the sanest part of this lunacy is the legislation that prohibits bringing accusations of witchcraft against any person. Most likely, the promulgators understood a very elementary fact: in view of the overwhelming absence of credible proof for witchcraft's reality, such accusations have no foundation whatsoever, and hence the ban thereon.
In the pursuit of journalistic balance, it is an oft-repeated mistake merely to present all sides of a story without due regard for the quality and quantity of the evidence that supports each such side. For example, an opinion based on a biblical inference that the sun will NOT rise tomorrow is obviously far less credible than the contrary view based on much well-established science and observation, and it would be disingenuous to present these opposing views as equally valid for the sake of "journalistic balance." It is, moreover, inexcusable that the question of witchcraft's objectivity is wholly avoided by appeal to notions of cultural respect and/or political correctness; this excuse would allow such things as Nazi racial beliefs to remain unchallenged. As with the witchcraft question, Nazi racial beliefs have a moral aspect, as revealed by history and ethics, and a factual one, as revealed - again - by history and other relevant sciences such as genetics. More importantly, the moral and factual aspects of both questions stridently and convincingly refute their affirmation, and this point was, it seems, deemed unworthy of mention in Stanley's report. Thus, journalistic balance was inadequately served.
Our government has repeatedly voiced its commitment to fostering education in science and technology, and a basic prerequisite for success in this endeavour is to nurture and promote a widespread ability to analyse issues critically based on the best available evidence. Various media have a significant role to play in this context. If even just one of the abilities popularly ascribed to "witches" was in fact found to be demonstrably true, it would require revision of large tracts of several sciences; since this hasn't ever happened, it is safe to conclude that the probability is minuscule that witchcraft is anything but a delusion. No anthropologist, historian or psychologist was afforded any opportunity to provide expert opinion on the witchcraft question in Stanley's report, and this is a grievous oversight and disservice to its audience on the part of 3rd Degree that needs, I think, to be assiduously avoided in future.
Sincerely,
<...>