Many
English-speaking journalists of the state-run audiovisual media manifest awful
incompetence in the language. And there is no one to either correct their
scripts or draw their attention to the errors they make while speaking
impromptu, writes Douglas A. Achingale in Yaounde.
I feel obliged to write on an irksome subject about
the Cameroon Radio Television Corporation (CRTV) because I know that somehow I
am part of the state-run audiovisual media. I am certainly not employed by the House,
but on account of the monthly taxes I pay for its survival, just like a
multitude of other Cameroonians, it is our property. So I think I have a
legitimate right to raise my voice if I find something going wrong with the
corporation, however distant I may be from it.
Insiders will confirm that many things are
definitely not going well with this audiovisual media outfit. But what is of
interest to me here is the awfully low standard of English exhibited by many of
its English-speaking journalists.
You cannot but feel irritated and scandalized when
you hear the kind of approximate English that the journalists in question
speak. Most of the time their diction is inappropriate, their grammar
repellant, their syntax warped and some of their phonological renditions
wanting. On listening to them, you ask yourself if they ever had competent
teachers of the Queen’s language, and how they found themselves where they are
employed.
Some
common errors on CRTV
A random selection of some of the recurrent errors
on CRTV radio and television are: “President Biya and wife” instead of
“President Biya and his wife”, “congratulate for” instead of
“congratulate on”, “televiewers” instead of “viewers”, “in the
list” instead of “on the list”, “under custody” instead of “in custody”,
“convocation” instead of “summons”, “he walks barefooted” instead of “he
walks barefoot”, “he paddles a bicycle” instead of “he pedals a
bicycle”, “he precised the amount” instead of “he specified the amount”,
“I discovered small and big shops” (as if small and big shops have never
existed before) etc.
Similarly, it is not uncommon to hear some CRTV
journalists say “It is high time/about time you go” instead of “It is high
time/about time you went”, “I get crossed by your behaviour” instead of
“I get cross by your behaviour”, “Your Geography madam” instead of “Your
Geography teacher”, “John’s dresses” instead of “John’s clothes”
(since John is a man), “secondhanded shoes” instead of “secondhand
shoes”, “touristic site” instead of tourist attraction”, etc.
Even more annoying is the fact that the said
journalists are not aware of their shortcoming. Since ignorance is bliss, they
speak with the kind of confidence that leaves the listener in no doubt that
they believe their language is impeccable. In their minds, they are
superstars.
No
editors to help
This is a glaring indication that CRTV does not have
editors, which is not normal for a media House of great repute that the
state-run media is. Or else, why would the editors not edit the scripts of
their junior colleagues before the latter go on the air? And in cases where the
journalists err while speaking extempore, why would such editors not take note
of their errors and call their attention to them off the microphone, so that
these errors do not repeat themselves?
I ask these questions because I very well know that
there are equally a good number of journalists in CRTV who speak admirably
faultless English. In fact, some of the best speakers of Shakespeare’s language
in this country, as much as I know, are journalists of the state-run
audiovisual media. But some of them are so satisfied with their “grands
reporteurs” and other high-profile statuses in the corporation that they do not
bother to hold the hands of their colleagues, and by so doing raise the
standards of the House and contribute to the “qualitative leap” that their
general manager, Amadou Vamoulké, announced not long after he was appointed.
It is no secret that the journalist’s most vital tool
is language. Language is to the journalist what a hammer is to the carpenter.
Without a hammer, the nail will not be driven well into the wood and the chair
being made will be wobbly. Without good language too, the journalist’s ideas
will not be well couched and their report, written or broadcast, will be
slipshod and repulsive.
The
good days of yore
The poor use of English is therefore one of the main
reasons for the sort of meretricious journalism that is practiced by many
journalists of English expression in CRTV today. This contrasts sharply with
the generally admirable performance of those who were there before them; that
is, the Victor Epie Ngomes, the Sam-Nuvala Fonkems, the Boh Herberts, the
Alfred Sone Metuges, the George Tannis, the Ntemfac Ofeges, the Zach Angafors,
the Napoleon Vibans, the Tamfu Hanson Ghandis, the Mary Ngu Ekukoles, the Charlie
Ndi Chias, the Anne Nsangs…
Extra
effort needed to improve performance
True it is that we are not native speakers of
English; but if we make an extra effort, we will undoubtedly avoid some of the
silly errors that slip into our speeches and writings every day. It thus
behoves the journalists under focus, most of whom are beginners in the
profession, not to swim in false waters of stardom. They should not think that
they have ‘arrived’ whereas, in reality, they have only begun. They should be
humble to learn. They should read widely and listen religiously to other
broadcast media houses like the BBC, the CNN, Sky Sport, Al Jazeera, etc. For
it is said that he who steals most writes best; ‘stealing’ here meaning not
doing the kind of things miscreants do but rather copying from those who are
thoroughly gifted in speech and writing.
To improve the performance of CRTV and save its
image, it is also in the best interest of the management of the corporation to
institute the practice of editing whereby the better speakers of English will
correct the speeches and writings of the less gifted ones. If this is difficult
to do, then only those who are known to speak and write English acceptably
should be allowed to go on the air.
Other
national broadcast media even worse
If focus here is on CRTV journalists, it is not to
say that those of other broadcast media houses in the country are doing any
better. Far from it. Their collective performance is worse, so to speak. It is
often so ludicrous that you cannot but describe the journalists as perfect
examples of where practice does not make perfect.
It was on one of such TV stations that I once heard
a young journalist, talking about the outbreak of fire at the Congo market in
Douala, say “…an outburst of fire…”! Indeed there is no denying the fact that
all the common errors cited above and very many more are equally recurrent in
their daily broadcasts. They too should sit up!
*The
author is a Yaounde-based critic, social worker and free thinker
