MEDIA CONSTRUCTIONISM

In modern times, what we have come to know and understand about the environment is as a result of the media. (Hansen, 2010)  Our perceptions of what we know are morphed through multiple media sources both consciously and sub consciously. (Hansen, 2010).

Communication is key in how we are informed about certain environmental issues, the way in which we address these issues, and how we plan on resolving them. (Hansen, 2010)

Whilst it may be unclear to what extent the media is constructed, there are a variety of factors influencing our perception, including economic factors, political factors, practices of journalism and a variety of news practices. (Hansen, 2010)

There is however, nothing natural about the way in which we come to learn about issues in the environment.  The media is socially constructed and lends itself back to power.  Issues tend to fade in and out of the public focus and need either a political or social catalyst to bring about attention. (Hansen, 2010)

Construction of the media is evident in the Carte Blanche investigation as many of us were informed by the Carte Blanche program, the severity that South Africa and in particular Imizamo Yethu is experiencing. If it weren’t for this documentary, we would be none the wiser that our country was experiencing such problems.

In part 2 of the Carte Blanche Investigation, the analysis is very misleading as it is implied that the issue has been resolved. While some improvements around South Africa have been made, including employing new pollution control officers and improving our sewage pumps, these are short term solutions and are reactive, as they haven’t perhaps considered the future. Whilst the improvements have made a difference for the present, there is no prevention of the situation worsening over time. What is required is a pro-active strategy.

Whilst it may benefit making these improvements, it hasn’t resolved the crux of the matter, which is that there is still no adequate sanitation or improvements within the informal settlements, which is where the source of the problem lies.

Within the documentary, there are a variety of claim-makers.  Justin O’Rian, a Hout Bay resident and member of the local environmental committee, claims that the issues were resolved through maintenance and by improvement of sewage materials.

Local council’s member Telkot Passent, is the gentleman who speaks of the many improvements made to the equipment and who runs the system.

Dr Jo Barnes, a Epidemiologist, claims a thorough scientific study is being carried out and that there has been an improvement with the e-coli count in the water.

Brett Keyser, part of the local Stellenbosch community speaks about general proactive improvements that are necessary such as appointing additional staff.

Senior pollution control inspector, Johan Martinus claims to test the water and if there is a high level of pollution, he traces the people responsible and issues fines.

All the claim makers speak of the dramatic improvement and resolution in Part 2 of the documentary and whilst there may be improvement elsewhere, degradation continues in Hout Bay.  Claim-makers tasks are to command attention by claiming legitimacy and evoking action. All of the above claim makers make their argument convincing and support their argument by facts, however these facts do not support a sustainable approach.

A variety of framing devices have been used through out the documentary in order to convince the viewer and develop a strong argument.  In particular, a strong emphasis was placed on visual references.  In part 1 of the investigation countless images of poverty, sewage and pollution are shown, however in part 2, many clean, functioning and pollution free images are shown. There is a major contrast between part 1 of the investigation when the crisis is revealed and part 2 when the pandemic is considered resolved.