A good story literally leads the consumer through a journey of factually self-contained sentences, forming into paragraphs that lend the baton of meaning from one to the next. The writer must strive to verify all the claims, facts and figures for the story through confirmations with relevant, credible and sanctioned sources.
To achieve the right level of accuracy in storytelling, the writer must ‘immerse’ oneself in the work at hand, assuming the place of the consumer and providing the most cogent answers to anticipated questions. All the main ideas gathered should first be haphazardly packed into a story board in a summarised manner. It is from that story board that the writer develops an inverted pyramid into which the facts are arranged in a descending order of importance. It is easy, but difficult for careless and rush-over-the-bridge category of reporters.
Juba-based Radio Tamazuj failed various aspects of storytelling, especially fact-harvesting and presentation, on Sunday, March 9, 2025.
It went to town with a no-byline story, titled ‘Gold mine accident kills five in Raja’ in which facts were jumbled up and common-sense questions were not answered. The Media Observer wishes to highlight some parts of the Radio Tamazuj story as an offering on Journalism 101.
Intro: “At least five people have died in a gold exploration accident in Raja County, Western Bahr el Ghazal State, South Sudan, officials confirmed on Sunday [March 9, 2025].”
The use of the phrase “at least” meant the reporter had not confirmed the exact number of the dead, and that it could be higher. The lack of clarity was later made worse by two loaded sentences that defied the rules of basic grammar and logic. Listen to para 5: “Five people were trapped underground, and only one survived. The survivor was taken to hospital for treatment, while the bodies of the four others were transported to Wau town for burial. One person was buried in Raja.” Did one of the five survive? If so, how come the number of the dead remained at five? Would it not have read better had the writer said that ‘one of the six who had been trapped survived’?
Para 2: “The incident occurred in the Dulu area, where a group of people working for a gold mining company were reportedly assessing a potential gold mining site.” Were they ‘exploring’ for gold (as claimed in the intro) or ‘assessing’ the mine? The two activities are different and are never done once. Exploration comes before assessment. So, what exactly, were the workers doing when the accident occurred? ‘Assessment’ comes after mining. Logic, you know. What’s the name of the mining company?
Para 3: “According to Raja County Commissioner Addison Arkangelo, the men were working approximately 15 meters underground when the accident happened.” What, exactly, were the “men” (not miners) doing in the belly of the earth? What does the term “working” mean? Without describing the activity, it invites ambiguity into the story. The next para was also as unhelpful.
Hear: “Yesterday (Saturday) [ March 8], while they were trying to remove water from the site, the water began flowing back into the excavation area, causing them to lose oxygen,” Commissioner Arkangelo told Radio Tamazuj.” What tools were the workers using to remove the water? What caused the water to flow back? As a result, did they ‘lose oxygen’ or did they drown?
Para 6: “The commissioner dismissed reports that the accident was caused by a collapse of the excavation site, instead attributing it to the sudden influx of water.” Whose reports were those? When, how and where had the reports been shared?
Para 7: “Raja County, located in the northwestern corner of South Sudan, is known to be mineral-rich, though the quantity of its resources remains unclear.” What is the source of this claim? What type of minerals, and what amounts?
Para 8: “In January, South Sudan’s National Minister for Wildlife Conservation and Tourism, Rizik Zachariah Hassan, ordered the closure of illegal gold mining operations in Boro Madina, Raja County.” How relevant is this context to the story? Was the writer insinuating that the dead were undertaking a disallowed activity? Where is the credible and sanctioned voice to confirm the allegation?
Para 10: “This is the first fatal incident since gold mining assessments began in the area.” When did such activity begin in the area? Who vouches for this definite statement that belongs to the realm of editorialising?
Para 11: “Several international partners in South Sudan have expressed concerns over the absence of gold revenue in the country’s national budget, despite reports indicating that South Sudan may be producing between 30 to 40 tons of gold each year.” Who are those so-called ‘international partners? Whose partners are they? What study estimated the quantities of gold? The para sounded like the writer’s own imagination.
Lesson learnt? The story shortchanged consumers thoroughly and revealed an abject poverty of basic storytelling skills at Radio Tamazuj. The media house urgently requires hands-on training of its news team to correct the anomaly.
