Newspapers’ Languages and Imagery Description of Issues Related to Public Accountability in Cameroon Between 2016 and 2020
- Author(s): Cedric Kamgna
- Social Studies
Paper ID: UIJRTV3I20018
Views / Downloads: 808
Mass media in general and newspapers, in particular, have played a major role in Cameroon before and after the advent of democracy. They have advocated for civil rights, liberties, and freedom of the press. This study set out to investigate how Cameroon English newspapers have made the government of Cameroon accountable to the public from 2016 to 2020. How do The Post, The Guardian Post and The Sun Newspapers use language and imagery to describe issues related to public accountability in Cameroon from 2016 to 2020? The study was supported by the framing theory. The research design used in this study is a qualitative case study and a qualitative content analysis. Data triangulation was achieved by using different newspapers and three English-speaking newspapers were purposefully selected for the study. This decision was motivated by the availability of data. Altogether, 868 issues and 14576 articles were examined. Content analysis of newspapers follows the thematic approach was done with the support of Atlas ti 5.0. The findings revealed that inadequate journalistic practices outweigh the good practices with the weight of 30.86% as against 9.7%. The type of inadequate reporting language used ranged from non-partisan, analytical reporting, people-oriented, multi-party orientation, ethical language, use of image support, objective critics of rumours, corrigendum and recapitulation. These language styles were attributed to good journalistic practices. On the other side, the opposite was attributed to inadequate journalistic practices and ranged from partisan, crude reporting, elite oriented, unilateral reporting, unethical language and forth-looking reporting. Newspapers highlighted negative practices or aspects of bad governance more than good governance with the weight of 11.95% against 6.22% respectively for bad governance practices and good governance practices.