I find it very distasteful to read articles like the latest one on an Ugandan called Kony, who until yesterday I didn’t know existed [anymore]. You can wonder how up to date I am on current affairs all you want but an MBA schedule doesn’t allow me the time to read about people like the Konys of this world.
My rant is simply this.
Don’t refer to Kony as an ‘African Warlord’, and yes I am talking about The Christian Science Monitor’s latest headline on Kony.
Kony is an African but not an African Warlord. He probably qualifies as a Ugandan Warlord being the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and all.
I did a presentation in class yesterday about Ghana and why investors should come invest there and you use your widely read website to plant another seed about why people shouldn’t invest in Ghana and other Africa just because of Kony 2012?
If you made the editorial decision of not headline “Kony 2012: Campaign against Ugandan Warlord..” because it wouldn’t drive as much traffic as “Kony 2012: Campaign against African Warlord..” then you have to start examining your ethics as a Christian? media outlet.
In conclusion, I say learn to use [the word] ‘African’ appropriately and in the right context.
Kony 2012 is a campaign I support! Please Pledge!!
PS: Kony 2012: Is a good case study/ lesson in marketing communications and I applaud Invisible Children for pulling it off.