This story about the "Voices
of kidnapping" radio show in Columbia
was troublesome, I wasn't aware that kidnapping was so prevalent. Despite my
surprise, the segment seemed to be directed at an audience who maybe already
knew something about it? The narrator mentions some background information like
the year 1994 and the number of kidnappings a day during this time, but I am
left wanting more information about why the guerillas do this and why the
government doesn’t do more to stop it and who they decide to take. I get the
impression from the segment that the victims are mostly older men, some are
civilians for ransom and some are political. Why though, why? So I’ll forget
about why for now and focus on the other aspects, like how calm, collected, and
monotone the narrator’s voice sounded. The narrating style made it all seem blasé
and matter of fact. Maybe that was the intention but maybe not? For me, this piece
didn’t seem very effective, I wasn’t distracted by the language barrier (though
I didn’t understand those bits, I welcome the inclusion) so much as being
distracted from all the bits of the story that are not included.
I have to agree, Elaine, this story was troubling and left me wanting more background information as to why these kidnappings took place on such a large scale. As for the first element, the troubling nature of the story, I feel that was very much intended. I imagine that the reporters wanted to make listeners like you and I aware of the prevalence of such crime in other countries and make us feel moved (troubled) by the facts of life elsewhere. My guess to the other element, the whys of this disturbing practice, is that the report simply couldn’t fit in the multi-faceted and complex socio-political explanations and historical build up. I guess overall, I was left with the impression that the story wasn’t so much about the problem of kidnapping as it was about the human impacts of the phenomenon. I’m still processing it, but that’s my initial reaction.
ReplyDeletePaul