By Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.

Today (6/6/08) has been a rather slow one for substantive news postings on the two leading Ghanaian websites, viz., Ghanaweb.com and Modernghana.com. Thus, it was quite interesting to read an article titled “The Enquirer: Akufo Addo Busted in America” on Ghanaweb.com. As usual, the sensational caption pointed to the comic thrust of the article, content-wise, that is. And the fact that it was promptly sourced to the irreparably discredited tabloid, as evinced from the caption, gave the lie right away: Just another fluffy offering by an effeminate posse of snooping busybodies out to shamelessly expose themselves for what they really are – a bevy of hooky-playing gossips who would fain have the rest of us erroneously describe them as journalists.

What makes the article worth reading, if only to get a great kick out of the intellectual levity of its authors, regards the embarrassingly sophomoric posture facilely assumed by these authorial scumbags and would-be mischief-makers. For instance, the writers note a fundraising luncheon having been hosted by Ms. Rosa Whitaker, a former United States’ Deputy Trade Secretary for Africa, under both the Clinton and Bush II administrations.

The obvious semiotic angle here, of course, is that Nana Akufo-Addo and his New Patriotic Party (NPP) cohorts may well have breached Ghana’s campaign laws. Interestingly, what the Enquirer writers predictably gloss over, thus readily giving themselves away as journalistic journeymen, is the stark reality of the fact that Ms. Rosa Whitaker, an African-American, just recently got married to Bishop Duncan Williams, a bona fide Ghanaian citizen and substantive prelate of the Action Chapel International.

In essence, Mrs. Rosa Whitaker Williams may well be a legally recognized Ghanaian citizen by marriage; she is also a legally registered Washington lobbyist for the Government of Ghana, which means that Mrs. Rosa Whitaker Williams is likely to be far more significant to the growth and development of the Ghanaian economy than the wannabe-journalists on the staff of the Enquirer.

In other words, journalists worth their nominal professional designation would have invested some time in thoroughly investigating the citizenship status of Mrs. Williams, who was as recently as only a few weeks ago introduced by her prelate husband to the sitting President of Ghana.

Another predictable weakness of the story regarded its rather crude racial tinge. It appears that the writers based their indictment of the propriety, or otherwise, of the Whitaker fundraiser solely and merely on the physical appearance and outlook of most of the attendees. Thus, to the preceding effect, the Enquirer’s tattlers write: “A scan through the room revealed that about ninety percent of the guests at the fundraising event were foreigners, mostly white Americans and some African Americans.”

Naturally, I did not expect the Enquirer’s writers to be able to tell their readers exactly how much the Whitaker-Williams luncheon harvested, although proceeds of such events are routinely made public. And, needless to say, it is also rather curious that a group of determined media goons, such as the Enquirer tattlers, would both fail to unearth the significant fact of exactly how much was realized for even their own individual curiosity, and edification, as well as the prime interest of their readers.

So, if one may aptly ask, exactly what could these goons have been “Enquiring” about, if they did not just risk their lives in air-transit, as well as wasting precious money on lodging and refreshment, trailing Nana Akufo-Addo and his associates all the way to and across the United States? I really don’t know the newsstand price of the Enquirer; chances are that this scandal sheet sells for less than 10 pesewas, else any subscriber may well be committing the equally culpable crime of “Willfully and unwisely causing financial loss to one’s family and oneself.”

And on the latter score, I hope to the high heavens that monies spent on buying newsstand copies of the Enquirer are not routinely siphoned out of housekeeping monies; else, I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep in having the culprits imprisoned for life! In any case, just who told the Enquirer writers that one can simply “scan through [sic] a room” and accurately conclude that a “mostly white American[-] and African-American[-]”looking audience may also just as well not be composed of a sizable number of Ghanaian citizens? And just who told these gossips that all Ghanaians look stereotypically African, and all African-looking people in the United States, particularly at a fundraising event for Ghanaian politicians are, perforce, African-American? And exactly how does one go about determining the identity and/or nationality of any gathering of people by simply peeking, spectator fashion?

Interestingly, while the Enquirer writers were able to inform their readers that a plate of dinner at the Whitaker fundraiser cost $ 45 per head, and the same writers could also readily determine that “about ninety percent of the guests at the fundraising event were foreigners, mostly white Americans and some African Americans,” precisely what prevented these writers from also guesstimating the amount of money raised at the function? And who said every Ghanaian-born resident of the United States carries a Ghanaian passport, anyway? Or even that such a person gives a whit about the dual-citizenship nonsense?

In essence, what we are doing here is called “Critical Thinking/Critical Analysis,” a central and indispensable tenet of good and creative journalism. And on either score, the Enquirer’s writers are abject professional nonstarters.

*Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of English, Journalism and Creative Writing at Nassau Community College of the State University of New York, Garden City. He is the author of 17 books, including “Ghanaian Politics Today” (Atumpan Publications/lulu.com, 2008). E-mail: okoampaahoofe@aol.com.