Beyond Twisting Truths: Channel 4 Manufacturing Horror-Drama in Orania
Exploring the Gap Between Media Fiction and Community Reality in South Africa's Most Misunderstood Town
Last year, the British Channel 4 was in Orania to make a documentary film about what they describe as "inside South Africa’s 'Whites only' town." The premise was that it would be the first time a Black person, referring to the Black host Ade Adepitan, lived in Orania for a full week. I was there at the same time as the documentary filming to complete my book on Orania, titled "Orania: Building a Nation."
Some journalists—more often from mainstream media than from alternative media scenes—enter with a preconceived conclusion that they then work from to reach what was already predetermined. The recurring trope about Orania is that it is a racist community made up of whites who not only consider themselves superior to the Black population but are also openly hostile towards them. This trope is so tiresomely repetitive that one of the town's cafés has a sign urging journalists to leave their prejudices at home.
This approach was also used by Channel 4. When they couldn't find material to fit their predetermined conclusion, they created it instead. Orania is actually a very pleasant place to be, even for a journalist. However, to create the antagonistic atmosphere they were seeking, they provoked it by attending a church meeting and filming people who did not want to participate, after which the team was asked to leave the meeting. They filled in the gaps with their own narrative, framing it as if there was a danger to the life of the Black reporter, in an attempt to realize the foregone conclusion they were set to reach—that Orania is not just a hateful town, but also portrayed as a 'murderous' town towards Black people. They really stretched this fictional portrayal of one of the most peaceful and pleasant places I have ever visited to entirely new levels:
Interestingly, the approach changes when journalists work without a pre-decided conclusion, and instead operate from a place of curiosity, letting empirical evidence guide their final story. This was the case when I visited Orania earlier this year, and at the same time, the Black podcast team The Penual Show from Johannesburg was there too. They went to Orania to form their own opinion. You can watch the discussion between Joost Strydom, the chairman of the Orania Movement, guesting on the podcast here:
Pen shared his experience of Orania with me, highlighting an intriguing contrast between Orania and his hometown of Johannesburg. He mentioned that when he walks through predominantly white areas in Johannesburg or Pretoria, he feels a negative energy—a tension that is unpleasant, marked by suspicion and caution. In contrast, his experience in Orania was notably different. There, he could walk around the town as the only Black person without sensing any negative energy. Instead, it was the opposite—there was a positive energy, people were happy, friendly, and greeted him warmly.
It's an interesting observation and contrast to other parts of South Africa, a conclusion which I share with Pen. Of course, I don't have the same starting point or experience as Pen, who is Black, since I am a white Scandinavian. However, I have the advantage of an external perspective as an observer. As Pen described, this aligns with my own experiences while conducting many reports around South Africa, mostly focusing on the white minority. To put it mildly, there is clearly a caution and alertness when someone in their gated community sees a Black person they do not recognize, and this can definitely create tension in the encounter—with questioning glances: What is he doing here? What is his purpose? This is not the case to the same extent if the visitor is white.
The atmosphere was relaxed; he did not feel singled out or scrutinized in a negative way, but instead, people greeted him normally, as they would anyone else.
It presents an interesting paradox in the observation of ‘racism’—that in the "rainbow nation" of South Africa, there is enormous tension between white and black communities. Black members of the EFF party sing about killing the white minority, and the white minority exhibits the caution of prey, struggling to relax in an environment where they are subject to black majority rule. In contrast, there is Orania, a homogeneous home for the Afrikaners, where the white minority feels at home, in control, safe, and thus able to recover from the broader trauma associated with the South African experience. They are no longer prey in a constant flight-or-fight mode but feel secure within themselves and the broader community, a prosperous area where they do not need to protect themselves with the constant suspicion found in Johannesburg.
In Johannesburg, the white population protects itself with walls and gated communities. In Orania, external walls are absent; instead, protection comes from a common demography. It's a shared culture, norms, and values—all these communal aspects render the society predictable, and predictability fosters a sense of security that allows for relaxation.
Scientific studies concerning trust in multicultural areas recurrently show that trust decreases in such environments. This decline is not only in trust between different groups within multiculturalism but also within the groups themselves towards each other.
Thanks to the shared normative system, where individuals come from similar backgrounds or view society similarly, there's no need for certainty about how people will act; it’s already known, and individuals act accordingly. This lays the foundation for a high-trust society where there is confidence in the people there, which also positively affects visitors, as Pen experienced—and as Channel 4 with Ade Adepitan also experienced, although they then had to create the antagonistic situation they were seeking.
Below is an excerpt from the chapter 'The Power of the Narrative' in my book 'Orania: Building a Nation' that relates to this kind of journalism from Channel 4 and Ade Adepitan.
Interpretation and Control
We face a challenge across the Western world: a significant portion of the population accepts narratives and interpretations that do not necessarily benefit their own group. Adopting a narrative controlled by another group risks acting in ways that are not aligned with one’s actual self-interest. This makes one vulnerable to the other group’s arbitrary interpretations and control.
When it comes to the prerogative of interpretation and narrative creation, an analogy with a tree and its gardener can be useful. Our history and identity serve as the roots of the tree, providing it with nourishment and stability. Owning the prerogative of interpretation and controlling the narrative is akin to the role of the gardener, who guides the tree’s growth using stakes and strings. It is the gardener who decides in which direction the tree should grow, thereby shaping its future. It is within the gardener’s power to shape the tree in a way that prevents it from growing strong and healthy.
In Orania, there is a sign at the ”Stokkiesdraai Centre” square that urges Western journalists to leave their prejudices at the door. The journalists are like little gardeners who come with their guiding stakes to try to influence the demographic makeup of Orania. Whether the journalists’ interpretations of Orania’s origins and purpose are consciously or unconsciously malicious, the consequences would be the same if the residents of Orania took these narratives seriously. It would lead to the town’s downfall.
The desire to listen to ’the other’ can be seen as a form of manipulation, driven by a wish to be accepted, gain validation, or avoid being vilified. But that would mean giving up control over one’s own narrative, and thereby one’s identity and future.
This brings us to another crucial aspect: the ’privilege of framing the question,’ or the right to define how a question is posed, which in turn directs the course of the discussion. This power to frame questions can be particularly influential when it comes to charged topics like racism and apartheid. The journalist’s choice of headline and lead creates a context that can give the reader the impression of objectivity. There are two factors that challenge this pretense of objectivity. First, the selection of articles influences public opinion, that is, what is chosen to be highlighted—or not highlighted. Second, the presentation of the article, including the choice of headline, shapes how public perception is formed.
The one who holds the privilege of framing the question also gets to define the nature of the problem, which influences what answers are considered legitimate. This is illustrated by the saying ”the way you ask the question determines the answer you get,” which underscores the importance of controlling the narrative.
In the case of Orania, the questions that are often posed could be along the lines of those indicated by the sign asking liberal journalists to leave their prejudices at the door:
• ’Is Orania a racist utopia for white South Africans who want to avoid
integration?’
• ’How can Orania justify its existence when it perpetuates apartheid?’
• ’Is Orania a threat to South Africa’s national cohesion?’
• ’Why does Orania become a refuge for people with white supremacist
sympathies?’
• ’How can Orania expect to be accepted when it excludes non-whites?’
These questions are commonly recurring from the establishment, and they are not neutral descriptions of the situation; they are loaded with assumptions and values that steer the discussion in a particular direction. The malicious questions imply that Orania is a racist or dangerous entity.
The framing of these questions serves as a powerful tool to control the narrative, shaping public perception and influencing the range of acceptable solutions. This is a manifestation of the ’privilege of framing the question,’ which can have far-reaching implications for how a community like Orania is understood and treated both domestically and internationally.
On the other hand, more benevolent questions could open up a more nuanced discussion about Orania’s advantages and challenges:
• ’How does Orania contribute to preserving Afrikaner culture and history?’
• ’Can Orania be seen as a model for self-governance and local autonomy?’
• ’What social and economic benefits has Orania created for its residents?’
• ’How does Orania manage to maintain safety and welfare despite the
prevailing deficiencies in these areas in the surrounding South Africa?’
• ’Can Orania offer solutions to South Africa’s challenges concerning
unemployment and crime?’
By comparing these two sets of questions, it becomes clear how the ’privilege of framing the question’ can be used to steer the discussion and influence public opinion.
We are living in a time where diversity is often upheld as an ideal, making self-governance not just a controversial issue but also antithetical to the kind of diversity promoted in contemporary politics. This is because self-governance is inherently discriminatory, excluding certain groups through a form of segregation where one’s own group and cultural heritage are prioritized. It’s common for this kind of self-governance to be challenged by redefining group membership. In the case of Orania, this would mean not identifying as Afrikaners but as South Africans first. This perspective transforms Orania’s exclusivity into an issue of internal discrimination among South Africans, which in turn is interpreted as a form of nostalgia for the apartheid era.
This not only applies to Orania in South Africa but also to Europeans who do not wish to become minorities in their own countries. The narrative control here is crucial; it shapes not just public opinion but also policy directions, affecting the lives of people within these communities. The stakes are high, and the struggle for narrative control is, in many ways, a struggle for the future.
Until next time,
Best regards,
Jonas Nilsson