"I remember that during the period leading up to independence in Angola in 1975, I was the only correspondent there at all for three months"
About this Quote
There is a quiet provocation in the claim of being "the only correspondent" in Angola for three months: it frames history as something that can vanish if the right witness doesn’t show up. Kapuscinski isn’t just recalling a résumé line. He’s staking out a moral and narrative position - the reporter as lone conduit between a world in upheaval and an indifferent global audience.
The context does the heavy lifting. Angola in 1975 wasn’t merely a decolonization story; it was a geopolitical pressure cooker. Portuguese withdrawal, internal factional fighting, and Cold War interests converged in a violent scramble for who would inherit the state. To say he was alone is to imply a vacuum of attention: the international press corps, usually thick where Western stakes are obvious, was absent at the moment an African country’s future was being decided at gunpoint. The subtext is accusation as much as brag.
Kapuscinski also nudges the reader toward a particular kind of authority: eyewitness credibility. If no one else is there, his account becomes the account. That’s intoxicating - and risky. His work often sits at the border between reportage and literary shaping, so this line reads as both a credential and a warning label. Isolation doesn’t just grant access; it distorts. With no competing narratives, no peer correction, no institutional ballast, the correspondent becomes not only observer but amplifier, interpreter, sometimes mythmaker.
Underneath, the sentence is about scarcity: of coverage, of care, of accountability. It’s a reminder that "newsworthiness" is often a staffing decision dressed up as destiny.
The context does the heavy lifting. Angola in 1975 wasn’t merely a decolonization story; it was a geopolitical pressure cooker. Portuguese withdrawal, internal factional fighting, and Cold War interests converged in a violent scramble for who would inherit the state. To say he was alone is to imply a vacuum of attention: the international press corps, usually thick where Western stakes are obvious, was absent at the moment an African country’s future was being decided at gunpoint. The subtext is accusation as much as brag.
Kapuscinski also nudges the reader toward a particular kind of authority: eyewitness credibility. If no one else is there, his account becomes the account. That’s intoxicating - and risky. His work often sits at the border between reportage and literary shaping, so this line reads as both a credential and a warning label. Isolation doesn’t just grant access; it distorts. With no competing narratives, no peer correction, no institutional ballast, the correspondent becomes not only observer but amplifier, interpreter, sometimes mythmaker.
Underneath, the sentence is about scarcity: of coverage, of care, of accountability. It’s a reminder that "newsworthiness" is often a staffing decision dressed up as destiny.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Ryszard
Add to List
