Behind the Broadcast: Reflections on the ACJ-OAU ICJC 2026 Conference

Journalism involves considerable work beyond the 800-word articles and 2-minute clips the audience interacts with. From coordination to logistics and teamwork, all of these come together behind the scenes to make a great production. If one part is lacking, it eventually affects the output, as what the audience experiences depends on the different components (people) making up the team. I became more aware of the difference between participating in an event and documenting it. Comparing this year’s ICJC with past ones, I realised that before, I could absorb the discussions almost immediately and directly. This year, serving in the broadcast team meant documenting and broadcasting first and internalising later. So, for the most part, I was physically separated from many of the conversations. Yet documentation is a huge part of organising itself. Records, such as pictures and videos, are more than mere mementoes. They are pointers to what we have done well and what we can improve on. Without them and the willingness to improve, we would simply keep repeating the same practices without ever growing. Documentation also carries the conversation further. The people physically present are not necessarily the only ones who can participate in these conversations. And this is where broadcast works. It extends the reach of these conversations, allowing people who are not in the room to encounter the ideas and experiences being discussed. One thing no one really prepares you for is how nature and technical limitations can conspire to undermine your efforts. Imagine a scenario where the sun decides not to appear at a moment when you are supposed to film an interview with one of the speakers, and you do not have an LED light to help with video clarity. Or realising, after your interviewee has already taken their seat in the hall, that you never pressed record. It could have been worse, and I now check everything before an interview begins.

Even though I went to the event hoping to experience the conversations directly, my role in the broadcast team meant that I largely experienced the conference through the work of documenting it. I keep asking myself how that shaped my experience of the conference, and whether, because of my work, I did not get the ‘full package’ out of it… At the core of broadcast is documentation and dissemination to a larger audience. But how much gets retained when an experience is mediated through the lens of a camera? How much gets ‘lost’? Some editorial selection is obviously at play here. Of course, it is impossible to broadcast every moment of the conference, given the shortage of resources we had to battle. Still, cuts have to be made from the array of clips, which means carefully selecting the moments to show. What then are the criteria that determine the clips and frames that make it to the final edit? Do we prioritise giving viewers a multifaceted experience, allowing different moments and perspectives to coexist in the final broadcast, or do we selectively present clips that show the organisation in an ideal light? This experience made me think about the mainstream media: are the articles and videos we consume truly representative of the realities we think they portray? This has also made me more conscious of my position within the process of documentation. I am beginning to see that beyond what the camera captures, the decisions made behind it inevitably shape the reality that is eventually presented. This leaves me questioning how I can participate in documentation in a way that remains faithful to the complexity of an experience, rather than reducing it to the moments that are most convenient or visually compelling. I am still thinking about what responsible selection looks like in practice and how we can integrate multiple dimensions of an event without losing the coherence of the story we are trying to tell.