Ah – about time I passed comment on the Sunday Times journalist thing.
And by “thing” I mean the arrest of Sunday Times investigative reporter Mzilikazi wa Afrika on Wednesday by the Hawks. Since then, the charges against him have been thrown out, then (possibly) reinstated and he has now been freed on R5,000 bail.
Apparently, anyway – the waters around this are a little muddy since the media has got its panties in a right twist around the whole story and thus getting a reasoned and accurate version of what is actually going on is proving rather difficult.
What appears to be the case is that the charges allegedly relate(d) to a fax that wa Afrika allegedly received from the fax machine of a rural school in Mpumalanga, allegedly containing this allegedly fake letter of resignation allegedly from Mpumalanga Premier David Mabuza.
Doesn’t look much like a cut & paste job to me, oh no. (cough).
Obviously, there was no question of wa Afrika having actually written this letter – there simply aren’t enough spelling errors for it to be a Sunday Times piece.
But the media is complaining that this was intimidation and a clampdown on journalistic freedom ahead of the debate over the already much debated Media Tribunal.
Apparently, wa Afrika was simply making his way to Rosebank Police Station to hand himself in when, in the words of his editor Ray Hartley, “somebody decided they wanted to make something more dramatic out of it” and he was arrested by several officers from the Hawks.
So his handing himself over at Rosebank was to be a quiet, understated affair was it, Ray?
Weird that he chose to walk there, rather than hop in a car. Weird that you helpfully had several photographers with him along with someone videoing his short walk from freedom. Weird that, since you object to somebody deciding they wanted to make something more dramatic out of it, Times Live rather dramatically published a dramatic picture of wa Afrika’s empty desk.
If I were a cynic, I might be tempted to think that they were using this to try and win hearts and minds.
Of course, Hartley et al are vehemently opposed to the Media Tribunal. The M&G quotes Nelson Mandela in a full page ad today and The Times published an emotive audio statement by SANEF Chairman Mondli Makhanya in which he “reflects on the dark days of apartheid”.
So why do we need this Tribunal? Well, as Jeremy Cronin of the SACP states:
Media stories, especially sensational allegations about prominent personalities, have legs of their own.
Saying sorry after the event is just not good enough. Sorry doesn’t undo the damage, whether the sorry is prominently displayed or obscurely tucked away.
And these apologies range from inaccurate stories about cricketers to inaccurate stories about Christine Qunta and Ronald Suresh Roberts, incorrect allegations of corruption against the SABC and wildly inaccurate allegations against Transnet and the Land Bank, leading Chris Moerdyke to say:
Whenever I see front page apologies, which seem to be more and more common these days, I am saddened that once again the mass media in this country has had to admit that they have got things wrong. For those who believe so strongly in the freedom of the press and the integrity of South African media, it is just plain bloody embarrassing.
Words that the Sunday Times editor at the time of those sensationalist Land Bank and Transnet embarrassments would do well to consider.
That man is, of course, Mondli Makhanya. Hmm.
And he would be the same editor that stated:
…our relationship of trust with our readers is paramount and no damage to this trust can be tolerated
back in December 2004 as he reluctantly dismissed an investigative reporter “on charges of acting contrary to the Sunday Times code of conduct by allowing a conflict of interest to develop and of bringing the Sunday Times’s credibility into disrepute.”
That investigative reporter? One Mzilikazi wa Afrika.
Cronin’s statement yesterday might have only touched on one part of the alleged reasoning behind the proposed Tribunal. Many more cynical individuals would argue that it’s more about preventing genuine and negative stories about the Government from being published. But while the SA media keep publishing inaccurate rubbish, they are helpfully generating a handy reason for the ANC and its allies to instate such a body.
Simply, if you want media freedom, you must use it wisely.
UPDATE: Should have put this in the original post, as it’s an excellent point. As you might expect, because it’s by me.
There’s another hugely important point I have to make here – given their legendary sensationalist and wholly inaccurate reporting (read here: http://6000.co.za/the-times-they-arent-a-changin/), why would I be foolish enough to believe that same media on the possible effects and implications of a possible Media Tribunal? Why wouldn’t they spin this story like they seem to spin most others?
Why would I be so (rightfully) cynical about their other stories and articles and take this one at face value?
Why would anyone?
Indeed.
UPDATE 2: All the ANC wants to do is stick these sort of warning stickers onto your newspapers.
Trial by media has become a national sport in South Africa. I’m glad you wrote this commentary and that it came from a white person. Freedom of speech does not entitle journalists to a never ending witch-hunt. Then again, the Sunday Times (and a certain “investigative” news show called Carte Blanche) have a blood thirsty target market who lap it all up.
“Simply, if you want media freedom, you must use it wisely. ”
Insightful comment, Captain Obvious.
Media must never be regulated by anything other than itself. As a result, however, errors do occur. (Actually, errors will occur no matter who regulates it.) And I’d prefer rubbish reporting on the side of a self regulated media rather than rubbish reporting on the side of state regulated media.
Eight cops to arrest a single journalist is theatrical whichever you look at it. And it’s probably because the porkers are afraid of a guy with a pen.
Of course, if I were a cynic, then I’d see the clever timing of such a Hollywood arrest…
HRH >I’d lap a whole lot more up if it was actually ever true.
Jeremy > Captain Obvious, maybe, but your mate Ray and his cronies are going at this like they have feel that they are pure as the driven snow. Ain’t the case.
Errors do occur, sure, but not with such alarming regularity as they seem to in The Times and its Sunday sister.
“but your mate Ray and his cronies are going at this like they have feel that they are pure as the driven snow. Ain’t the case.”
Yes and no. Ray has stated that if Mzilikazi is guilty of wrongdoing, then he must face the consequences (like any citizen). And no one is arguing that (I hope).
But they’re “going at this” because of the tyrannical nature of the arrest. (By the way, it’s not just the (Sunday) Times “going at it”, but also most of the local media world, including those who are traditionally less sensational ).
In a democracy (a concept Jeremy Cronin knows little about, no doubt), it is ludicrous that eight cops theatrically arrest a journalist (for mostly unknown reasons) in a typically communist fashion, while barring communication with lawyers and using unmarked vehicles, heading to unknown destinations (and probably eating unknown food commonly found at KFC).
That said, had it happened at Die Burger, the cops would have been beaten up. Those Afrikaners are a tough lot.
Actually, ALL freedom (and Free Will) should be used wisely.
Hey, sorry I’ve used a random name as I work inthe media and don’t want to f*** myself. The media has been its own worst enemy. As much as I disagree with having a government-affiliated media tribunal, the SA media has offered up plenty reasons for one. With so many retractions over and over and over again regarding high profile people, did they expect this possibility never to come?
Erm… this is an incredibly politically, not to mention historically, naive piece. Sure, the media fucks up. Sure, politicians don’t like it when the media fucks up. But, as Albert Camus put it: “A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad”. Media freedom is a necessary corollary of the right to know – and without knowledgeable voters, democracy is empty.
Maybe a debate should be had about reeling in the media. But a body subject to politicians is simply not the way to do it.
Jeremy > I’m ever so happy to accept that the manner of the arrest was OTT. But I would ask again what exactly the circumstances which led to the situation being filmed and photographed were if it was such a great big shock that it happened en route to handing himself in at Rosebank SAPS.
Something doesn’t quite fit, but that’s been happily glossed over.
P.S. Looked to me like it was the Afrikaners doing the arresting.
carl > A privilege we don’t realise we have?
Walnut > I don’t agree with the idea of the Tribunal, if you poke a dog long enough, it’s going to turn around and bite you in the end.
Michael Meadon > Thanks for your view. And yes – hugely naive. Obviously, because I wrote it.
Sure, the whole MT method is unfortunate and unneccessary, but how naive are you in suggesting that “maybe a debate should be had about reeling in the media”?
There are too many people in the country fed up with the media’s inaccuracies, devil-may-care attitude and constant need to apologise to individuals, companies, politicians etc. And someone is now reining them in. Yes, it’s the Government and yes, it’s undesirable, but they’ve been asking for it for ages.
And the media does choose its sides and it does make a difference – remember “It was The Sun wot won it”?
The stupid support of Zapiro’s concerted campaign against Zuma is a good case in point. How naive does one have to be to not see that what Zapiro is close to exercising some sort of vendetta against Zuma. If supporting “media freedom” means supporting and condoning that sort of behaviour – forget it.
“The stupid support of Zapiro’s campaign against Zuma is a good case in point. How naive does one have to be to not see that what Zapiro is close to exercising some sort of vendetta against Zuma. If supporting media freedom means supporting and condoning that sort of behaviour – forget it.”
Really? So when you disagree strongly enough with a person their freedom of speech should be curtailed? I mean, really. So what if Zapiro has a vendetta? He has a right to have one if he likes.
You are, I believe, making several fair points. The media fucks up too often. And maybe something should be done about that. (I say maybe, because I can’t think of a country that is (1) free and (2) has a significantly more responsible media than us). You are, however, missing the bigger picture, the context. The ANC wants to pass a “protection of information” bill so sweeping that practically any state (or even parastatal) activity can be kept secret. They want a Media Tribunal controlled by the very politicians the media is meant to keep tabs on. These are threats to democracy. A sometimes irresponsible media isn’t.
“The stupid support of Zapiro’s campaign against Zuma is a good case in point. How naive does one have to be to not see that what Zapiro is close to exercising some sort of vendetta against Zuma. If supporting media freedom means supporting and condoning that sort of behaviour – forget it.”
Look, Johnno can defend himself, but I will say that cartooning is not about facts; it’s about opinion and entertainment. If he has a vendetta, then that’s fine. The editors choose to publish his toons, and the offended parties have the right to take them to court.
That’s freedom of expression, choice, and legal rebuttal.
Unless, of course, readers are being forced to buy the paper at gun-point.
Michael Meadon > Zapiro can have a vendetta – sure. But why does he not admit it? Is that not being a little dishonest?
And at what point does a responsible media draw the line and stop publishing his stuff because of his (personal and constitutionally-allowable) vendetta?
There’s another hugely important point I have to make here – given their legendary sensationalist and wholly inaccurate reporting (read here: http://6000.co.za/the-times-they-arent-a-changin/ ), why would I be foolish enough to believe that same media on the possible effects and implications of a possible Media Tribunal? Why wouldn’t they spin this story like they seem to spin most others?
Why would I be so (rightfully) cynical about their other stories and articles and take this one at face value?
Why would anyone?
Jeremy > Look – I recognise that you are the expert here, Mr Cartoonist, but I think you’re being a bit silly if you believe that cartoons don’t carry a message to readers in the same way that OpEd pieces do. And if being unnecessarily offensive is the only way that “Johnno” has of “encouraging debate”, well then he should stick to the funny stuff which he occasionally gets right.
“given their legendary sensationalist and wholly inaccurate reporting”
I’d argue that the minority of news media falls under that heading; certainly not enough to warrant such communist-styled overhauls.
“but I think you’re being a bit silly if you believe that cartoons don’t carry a message to readers in the same way that OpEd pieces do. And if being unnecessarily offensive is the only way that “Johnno” has of “encouraging debate”, well then he should stick to the funny stuff which he occasionally gets right.”
Of course cartoons carry messages. But it’s how you respond to them that makes the difference. And unless you’re being forced to read them, at gun-point, the freedom to look away or whine is yours. There are many other newspapers out there…
So what if Zapiro is dishonest? Do only honest people have the right to freedom of expression. And why would a responsible media stop publishing Zapiro if he has an agenda? Maybe Zapiro thinks Zuma is unfit to be president, and he has a vendetta against him for this reason. (I’m speculating, naturally). But maybe that’s an opinion worth having ‘out there’? You know, maybe Zapiro is right. That’s the point about freedom of expression – to be exposed to an array of different opinions – even extreme ones – so we can determine whether our position is actually the correct one. (If you haven’t yet read John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty you should).
You don’t have to trust the media on the consequences of the tribunal. You can read the proposals for yourself. Then, drawing on history, social science, and so on, you can work out what you think the consequences will be. It’s not magic.
And I, for one, completely agree that this media tribunal thing – and even more so the protection of information bill thing – will be a disaster if implemented.
Jeremy > It’s not me I’m talking about though. Because if The Times has a reach of n million readers, then that’s a potentially powerful message that they can send out. If you had more followers on twitter, you’d understand that ;-).
And with great power, comes great responsibility. If you had more followers on twi… oh never mind.
And look, there are other newspapers. And they seem to research their stories better. So why can’t The Times?
Michael > If Zapiro does have a vendetta, if he is right, then why can’t he just admit it? Be proud of it, even? Simply, because that would devalue his position and his message.
So you agree with the media view on the MT? I’m less convinced, but then it’s very difficult to find an objective opinion on it. Everyone has chucked their 2c in before one can evaluate anything and everyone’s got some axe to grind.
“And look, there are other newspapers. And they seem to research their stories better. So why can’t The Times?”
In a free market, the consumer decides. If the paper is rubbish, then don’t buy it or read it. If the stories are rubbish, then take the publications to court. This isn’t rocket science.
That said, what makes you believe that the state will regulate the media fairly? You got some evidence?
Jeremy > You’re missing my point. You say: “If the stories are rubbish, then take the publications to court.”
Well, I don’t want there to be rubbish stories in the first place.
I don’t want the inaccuracy. I don’t want the sensationalism. I don’t want the spin. Just the facts.
I have no evidence that the state will regulate the media fairly. Just like you have no evidence that they will regulate it unfairly.
” I don’t want the inaccuracy. I don’t want the sensationalism. I don’t want the spin. Just the facts.”
And I want to shag Megan Fox. It aint gonna happen though… This kind of thing happens in every free country in the world (Fox News? The Telegraph? etc.), and is even worse when censorship is in place (Pravda).
“I have no evidence that the state will regulate the media fairly. Just like you have no evidence that they will regulate it unfairly.”
Can you cite a case from the entire history of the world where censorship has been done in a good way? Has not ended up advancing the interests of the ruling party? Besides, your statement here is logically equivalent to “I have no evidence that 6000 is neo-Nazi on the run from justice, but I have no evidence against it either” (replace neo-Nazi with ‘genius’, ‘pedophile’, ‘stud’ to taste).
“Well, I don’t want there to be rubbish stories in the first place.”
And I don’t want wives to be beaten by their husbands. But we’re not living in an ideal world, and the government won’t make it better. They’ll probably make it worse (as with most things).
And once the bills are passed, the slippery slope of censorship gets slipperier. Angry readers like yourself should put pressure on the media, rather than relying on the state to go all communist on them.
You either want a free market (media), or you don’t.
Michael Meadon > Let me begin by expressing my sympathies that you can’t bed a Hollywood celeb. Have you tried aiming a little less high? Maybe Sandra Bullock, if you can stomach it.
While you were commenting, I was reading Philip de Wet’s “sobering ” (his words, not mine) account of the Jackson Mthembu presser earlier today:
de Wet mocks that with:
But in those lines, summed up so wonderfully by Phil, Mthembu is absolutely right.
I’m (overtly) cynical about the media in all of this, just as the media is cynical about the ANC.
My only point in this post was that the media has to change its ways and stop acting so foolishly and so hastily before quietly repenting at leisure. Until it does that, it simply gives fuel to the ANC MT fire. Yet even PdW, who I have a lot of respect for, seems to conveniently ignore any suggestion of wrongdoing by the media.
And why should we settle for crap reporting just because it happens elsewhere? Xenophobia is pretty big in Eastern Europe, but that doesn’t mean we should endure it here. Oil spills are massive in the Gulf of Mexico, but I don’t want to find Fishhoek beach knee deep in crude.
SA has one of the best (the best?) constitutions in the world. (Another reason why the MT will essentially be toothless). Why can’t we also have some of the best media instead of the blinkered dross we are being served up?
Jeremy > See above for details.
And I’ve been harping on about how sh!t the reporting is here for years. All I get is abuse and sarcastic tweets from the editors. My letters never get published, my emails are ignored. Sounds a bit like… censorship.
Couple of comments to make (I just can’t resist):
1. “In a free market, the consumer decides. If the paper is rubbish, then don’t buy it or read it.”
I only wish it were so. Tabloids are pure crap and yet they sell like hotcakes. As of late, Sunday Times has been reading more and more like a tabloid and I haven’t bought it for several months now.
2. Responsibility
In a way, the media has brought this upon itself. The impression I get is one of “get the story out and if it’s wrong, we can change it later.” The number of grammatical errors I see every day in both online and print newspapers makes my stomach churn. The editors of those publications should flog themselves in public to atone.
So while the media has a right to freedom, they need to exercise that right responsibly. With poorly researched and one-sided articles being printed, it’s not surprising that politicians have their knickers in a twist.
3. Media Tribunal
Whilst I don’t know the full details, to me the Media Tribunal is not such a bad thing. If it helps to raise the flagging standards of journalism is this country, I’m all for it. What DOES worry me though, is the Protection of Information Bill.
As you were.
“Out-of-control journalists running amok, doing grave damage to the reputation of ordinary, blameless citizens who have no recourse against them unless they are rich.”
Out-of-control journalists running amok? No hysteria from him, I’m glad to see. And I like his inclusion of “ordinary, blameless citizens”. No emotive adjectives for effect, I’m also glad to see.
A free market is the best option. Always. And if the media publish rubbish, then there are courts that will gladly entertain cases of defamation, etc. There is also free choice, which means that you can ignore newspapers that publish rubbish (but, by the looks of it, you can’t control the urge to read them, unless I’m misreading your comments)
“And why should we settle for crap reporting just because it happens elsewhere?”
So then create a lobby. Go march somewhere. Create viral campaigns that take “the media” to task. Whatever. Simply, why should we settle for state control just because it happens elsewhere?
“And I’ve been harping on about how sh!t the reporting is here for years. All I get is abuse and sarcastic tweets from the editors. My letters never get published, my emails are ignored. Sounds a bit like… censorship.”
So because the editors won’t publish your letters, the government must step in? Editors not publishing letters is not censorship, nor is the state interfering with that. Another editor might choose to publish your letter, for example. Your blog is censored too, and that’s fine. No one is forced to leave a comment, and the government isn’t interfering either.
It’s about freedom to choose, to act, to respond, to go eat supper…
Ohhh boy!
So simple and yet so complex for those who pretend to be or perhaps are so stupid.
You see I have this burning desire to own a publication which will publish utter drivel …..perhaps incite a few famous people and get up the collective nose of a bunch of people I just feel like disliking for the hell of it. I want to publish cartoons aimed at those I have a vendetta against without disclosing my agenda – just because I can.
Now you (the public) can choose to buy my lump of junk or alternatively you can purchase the latest copy of “100% Responsible” magazine. That choice belongs to Joe Public.
This, my friends, is how freedom of speech works and when and if government treads on my right to publish drivel then I have lost my freedom. ……and when I lose my freedom we have ALL lost our freedom. It is that simple.
………..and should I be defamatory or libelous there are state sponsored bodies that will deal with me. This is why the laws exist on our statute books.
Bottom line – If I want to tell the world that the world is flat and the world buys my publication …..well that is called freedom and if you don’t like it ban it but please can I have my exit visa first.
PS – Try reading some holy religious writings for some wholesale drivel – perhaps we should censor or ban them too!?!? Imagine that – religious wars all over again!
RichSch > Good points, well made. Especially “With poorly researched and one-sided articles being printed, it’s not surprising that politicians have their knickers in a twist.”
There are twisted knickers everywhere.
Jeremy > I’m lobbying here. This is my lobby and through there is my living area.
My blog is censored only for reasons of decency. I won’t print hate speech, swearing etc. I’m happy to print almost anything else.
But also, I don’t go out publishing unfounded nonsense which several million people read and accept as the gospel truth.
Are you saying there should be freedom of speech to publish untruths about (for example) politicians? Why?
Mike > Return of the Mike, Return of the Mike… remember that song by
MikeMARK Morrison? Big hit in the UK – never liked it myself.Once again, you have completely missed my point. Of course I am aware that I can choose to buy or not to buy. And very regularly, I don’t buy.
While your (and Jeremy’s) assertion that the courts can deal with any incorrect or defamatory statement or publication might be true – why should those statements have been made in the first place? Why can’t our media stop with the m.o. of publish first, quietly apologise later?
That nonsense goes out to millions of people who see it, believe it and then (at some point) make their decision to vote on it. Mud sticks. And it’s all that random mud slingage which needs to be stopped and is one of the reasons why Government want to clamp down on the free rein of the press.
As for your idea of banning religious books, I would love them to do that. If the existence of the bible means that god exists, so the existence of comic books must mean the Superman is real as well, right?
“why should those statements have been made in the first place? Why can’t our media stop with the m.o. of publish first, quietly apologise later?”
Who knows, but it’s what happens in a free market.
That said, you’ll be happy to know that the ANC is launching its own newspaper, complete with beautiful spelling and grammar, precision editing, and objective stories with no bias.
“That nonsense goes out to millions of people who see it, believe it and then (at some point) make their decision to vote on it. Mud sticks. And it’s all that random mud slingage which needs to be stopped and is one of the reasons why Government want to clamp down on the free rein of the press.”
And those millions of readers have the freedom to decide what they believe or not believe. By assuming that they believe everything that is published, you are insulting their intelligence.
Jeremy >”Who knows”? That’s not mounting much of a defence.
And wow – the ANC is launching a newspaper. And why shouldn’t they? It is, after all, a free country.
And the ANC newspaper will be biased towards the ANC – big wow.
But that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the supposedly independent press, does it?
And you and I both know that I am not insulting the intelligence of anyone here. What people choose to believe is up to them and their level of education.
Of course the ANC should be allowed to launch their own paper.
But government intervention of the free press (with its flaws) is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. There is no evidence that state-regulated media has positive effects on press freedom and quality.
You should know this.
I’ll be back to point all of this out when / if the government decide to clamp down on internet freedom.
Jeremy > “There is no evidence that state-regulated media has positive effects on press freedom and quality.”
Overall? Maybe not – but who’s been doing the research?
If it stops the aforementioned slack, devil-may-care attitude of the current media regime, it’ll get a +1 from me.
All of this drama is ahead of any detail whatsoever and no-one (save the ANC, ironically) seems to have mentioned the Constitution and how that would make it a whole lot less dramatic.
Actually, perhaps that’s why.
As for an internet (pr0n) clampdown, my good friend Jacques Rousseau has mentioned what’s going on there, the false premises which it is based on and the high (read complete) religious bias of the steering committee. Completely different toaster of fish.
“If it stops the aforementioned slack, devil-may-care attitude of the current media regime, it’ll get a +1 from me. ”
You wouldn’t know any better because it will be state-regulated. But hey, as long as it leaves alone the devil-may-care ANC, right?
Move along. Nothing to see here, folks (other than a few communists).
Jeremy > Wow. Can’t believe you’re being serious in these allegations against the MT and the me.
Don’t think I’ve ever been mistaken for a Commie before, even though I grew up in militant South Yorkshire.
I’m almost touched – or at least I would be if you weren’t quite so far from the mark…
“I’m almost touched – or at least I would be if you weren’t quite so far from the mark…”
I am?
You believe that:
– State-regulated media will improve the quality of journalism (without any supporting evidence) and if it doesn’t, then it’s okay because they’ll, you know, revert the restrictions;
– The media™ is conspiring against the ANC via “vendettas” (in the form of cartoons and opinion and whatever else) and sloppy journalism, and by not publishing your letters;
– Readers are devoid of free will and are unable to control their urge to consume inaccurate, sensational reporting, so the government must help them along by regulating the press;
– Even though there are courts in place, to deal with poor reporting, you’re still unhappy with a free market, so you’d rather push for a move towards totalitarianism.
I know you’re get the last word in, so I’ll leave it there for now.
“While your (and Jeremy’s) assertion that the courts can deal with any incorrect or defamatory statement or publication might be true – why should those statements have been made in the first place?” – yes let’s fix the problem like you say and then we can remove these unnecessary laws from our statute books – good idea!!!!
Simply because freedom of speech dictates that it is every individuals right to publish kak (good SA word) if he so desires and freedom of choice dictates (and perhaps assumes) that the buyer will choose wisely about what he reads and vote with his hard earned cash.
After all this is the same fella into whose hands our beloved government has entrusted an electoral vote so why do we trust Joe Blogs to vote wisely but purchase unwisely.
You can’t have it both ways I am afraid. If the public are so dumb then what does that say about democracy.
Hmmmmmm retract that statement about Joe Blogs – after all the electorate voted for a shower bearing idiot whilst on 600 odd charges of corruption………….and yes Zapiro has every right to flog this dead horse as often as he likes with or without an agenda … and should such agenda exist he is every right to conceal or disclose such agenda as is his want.
…and yes Jeremy you are bang on target.
…………and my dear 6000 was it not you who called me a “liar” in a long fogotten “vuvu-bloody-zela” blog and is this befitting of your own ideals? I sure as hell don’t give a rats backside what you call me and neither should anybody else. I chose not to take you to court for defamation and defend your right of expression – dishonest as it was.
Jeremy > The irony of your obvious irritation over my having the “last word” is ironic, considering you have spent the last few days coming onto MY blog and telling me that if I don’t like stuff, I shouldn’t read it. I endeavour to reply to every comment left on here, so a reply is what you’ll get.
Apparently, I’m a dirty red commie, then? That is, if you take my views on this subject to the extreme and ignore anything else I may ever have thought or said.
Not the most scientific way of looking at things.
Mike > You’re another one spending your money on buying bandwidth to read my blog. Choosing wisely what you read and voting with your hard earned cash. How lovely.
I thank you.
Of course, the charges against Jacob Zuma were dropped before the 2009 election, rendering your analysis wholly inaccurate, but then that’s never stopped you before, has it?
So on the one hand, I get criticism from Mr Nell (that’s Jeremy, Mike) for wanting a “totalitarian” state. On the other, I get criticism from someone who thinks that the public are dumb and we should (presumably then) move away from democracy? Towards… a totalitarian state?
And Mike, you did lie on my blog. You said you weren’t going to come back and comment further and then you did. And now you have again.
I can smell burning Y-fronts…
Wow, I am so glad I found your blog post! For days I have been wondering if I am the only nutty one who thinks there is something amiss about the media’s present outrage.
And actually I even thought to myself – imagine if the dramatic Wa Afrika arrest was plotted not by evil apartheid style press squashing forces, but instead by the media itself, to drum up emotion…
Not that I seriously think that is the case, but you raise some wonderful points about why he was walking there with photographers in tow. And my personal favourite is how that classic photo of him being arrested was edited into black and white, presumably to give it a ’70s feel. Being that he was a political detainee and all.
But outside of this, yes yes yes, I totally agree with you about our media. The Sunday Times is the worst of the worst of the worst. Another one to remember was that front page article just before the world cup, all about terrorist cells operating in the country, planning world cup attacks. And the whole article was set against police and security high ups here telling us that there was nothing to worry about. The Times of course implying that the government was either inept or withholding information about possible impending attacks.
You know! Really! For a moment I got scared about being blown up in a car bomb and considered not going to the match I had tickets for. Then I remembered I was reading the Sunday Times.
I do think we need to stand for media freedom and I think the protection of info bill does sound like a disaster in terms of potential for abuse. And I am grateful that there are great journalists out there who have been doing great work telling important stories and who have been fighting the protection of info bill. And I also don’t think a media tribunal is the answer. But I just wish that in general our print media could get off their high horses and do some thinking about what has brought us to this point.
I came across another quite great article on this topic today too: http://www.sagoodnews.co.za/newsletter_archive/freedom_of_expression_and_freedom_of_the_media_are_they_the_same_thing_.html
“And Mike, you did lie on my blog. You said you weren’t going to come back and comment further and then you did. And now you have again.” (The fact that this is a completely different blog to the “vuvu” blog must seem pretty damn obvious to all but the most dumbest of idiots)
You see the beauty of freedom of speech is that the writer is not spared his destiny. The above statement quoted from 6000 is a blatant lie but the idiot who wrote it doesn’t even understand that the “lie” or “not a lie” is not the point at all.
The point is about idiots like 6000 being allowed to express their opinions in a public forum and the public being allowed to read and judge for themselves.
6000 wants it both ways and he seems oblivious to it!!!! ………..aaahh well as they say “one every minute”. ………..or maybe he just had a bad day?
…………..and this constitutionally entrenched freedom also allows idiots like me the license to call idiots like 6000 an idiot.
Laura > Glad someone (else) agrees with me. I hadn’t thought about the conspiracy theory, but I like it. A bit, anyway.
Likewise, I’m not sure I agree with the MT, but I can see why some people might think we need one.
Mike > I really don’t think the MT would be interested in the communist, ANC-sympathising viewpoints of an idiot, now would they?
But you’re right, of course – what sort of country would this be if our freedom of access to information was restricted? Fortunately, the consititution allows such freedom.
But can such access to information go too far? The analogy of the open gate is not lost on me…
Even as an alleged communist, ANC-sympathising idiot, I would miss those freedoms…
And it’s all gone quiet over there.