Journalists, go back to class

Let’s talk media ethics. Journalists are taught that not only should they strive to deliver the story to their news editor within the specified deadline, but that they should also present it as accurately and as objectively as possible. Independence, independence, independence. That is unfortunately, mostly theoretical. Situations in real newsrooms do not tend to be so radiant.

On paper, this would obviously mean that as a journalist reporting on a story, I cannot place my allegiance with any political party, the government, or any business – among others. I cannot write a story on corruption to express favouritism and assign guilt to any party. Is that even what journalists are there for?

When former Cape Argus journalist Ashley Smith admitted to pocketing tens of thousands of rands in bribes in exchange for writing positively about former Western Cape premier Ebrahim Rasool, I thought of just how foiled things can get when we leave the classroom. Apart from that, Smith admitted to acting as a paid media strategist and advisor to Rasool.

Smith’s exercise was sponsored by public funds. Mind you, this is all occurring in a country riddled with service delivery protests, as ordinary people struggle to access the most basic of services.

That goes against everything journalists should be. Newly formed media organisation Projourn (Professional Journalists’ Association of SA) agrees, having released a statement befittingly titled “chequebook journalism’ abhorrent and unacceptable.

The organisation even compared the unethical acts to journalists who accepted bribes to candy coat apartheid, which we all know there is nothing sweet about.

Projourn also lauded Cape Argus on its approach of the issue. The newspaper carried a story on the allegations against Smith who worked as a senior political journalist and fellow former employee Joe Aranes. Aranes was former political editor.

“The admission by the Cape Argus, in a rare front page leader, that it failed its readers in this matter, as well as the editor’s reaffirmation of the paper’s core values is to be commended,” Projourn said.

Brown resigned from the newspaper during a disciplinary inquiry into the allegations. His actions, Projourn says, have brought journalism in South Africa into disrepute.

“Not only do we support those stalwart journalists who resist the demands that they be partisan in their reportage, but we abhor those who cross the line and succumb to the temptations of “chequebook journalism.”

Non-journalists, too, have opinions. On many occasions, I have been party to conversations in which normal people were bashing journalists. They seem to view them as nonobjective and full of lies in their reporting. While I do not completely support the statement, I will not just toss it away. Journalists are, before all else, human. They have issues, opinions, flaws, and sometimes ulterior motives. Many times, these do reflect in their work – be it for a good or bad purpose.

Now, as the Fourth Estate of society, journalists have a duty to society. They cannot sign up to fail, as that would mean failing society itself. Go back to the theories which were taught in class.

COPE - A new agenda to crash and burn?

Like politics – business is not known to be a pretty affair. A fair share of us must be familiar with the phrase ‘politics is a dirty business’. Do you think it exists merely because someone thought it would be great to string those words together?

Look at the impasse that Congress of the People (COPE) now finds itself in. There are numerous ‘leaders’, all to varying degrees seeking control over the party which has currently been sucked dry of any spark it may have had before. Could this be a phase before the death of the party or is this a mere stumbling block which will soon be overcome?

Those within COPE need to ask themselves, if the elections were a month from today, would they still perform as well as they did last year?

Party president Mosiuoa Lekota and deputy Mbhazima Shilowa are clearly not fans of one another. I wish I could document a blow by blow account of their rocky relationship, but I probably don’t even know the half of it.

In brief: Lekota accused Mbhazima of possibly fiddling with money. A debate over whether or not to hold an elective conference became news. Mbhazima and camp lodged a vote of no confidence against Lekota, which the court later nullified.

What a circus! I know of clowns at children’s parties, but I think COPE took this one too literally. This is politics – some may have to be dropped along the way – deal with it. A swift exit may not be all bad, Mr Lekota and camp. It seems you are no longer wanted.

Politics: you fight, and then those not aligned with you find reason to plot revenge – and sometimes your subsequent downfall. It is not always that you find the strength to rise again. One wonders if there is some kind of addiction to control here or if it is just the nature of politics (as we know it).

Parliamentary leader Mvume Dandala has recently added his name to the list of those who saw some kind of light and took a stance to resign. Reverend, you know that the church doors are always open. Perhaps politics is not your niche?

As for options available to COPE, it’s simple. Those who run things – whoever they may be – can continue on their path to destructing the party (as they seem to be doing) or they can redeem themselves and restore the ‘hope’ of their supporters.

In 1989, the aftermath of the recession left American property mogul Donald Trump battling to meet loan repayments. Times were tough. Money in its purest form was not common commodity. It was not a pretty time for business. Had he held a checklist, it would most likely read: business bankruptcy, check; personal bankruptcy, highly possible. It was at a point in his life where he could have closed shop and moved on to something else. He didn’t – look at him now.

Cope is the official opposition in five of South Africa’s nine provinces, which means it has a responsibility to those who voted for it. If COPE were a house it would be built by cement mixed with fizzy drinks sold at snacks stands at the circus. The party obviously benefited mostly from impulse voters, but that does not mean it is hopeless.

When it was launched on December 16 2008, COPE looked like it could be God’s answer to – among others – those who were not keen on being ruled by current South African president Jacob Zuma. Any current affairs follower knows he is a man no stranger to controversy – be it to do with allegations of rape or corruption. Sorry to say this, but right now Zuma must be grinning with satisfaction, saying “in your face!”

What happens from hereon? COPE, please assist.

The vuvuzela really must be annoying

The vuvuzela really must be annoying. Comedian Trevor Noah described it on Twitter as being "obnoxious" and "loud" - going as far as likening it to wayward ANC Youth League president Julius Malema.

There have been resounding calls to have it banned from World Cup matches. Popular goal-netters like Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo and Argentina's Lionel Messi have expressed displeasure at the metre-long instrument South Africans love so much. FIFA president Sepp Blatter has (thankfuly) somewhat expressed support for the vuvuzela, also through Twitter.

Teams have blasted the 'plastic trumpet' - claiming that it hampers their communication on the field. Some audiologists have said that the vuvuzela has the potential to cause permanent hearing loss over time.

Self-appointed critics of the vuvuzela need to respect the fact that this is South Africa, and when soccer is concerned, the vuvuzela is culture. Blowing it is the country's signature celebration.

Let's face it, the vast majority of those too quick to criticise and judge the vuvuzela have never even blown one. Their lips, it seems, open to criticise them - not to examine them. They are so narrow minded that they deprive themselves of the infectious and joyous blowing locals are so fond of. Ai, deal with it.

Patriotism – is it really a wonderful thing?

Patriotism is loosely described as a love of and a devotion to one’s country.

It seems South African citizens who have been gripped by football fever ahead of what I hope will be remembered as 'the best Soccer World Cup ever' cannot say or ‘display’ patriotism enough.

Like many others, I admit that I love my country dearly. I would go as far as donning a gold and green badge with the words "proudly South African".

Ask me, however, if I would kill for it. Ask me if I would risk my life or die for it. As much as I say I love South Africa, I will without hesitation say no. Killing someone else's family in the name of patriotism? I'd much rather order take aways.

Academics and creatives, it seems, are not so keen on this devotion to one's country. Or is it just my observation?

Here are some interesting quotes on patriotism:

I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him. ~Abraham Lincoln.

Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. ~James Bryce.

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them! ~Albert Einstein.

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world. ~ Eugene V. Debs.

Today I envied South Africa

Writer's block was hellbent on having its way with me, but I decided to publish this either way:

Today I envied South Africa

I witnessed her enthused children honor her in earnest. They unashamedly blasted their plastic trumpets – vuvuzelas as they passionately label them.

Many others preferred silence. Nevertheless, they were beaming with unprecedented pride and joy. Adoring crowds within her offspring received the rest of the world for their winter stay down south.

The world's greatest stars had landed, there to illustrate their ball tricks on her groomed grounds.

Her own representatives donned gold and green. Their recent wins had indisputably captured the support of their inconsistent country.

I observed that swollen lips were really no stranger to her many children. A handful of whom you would incorrectly assume blew vuvuzelas for a living. Dusk, dawn and in between, vuvuzelas sounded. In all areas – rural, remote, urban, and wealthy – they still sounded.

Her children's minds were palpably stuck on a winning atmosphere, as euphoria clung to the roof of their mouths. Their waving flags shook critics who doubted her capability. She exceeded expectations and stood tall against disapproval; momentarily deafening pesky pessimists.

Her children had breathed new meaning to the word ‘patriotism'. The Soccer World Cup had arrived in South Africa, and they said they were ‘feeling it'. While I, the rest of the world, watched and envied South Africa.

Mr. President, how out of touch can you possibly be?

When President Jacob Zuma was elected into power last year, he listed paying attention to the plight of the poor as one of his key priorities while in Office.

Over a year later, the same man is surprised to see people in the country still live in squalors. I don’t know about you, but is this something new? We all know that poverty lives in our midst.

Zuma has advisors and he has unlimited access to information relating to socio-economic conditions. Surely, the president is aware of the level of poverty and the disgraceful, appalling living conditions some people wake up to each day.

Should the president not be playing ignorant, he really must be that out of touch. I will leave space for a third option. If he is out of touch with the issues of his own country and country men, how then can he lead successfully and impact on the lives of those that know these squalors as home.

If he is surprised at these conditions, how can he possibly uplift those that are suffering the effects of poverty? These are the types whose government houses have been illegally sold to those who can afford them and are not legally entitled to them.

People are poor out there and it does not seem to be getting any better. One can make peace with the fact that for as long as the human race exists on Earth, poverty will be an agonizing reality. That mentality however, would be equal to us giving up too soon and welcoming failure too easily. As has been too commonly said, we need to fight for change. Yes, we must dismiss cropping challenges that may try to hinder us. If we all do our bit, we may still not achieve perfection, but imagine the difference!

He seems under no illusion though when he states that the government must do more to deliver these houses faster as people cannot “live like pigs” some sixteen years after the country first embraced democracy. Bravo, absolutely true. But wait, where have I heard that one before? Oh ja, it is a politician’s common cliché.

What the Zuma government is putting aside for housing includes: R15 million for subsidies this year and a fund worth R1bn to assist citizens who do not qualify to receive credit assistance from banks or a subsidy form government. While it might not seem like much, more funds allocation may not necessarily make a difference.


You just have to look at the incline in service delivery protests to notice how dissatisfied residents of numerous areas in the country are. It’s not necessarily a matter of there being a lack of resources. We know that there is some money being set aside to build houses. And as we have witnessed all too often, a significant number of these houses do not see the ground, while quite a number of those that are built are unsuitable for safe human occupation.

Living in South Africa has shown that corruption happens and money disappears, while unjustified nepotism escalates. That noted, pretending as if this is a problem is exclusive to our county would be an injustice, metaphorically speaking. Nevertheless, we must not accept it. Yes, this is me being patriotic.

It’s great that Zuma is going to rural communities and interacting with them about their grievances. Now let’s see some houses.

The Malema verdict: Am I missing something here?

ANC Youth League president Julius Malema is getting away with quite a lot.

Malema retaliated to President Jacob Zuma's criticism of his ill-behaviour in Limpopo by saying (even) former president Thabo Mbeki would not have taken a similar stance. The disciplinary committee asserted that this implied the youth league had taken a position against Zuma. Malema rightfully pled guilty on this charge.

Mr Malema, the bottom line is that whether you like it or not, your words hold water and you MUST take responsibility for ALL your statements.

Fair enough, an "unconditional" apology has been issued - whether it is sincere or not is something for Malema's conscience.

In his words he said: "I have learned from this mistake and therefore submit myself to the discipline of the ANC."

He now has to participate in anger management classes and attend 20 days of the ANC's political school. Malema has also been fined an amount of R10,000 which he has to pay within three months. The money is intended to benefit a youth development project to be determined by Luthuli House.

What I particularly liked about his statement was the part that said: "I accept that these statements had the effect of undermining the stature of the President of the African National Congress and of the Republic."

Maybe we can expect him to behave, seeing that he is now on two years 'probation'. Should he contravene a part of the ANC Constitution, the likely effect is that he will be suspended from the party.

Three other charges which were brought against Malema (and withdrawn) include bringing the party into disrepute.

Among other things, Malema last month called British journalist a "bastard", "small boy" and "bloody agent" during a press conference. He also lyrically 'shot the boer' several times - something you are probably well aware he got plenty of flack for.

Note that these are all utterances of a youth leader.

Is this plea bargain not just a stone's throw from him getting away scot-free?