Journalism is usually, and I believe accurately, associated with the uncovering and reporting of “facts”. Investigative journalism, especially, involves the (sometimes difficult, even dangerous) ferreting out of “facts” that are not generally known, and often deliberately hidden or covered up, especially by those in power. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, for example, will be remembered for their investigative reporting on the illicit break-ins at the Watergate buildings in Washington, DC, which eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon as president of the US.
Because of the crucial role of so-called “facts” in cases like these, most people regard such “facts” as unquestionable and as necessarily leading to action of some kind. And certainly, if sufficient scrutiny is brought to bear on them, they deserve such status. But — and this is a big BUT — only if there is agreement about the accessibility of the context within which facts function as facts, in the first place, and secondly, if the community of interested parties share a common set of values.
If this seems confusing, consider the following: In a book titled 50 Facts that Should Change the World, journalist and BBC television producer (and, in my view, activist) Jessica Williams lists these 50 “facts”, together with about five pages in each case to explain what they entail, and (at least implicitly) suggest why they “should change the world”, (obviously, by igniting action on the part of people worldwide that would presumably result in these facts changing, that is, in the conditions that they reflect, improving).
I cannot reproduce all of these here — just listing them would take up a lot of space — but here are some of them that illustrate what I said earlier after the “BUT”:
- China has 44 million missing women.
- Ninety-four percent of the world’s executions in 2005 took place in just four countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US.
- In more than 70 countries, same-sex relationships are illegal. In nine countries, the penalty is death.
- More than 12 000 women are killed each year in Russia as a result of domestic violence.
- In 2006, 16 million Americans had some form of plastic surgery.
- Landmines kill or maim at least one person every hour.
- There are 44 million child labourers in India.
- People in industrialised countries eat between six and seven kilograms of food additives every year.
- Cars kill two people every minute.
- Global warming already kills 150 000 people every year.
- In Kenya, bribery payments make up a third of the average household budget.
- The world’s trade in illegal drugs is estimated to be worth around $400 billion (about the same as the world’s legal pharmaceutical industry).
- A quarter of the world’s armed conflicts of recent years have involved a struggle for natural resources.
- A third of the world’s population is at war.
- More people die each year from suicide than in all the world’s armed conflicts.
- There are 27 million slaves in the world today.
- The US owes the United Nations more than $1 billion in unpaid dues.
- Two million girls and women are subjected to female genital mutilation each year.
- Every week, an average of 54 children are expelled from American schools for bringing a gun to class.
- A third of Americans believe that aliens have landed on earth.
- Ten languages die out every year.
What do these facts have in common? First — and obviously, otherwise they are unlikely to appear in the second edition of a book with such a title — they represent states of affairs that can be verified by anyone using the same kind of resources that Williams has used (as a journalist and television producer for a reputable national news company she is likely to have access to more such resources than any average Joe, of course).
The second thing they have in common is this: they represent states of affairs that are undesirable; hence their description as “facts that should change the world”. What Williams really means, implicitly, is that, once sufficient numbers of people know about these facts, they should set out by various means of action to change the world by addressing these facts and removing them — in the sense of replacing them with states of affairs that represent an improvement on what they represent.
And this brings me to the titular question, above, regarding the possibility of a critical (investigative) journalism: unless one can assume a shared set of values underpinning the uncovering and reporting of “facts” of this nature, there is hardly any sense to it. In other words, Williams (or Bob Woodward, for that matter) would hardly go to the trouble of adducing facts such as these, unless she implicitly assumes that her readers would be as outraged by the conditions reflected by them as she is — and moreover, set out to change them for the better. (An interesting corollary question is whether she is right in this assumption.)
And this brings me to an important upshot of a practice worthy of the name “critical investigative journalism”: it cannot exist ONLY in the uncovering of “facts”. Unless it tacitly or explicitly acknowledges the existence of presumably (universally) shared values — values that would impel people to act in ways that may be anticipated — there would be no sense to it as a practice. Or, to put it more bluntly: the hunt for facts on the part of investigative journalists presupposes something strangely un-factual, namely human values.
If you don’t believe me, you can put my claim to the test in relation to the 21 “facts”, listed above, from Williams’s book. There are, of course, cases where, arguably, commonly shared human values, presupposed by Williams, come up against culture-specific values underpinning the perpetuation of the state of affairs in question — such as the one about female genital mutilation (which probably happens in specific cultures), or the one about school kids in America bringing guns to school in relatively large numbers (which reflects the American love of firearms, arguably affecting many other cultures through American films and television shows). But even in these cases, Williams is intimating that human beings can legitimately be supposed to adhere to values that would be inimical to the “facts” here listed.
(Philosophers will no doubt here be reminded of the debate between members of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, on the one hand, and positivists, on the other, regarding the status of “facts”, which is not quite the same thing as that which concerns me here.)
great article!
Bert, I suspect that this post is a stalking horse, as it were. What you really have in mind, is the proposed media-constraining legislation and media tribunal – am I right? What you are saying, indirectly, is that the very same people who are proposing this legislation, are also the first ones who would profess to believe in the kind of “universally adhered to” values which the legislation would undermine, such as the human rights to information and to free speech. Besides, if the media are expected to report in such a way that their “facts” can be checked, then, if those facts reflect undesirable conditions, everyone would/should agree that they should be exposed and removed, in this way indicating the value-orientation you speak of. I’m right, right?
A journo invariably has his/her own values and presents these values in the reportage in the hope that these values will resonate with the readers/viewers/listeners.
If the reportage is a pack of lies, the journo and the medium carrying the story are compromised and seen as not credible. So all journos have a duty to base their subjective moral views on a foundation of objective fact.
Thank you Bertie for the deconstruction of the ‘state’ of criticism. I am sure the same argument holds for ‘art’, it probably happens at the same time that it becomes absorbed by rampant consumerism.
Great post. I think that is one important element that has been missing from the whole media tribunal debate.
Does (and should) the media report facts and for whom?
I think the element you touch on (interpreting the facts and making value judgments) is an extremely important function of free media in a plural society.
Isn’t that the essence of writing a story – attaching/exploring the context, values etc associated with the facts (merely descriptive)? (You would be able to put it in a nice philosophical context).
The whole idea in a plural political system is that there are conflicting interests and values and that the political system (lib democracy) merely provides the space to resolve/manage them – rather than enforce one set of values/narratives over others.
(Of course this happens in most modern democracies because of the states monopoly of the justice system and coercion – but mostly it entails people either excepting stupid laws or broadly supporting social welfare/engineering policies).
In this sense the ANC has a legitimate claim that the most of the media reinforces a specific (overall negative) narrative of government.
Nothing however, prevents the ANC/government from starting its own newspaper and testing alternative narratives in the market place of ideas.
The temptation to opt for a media tribunal points among others things to a suspicion that an alternative narrative might not be popular in a free market of ideas – since the majority seems to agree with the mainstream media narrative.
What is most frustrating reading what we call investigative journalism in this country are stories that are attributed to “Reliable sources”, “a senior member of the ANC”, “some close to the president” and many others. Certain facts are implied as opposed being said directly. An example “Jacob Zuma is accused of raping a daughter of a friend, his son Edward was also accused of rape at the university of Zululand” The question why bring in the son incident unless you want to tell the media that rape is hereditary in the male Zuma family?
Gee, Maria. And I thought he was making the point that there is no real point to critical journalism in this country because our threshold level of intolerance is so high that it hardly seems worth having access to information. After all, no one in the ANC is going to bother to change their behaviour even if we do all burst blood vessels after finding out just how ghastly they really are…
Interesting. My understanding of any form of critical thought is that it concerns itself with questioning ‘givens’, including ‘shared values’.
On critical journalism & shared values as a precondition. I dont understand shared values as a static concept. That is to say, you and me may agree on media freedom as a necessary condition for effective democracy but differ on idiosyncracy and emphasis-where it starts and stops relative to other imperatives for e.g. So that, within these universally shared values there’s space for consensus, disagreement and persuasion.
@Sipho – Totally agreed. I have the same gripe with the same media’s usage of “scientists have found” or “research proved” which is just as vague and deliberately misleading, or their twisting of actual scientific fact to suit their own agenda.
@Bert – I do not know if your last paragraph refers to the different meanings of the words “critical” or “fact” since I am not a philosophy student but I feel that that is where the problem lies. The word “critical” now seem to have a negative,emotionally judgemental meaning rather than its initial positive meaning, for example as in “critical thinking”, i.e. simply meaning that all the facts were considered, context taken into consideration, logic applied, etc, etc. and a conclusion reached for consideration.
As you say, The facts that you relate from this book seem to have that in common, that they are stated to evoke an emotional response, i.o.w. They are judgemental rather than critical facts, which is when news stop being news, to me, and start to become fictional entertainment.
If one find it entertaining to see what Madame X thinks the future holds and what the naked blond on page 3 looks like today or whose gruesome (graphically displayed) corps was found, fair enough, but if one actually need to know what is going on, then surely their should be publications to cater for the actual unfabricated news?
These publications should at least have the word “news” somewhere in their name to tell one the fact that that is what they are selling. If the producers of this news should not deliver the goods one should be able to have some recource to justice against them for false advertising? The proposed tribunal just does not strike me as the right body to do this.
@HD – You are right, journalists do not have a duty to the public or democracy but they do have a duty to their fellow journalists to report the news, unemotionally, or forfeit their credibility with the public, i.e. market share.
Maria and HD – I was wondering if anyone would pick it up! And you are both right – this is my way of approaching the proposed legislation to restrain the media, to try and make readers aware of the contradictions on the part of government. Last night I was made aware of yet another such contradiction, when Alec Hogg was discussing the supposedly BBBEE deal just announced by Mittal, which turns out (surprise surprise!) not to be so broad-based after all, given that the people who are really benefitting hugely from the deal (in millions and millions) are the already super-rich! In his interview with (and I speak under correction here) the CEO of Mittal (hope I got the company’s name right) she was quite open about this scandalous state of affairs. Who does the ANC government think it is fooling with its pretence, that BBBEE is benefitting ordinary blacks in SA? I know this is not directly related to what I have written about here, but the similarity, as far as contradiction is concerned, should be glaringly obvious. Is it at all surprising that teachers and other employees in the state sector are taking to the streets to protest the government’s unwillingness to meet their pay demands? Everywhere around them they see already wealthy individuals benefitting even more from a policy that is supposed to empower ordinary South Africans, let alone the financial benefits enjoyed by government ministers and other officials.
@X-Cepting
I don’t know about that…That would mean no editorial pages which are inherently subjective and for me anyway the best part of a newspaper. I read more than one newspaper and alternative source because I am fully aware that there a more than one take on most things. I even prefer reading columns by commentators that stir (even if I disagree) than by political correct commentators that repeat the same old tripe.
But, yes I expect that in the normal news section journalist should strive to be as accurate as possible if they want to retain credibility as a news source. However, state and studies have different interpretations and context attached to them so it is unavoidable to generalise.
The really nonsensical argument for me in this whole debate is people that argue that there should and is only one “take” on things – that is a pretty dangerous idea too. (and I mean this in the scientific sense rather than the absolutist or relativists sense – always room to be proven wrong).
Any way what then about the Daily Sun, Sports publications and business publications. Surely you don’t expect them to be factual. Is Pierre Spies factually worse than Kankowski for instance? Is Mittal deal rotten or not (you need perspective to really answers this).
Like Bert’s facts. With a lot of them I see now inherent problem or would have a completely different solution…
@HD – Sport is entertainment, no? I also like reading editorial pages and when I do, try to get as many different takes on the same subject as possible because it is subjective viewpoint not objective report. I admit to not having read the new Mittal deal yet but will check out Engineering News on the subject since they do tend to stick to the facts. Until then, I reserve judgement on the matter and have no feelings about it. Might sound cold but maybe I’ve been made a fool of by fake blood once too often. As art it adds to the ambiance, in the news, it remains a lie. What if, for example, the whole Mittal deal report is just a part of the normal economic warfare between rival businessmen?
@Bert – I have come to realise that no scheme to benefit the poor by this govt was ever intended as anything else but PR for the ANC. RDP houses being a stunning example. It was never meant to work but just another way for a few to get super rich real quick.
@ X-cepting: “@HD – You are right, journalists do not have a duty to the public or democracy but they do have a duty to their fellow journalists to report the news, unemotionally, or forfeit their credibility with the public, i.e. market share.”
I beg to differ with you on this one. Journalists DO have duty to both the public and to democracy as well as to their colleagues to report honestly and fairly the information they acquire in the course of their work.
There is an enormous body of jurisprudence on the independent status of the press from government; the duty of the press to monitor the workings of government in terms of meeting its obligations to the electorate and obeying all Constitutional requirements; doing the same in the context of regulated industries such as Finance, Housing, Health, etc. in terms of adherence to required standards; the investigation of questionable practices reported to the press by members of the public and a host of other situations where access to information is both necessary and desirable in the life of a democratic society.
Even the framers of the US Constitution’s First Amendment which established the principle of Freedom of the Press railed against what they felt was scandal-mongering aimed at the President and other members of government. Some of the ‘news’ published in the late 18th and 19th centuries was unsubstantiated rumour and spiteful slander, extreme beyond our wildest imaginings. But despite these abuses, press freedom was protected. tbc
Cont’d.
It is when ‘journalists’ see themselves as ‘media personalities’ whose allegiance is to the corporation that journalism disappears and spin doctors take over. Fox “News’ is an egregious example of spin journalism run rampant.
Prior to 1980 or so, even student journalists were held to professional standards regarding the accuracy of information entered in their reporter’s notebook, insisting on a minimum of two sources to confirm any ‘fact’, NEVER betraying a confidential source even at the risk of imprisonment, and, where possible, having a colleague vet your story before giving it to the Editor.
Journalism students were required to take courses in Constitutional Law on Freedom of Speech in cases involving libel, attempts at censorship, ‘exceptionalism’ during times of war, and the fine line between public interest and national security.
Journalism should be regarded– and performed–as profession, not a ‘job’. Training needs to be rigourous, and in today’s world of instant communications, on-going so that current jurisprudence is incorporated into professional practice.
Serious journalists do not play fast and loose with ‘facts’. They do their best to get confirmation from at least two sources (preferably unkown to each other). Un-named sources should not be used routinely unless the actions under investigation are such that naming the source would result in the risk of harm to the source. In a context of fear, such as Mpumalanga’s Murder Inc., un-named sources are unavoidable but must still be vetted for credibility and accuracy.
What is a fact? Avoiding, for the moment, philosophical arguments over definitions, I’d like to deal with the pragmatic use of the term.
In a dynamic universe, change is constant. Scientific ‘facts’ can change subject to additional information becoming available over time.
In the context of human society ‘facts’ are those assertions that can be substantiated by sufficient evidence to establish their credibility. No one ever has all of the facts about anything. In South Africa, requiring the Press not to publish unless it has 100% of the facts in any situation is as good as outright censorship. It is the insistence that journalists be infallible. It is a disingenuous political manoeuvre, a back door approach to censorship and the overthrow of the Constitution.
Journalism is a sort of contract between the press and the public. The average citizen cannot monitor the performance of elected officials day to day. Consequently, we need an independent institution with a Constitutional mandate to perform this oversight function. In a democracy, that is the Press. The Press function as the eyes and ears of the electorate to make the Government and public enterprises accountable for their actions–or inaction.
Journalists and editors who through carelessness or arrogance publish unsubstantiated ‘facts’ lose their credibility and consequently the public trust. In the context of a Democracy, we have the right to criticise and/or sue journalists we feel have abused their position.
WE monitor the Press as they monitor government. Seems fair to me.
@ shared values
Obviously, SA is a country divided, not by race or economics alone, but by a deep cultural split between those who favour authoritarian rule and those who favour Democracy.
The ANC have done–some would say deliberately–an abysmal job at educating the largely sub-literate population about what Democracy is and what it requires of them in terms of informing themselves so that they hold the government accountable for something other than public sector employees’ salaries.
I doubt that more than 20% of SA-cans could accurately describe the difference between democracy and any other system of governance, other than the provision of the right to vote.
However, the franchise is NOT the strongest guarantor of democracy. Most elections held in Africa have been shams, making a mockery of the right to vote.
The strongest protectors of our democratic rights are the free and independent Press and the Judiciary. If either is compromised through legislation–or simply by ignoring the Constitution and proceeding as though it doesn’t exist–the ends of democracy are defeated.
Democrats and authoritarians are polar opposites. A social system in which power and authority are concentrated in one person or a small group at the ‘top’, creates a mind-set in which such a structure is ‘normal’. Add tradition into the mix and people will prefer life under a tyrant who tolerates no opposition to living in a democracy where uncomfortable facts
show up the leaders’ failings.
@bert,
i am no journalist and no philosopher. but i sure know how to read a paper. i also understand a balanced viewpoint and appreciate why a journalist give’s ‘both’ sides of the story. assuming two sides are involved, of course!
if, as marie points out, your article is in view of the current discussion on the MAT and the information bill (sic), you have to mention the legitimacy of the media. irrespective of shared values. and from where i stand given my lack esteemed qualifications like yourself, media legitimacy speaks to the representativity of and in the media content. i am not absolutely certain our media enjoys legitimcay in south africa. in short, it does not speak to the concerns of the majority. it does, however, seem to speak on behalf of white issues in the country. sandton potholes are somehow linked to ‘service delivery protests’ in townships! i dont see the media address issues like poverty, affirmitive action and hunger by school children because these issues elicit white guilt. so my question to you is what about legitimacy instead of advocacy as is widespread in this country! you cant deny there is ‘an opposition agenda’.
i think something has to be done and am not sure this MAT is the way to go!
edwin matlapeng
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of many, if not most commentators here. I am not arguing dogmatically that all people SHOULD have the same values – that would be tantamount to surreptitiously promoting an ideology. What I am saying, though, is that the alacrity with which investigative journalists produce disturbing ‘facts’ – and I am talking here about those that may be readily verified, barring some obstruction by people in power who have much to lose by their publication – hides the underlying assumption, that most people share certain human values, inimical to such facts. Someone no less than critical theorist Jurgen Habermas has argued – and I agree with him – that one should not seek agreement in ideological persuasion; the seeds of agreement about certain things (not all, mind you) are right there in the resources of language. There are culture-specific values over which people would not agree, and then there are those that are embedded in language – in all languages – such as abhorrence of murder and the rejection of incest (which Levi-Strauss attributed to all human communities). Then one could add ‘human rights’ enshrined in the UN Charter and in our constitution – these are all tacitly assumed to be shared by all humans. I have elaborated on this matter in the following papers:
- ‘Lacan and the question of the psychotherapist’s ethical orientation.’ SA Journal of Psychology 35 (4), 2005, pp. 657-683.
- ‘The contemporary context of relativity and relativism.’ Acta Academica Supplementa, 2005 (2).
Wish I could understand Bert’s posting with more precision.I’ll call it a tantalisng article, where the advisedly chosen adjective denotes curiosity awakened, and part-recognition.But thanks also to the two hermeneuts, Maria and ‘HD.’In any case, ‘the facts’ are what the ANC says they are – finished and klaar.And the idea that there are pure, unadulterated facts (over which the ANC must preside) is part of their delusion.There’s no end to the slipperiness. Self-interested values and constant appeal to a seemingy inscrutable context are perpetually operative.(But I’ll take the article to bed with me)
@Shiobhan – Agreed, in theory. In practice, HD is right and anything goes as long as the profit is made. In practice, the only checks on journalists is the board of directors. Ethics gets lip service when profit matters and the Constition is just an expensive pile of printing without an independant judiciary that can operate without fear or favour.
i think saying ‘the alacrity with which investigative journalists produce disturbing ‘facts” is a dangerous and premature conclusion that ‘those in power’ are corrupt. the effect of that is not lessened by saying ‘and I am talking here about those that may be readily verified’. it is exactly this kind of reckless behaviour from those who claim to be the custodians of ‘freedom of specch’ which concerns me. it is easy to see from such examples why freedom of speech is endangered in this country. you people are dicrediting the media and making it easy for opportunists out there with issues to hide to clamp down on the media. you are feeding the stereotype that all the people in government – ‘those in power’ – are corrupt and that is irresponsible, reckless and untrue!
i do expect better from you.
this is also what i refer to in my initial response. freedom of speech or not, the south african media has embraced malice in its reporting to such an extent it runs the risk of being seen to be pandering if it was to be fair. which is not. clarification – being anit black, anti government and anti ANC is not independent or fair!
edwin matlapeng
Edwin Matlapeng – It seems as if you did not understand a word of what I have written. In a nutshell, I am reminding people (everyone) that when investigative journalists come up with verifiable facts about the kind of thing listed in my article, it presupposes that everyone who reads it, would want it to be acted upon, improved, changed, etc. So, when journalists in this country come up with similar facts about nefarious activities, suspect deals and the like, one must presuppose that everyone would agree to address those facts with a view to changing them. For instance, in light of the ANC slogan, ‘A better life for all’, one has to question the motivation behind the Mittal mining deal just announced, which ‘empowers’ a handful of individuals economically, with the promise of a ‘better’ life for them, but not for the number of previously disadvanteged people that it might have empowered via shareholding, for example. If it is true (as it should be) that ‘those in power’ really have the interests of the (especially black) public at heart, this would not happen. It is a ‘factual state of affairs’ that reflects very badly on the privileged, powerful, ‘connected’ few. And don’t tell me that you can defend it. Stop thinking in the exclusively racial terms that you use – I do not; what I have written goes for all people. Read my post again, carefully, as well as what Siobhan has said about the difference between (verifiable) facts and slander.
With respect, i thought that critical theory was fundamentally an emancipatory discourse.
More to the point, SAn norm/value complex still reflects historical group interests. There’s no getting away from this. I’m constantly tickled by perspectives like Siobhan’s, who argues illiteracy to explain ongoing ANC support. Forgeting that the genesis of liberation politics on this continent emanates from this same underclass he thinks would be unable to distinguish democracy from any other (governing) system. Is it so inconceivable that at least some of our media could be driven by group interests of this historical value/norm complex.
As an aside, I think the point about the codification of language as against ideology is a bit of a chicken & egg argument. How, afterall, does language come to connote these ‘meanings’ if not by aggregated interest. It maybe a false dichotomy.
@ Edwin: Where did you learn to read? You have not grasped what Bert has argued here.
@ Trevor: Bert’s argument amounts to saying that, even if the ANC or anyone else attempts to wield decisive force over the question of what the “facts” are, the resources exist to arbitrate in the matter, as long as investigative journalists are given the freedom to do so. What Bert should perhaps have added, although it is implied by his reference to the Critical Theory/positivism debate, is that a “fact” is not a self-evident given, but “an interpretation of an event which has a propositional structure that most people agree with” – in brief, an “agreed-upon interpretation” (as Bert has said somewhere) of a happening of some kind. Try and find a fact that does not have the structure of a statement/ proposition – it is impossible. (This is related to an intricate philosophical argument with which I shall not bore you at present.) It explains why people argue so much about “facts” – what they are really arguing about, is the way the proposition(s) relating to a certain event has to be phrased. Of course it happens all the time that people in powerful positions – here and in other countries – try to claim a monopoly over what the “facts” really are. That is the nature of power. It is up to civil society, including journalists, scientists and philosophers, to challenge and refute this attempt to “spin” facts the way of the ruling classes.
Jessica Williams’ list of 50 facts that should change the world is indeed aimed at more basic values than those spawned by local culture or political philosophies. I agree that there should be a sort of human ‘social contract’ that supercedes cultural practices and political philosophies.
The founders of the UN led by Eleanor Roosevelt did their best to create a Declaration of Human Rights that would establish a ‘baseline’ of shared human values that was not reliant on a common religion, culture or political philosophy. However, the very concept of the existence of such values still challenges many cultures and political dogmas (political philosophy being far less common).
Yes, we should agree as a species on certain basic principles for the conduct of human life. Incest is a case in point. Sister/brother incest and even mother/son incest was practiced in many ancient cultures to protect the royal/priestly caste. The incest ‘taboo’ is a relatively recent development in human culture. At some point, most cultures did adopt an incest taboo but it was not so basic as to be universal.
Likewise, murder–in the form of human sacrifice–was common around the world.
As humans developed the capacity for rational thought, these practices were seen to be at least counter-productive, if not inherently unacceptable.
Freedom of thought and expression are still revolutionary ideas perhaps because they are perceived to be intellectual rather than moral values.
It is easier to ban incest than to tolerate freedom of expression.
Bert,
I don’t only read news about corruption, crime, social dysfunction etc with a view to wanting it changed or trying to change it (with my vote or whatever). I read it to gather information and act on this information. So when I read about Mittal, I label it under chicanery and think that maybe the shares are worth a punt in the short term (government favourites in a monopolistic situation) and say, be very careful should I ever do business with Mittal (they don’t sound ethical). In the longer term the message is a very alarming one for the SA business environment so long term investments should be made outside of SA or in rand hedge stocks.
Same with crime etc. If my perception is that SA has a high crime rate, poor education system, pathetic healthcare etc, I vote and try to change things but also put strategic plans in place (private security & schooling, medical aid etc).
But I am lucky, I have some choices in what I perceive to be a declining situation. I feel desperately sorry for the poor who have very few. Only their vote. That is what scares the ANC.
Basically, if the public concience, in the form of journalism is found wanting, then it must follow that public morals and ethics are not what it should be. Basically the argument Ms Jansen amply made in her post on this matter Koos made in his very humorous take on matters.
@Edward – We seem to have convinced most of the blonder racists in this country to change their feelings for their darker brethren, which makes it a more harmonious country to live in. Now, I think it is time to convince our darker brethren to reconsider. Please, I and those like Prof Olivier, Shiobhan, HD, Maria, MLH, etc., who are trying to find answers to sticky problems are not the enemy, those who reject their fellow South Africans without fair trial are. This is not really your intention, is it?