The Forum of Black Journalists is welcome to choose whoever it likes to attend its meetings. Black, white or blue. It’s a free country.
But no journalists, of whatever hue, should be in the business of organising off-the-record briefings with political leaders.
Wasn’t anything learnt from the infamous 2003 Bulelani Ngcuka briefing that caused enormous damage to the image of journalists as politically independent players beyond manipulation? And that was an occasion not even initiated by the media.
And anyway, why would any journalist act to encourage secret information flows as a first-choice engagement with a source? Especially in regard to a public politician who may be the next South African president.
Shame also goes to Jacob Zuma for speaking to the FBJ on confidential terms of engagement; he could have as easily advised that he had nothing to hide, and that anyone present was free to report his remarks.
Just what was the point of the FBJ tying the hands of the journalists who attended? A bad bid to try to “sex-up” the character of the event?
The fiasco could hardly be a worse start to the revival of the organisation. It has nailed the FBJ colours to an appalling practice of collusion between the media and the powerful.
What makes the occasion even more bizarre was the FBJ presenting it in terms of a meeting open to any (black) journo, and therefore as something more than an FBJ-members-only affair. In other words, the quasi-public status for the meeting made being off the record even more ridiculous.
If the idea of the FBJ was to give real advantage to black journalists, then why not arrange a meeting with Zuma where he could at least be reported by the scribes at this restricted assembly?
I bet top dollar that there was nothing in what the ANC president said that would have been different, had the engagement been on record.
I’m not saying that every off-the-record interaction is against the public interest. But let’s face it, this particular secret briefing was never going to reveal any leaks about the arms deal.
So here you have a wholly unnecessary shroud of secrecy around an event, and overseen by members of the media, nogal.
Wake me up, someone, but doesn’t this signal to the public that you can’t trust South African journalists to open the curtains? That the FBJ at least isn’t interested in the disinfectant of sunshine illuminating the murky shadows of politician-media relations?
The absurdity of the occasion is matched only by the arrogance of white journalists who tried unsuccessfully to gatecrash it. Hearing these whities whinge afterwards made them sound like a beleaguered and victimised minority.
Count me out of that status.
On the other hand, the notion — in 2008 — of a South African journalists’ organisation that still wants to signal its racial character suggests that its proponents also see themselves as a defensive minority.
I would have thought that any journalists’ forum in this country would, by default, be predominantly black. This is not the US where minority ethnic and racial journalists have cause to feel marginalised from the media mainstream.
To be a black journalist in South Africa today is to command enormous advantage, not least your multilingualism and wide social access. You can easily tower over your melatonin-deficient colleagues with their more limited life experiences. Conversely, to be a white journalist means rather poor chances of becoming an editor.
What is it, then, with the FBJ that it has to try to bolster itself by cosying up — behind closed doors — with a prominent political leader like Zuma? Why squander its real strengths with a strategy highly unbecoming to journalists?
There are a host of important issues that the FBJ could be raising.
Taking up the cause of off-the-record briefings does it no credit. It only detracts from the mission of the profession as a whole.
53 Responses to “Zuma FBJ briefing: The row should be about secrecy, not race”
What I find ironic about access to power is the fact that people enjoy it when they are the ones accessing it and find it unpalatable when they don’t have that access. This event has set back journalistic integrity in the country. Can you imagine Helen Zille having an off-the-record briefing with white journalists? Am I the only black person who finds this whole affair distasteful? I hope not!!
This is the first piece of reasonable analysis of this little affair I’ve seen. I agree that there are larger problematic issues before we consider the racial exclusivity issues involved, i.e. journalists cozying up to power. In this regard, the racial exclusivity makes it worse: a group of black journalists cozying up to power doesn’t read well because it further promotes the popular idea that there is no black criticism of political power in South Africa and that, therefore, any criticism of such power is racially motivated and from a racist white media. (Not that the latter doesn’t contain more than a germ of truth, but it isn’t the whole truth.)
I also agree with you that the social and political context of present SA means that black journalists are in favourable positions, but I’m not sure that we are entirely free yet from the need to have cultural enclaves in the spirit of Biko’s motivations for separatism. But the FBJ, by recent evidence, doesn’t seem to have the political and cultural nous for this.
It could, for instance, change its name to the Forum FOR Black Journalists, rather than the Forum OF Black Journalists, signalling its political aim (if organising in the interests of black journalists is one its aims) to be at once also open, theoretically, to anyone who shares that political cause. Meeting with Zuma, though, and then on a racially exclusive ticket, does sound like a gentleman’s club of old, racially defined. But perhaps its name is a deliberate (and arrogant) signal of intent.
That said, cozying up to political power is not the best way to address whatever grievances black journalists may have, but this leads to the complicated business of (real) transformation in various cultural industries in SA. Transformation remains structurally patronising: even if forced by legislation, it still is mainly about previously white structures “allowing” black people in - this has consequences for both sides, with psychic dimensions that South Africans are still resistant to accept and address (I refer here to the big players, and not to black-started business, nor to small businesses white or black). If, however, black journalists cozy up to political power in SA, this can hardly be said to be a step away from previous regimes of culture where the Apartheid government was happy to have the media (with notable exceptions, of course) on its side. And this is what the FBJ meeting with Zuma signals: both want each other on their side. Any journalist tempted by this is a journalist infatuated with power and privilege.
FBJ has a freedom of association and they right should be respected,while you are complaining about this what about some dindrheads who trekked to Orania and everything is accepted as normal
Some people seem to have conveniently forgotten the pre94 public signs like “Whites Only” or “Blacks and Dogs Not Allowed”. Well, some of us haven’t. Does it hurt now the scales have been tipped?
While I do not advocate racism, the constitution guarantees us freedom of association. So if black brothers want to get together and share notes, so what? After all I can name ate least 5 clubs that will not allow black people and they do it in a very subtle but underhanded way. Joining is only by invitation and recommendation by at least 5 members in good standing in the club. That way abelungu (whites) can silently discriminate. We have “public” business institutions like hotels displaying the “Right of Admission Reserved” signs. Have we forgotten the origins? Who cares?
Recently I tried to get my kid into a pre-schools close to my office. I was told they were full. Of course I didn’t believe it and with a white friend of mine we decided to play a bit of Shelock Holmes. He called the schools pretending like he wanted a place for his kid, when he was invited to complete forms, he pitched with my daughter and me in tow. There followed a few embarrassing exchanges of which I shall not bore you with the details. Of course I decided not to enrol my kid with there as a matter of principle. So if it happens in supposedly public institutions, why cry fowl now that FBJ has decided to have a bit of privacy? What do white journalists fear from their black colleagues?
As for the off the record briefing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As black people, we know where we have been and it does us a lot of good when we can share notes without you whites hanging on our every discussion. If it is so wrong, when Zuma complained about it, why did you remain silent Mr Berger? You didn’t think it was wrong then, what now? Remember your English saying, “What’s sauce for the goose………”? Do not complain only when it suits the white agenda (which is not defined by the way). Talk of double standards.
Lets not personalize the issue here. Let our brothers associate freely because YOU whites are doing it anyway with even more ulterior motives for all we know. From what I understand FBJ is a private organisation for like minded people and who they invite or what they say in none of nobody’s business as long as there is no criminal intent. It wasn’t even racial discrimination in that Coloureds and Indians are welcome. That’s three distinct races out of four (including whites) in South Africa. That’s 75 % representation and that’s a pass for me. Enjoy your golf estates and your whine farms where we are only allowed as workers and not as members. Until we have the resources to build our own. This time you missed the point completely Mr Berger. It’s not a subject worth even discussing.
For the record, I am proudly black, but I am not a journalist.
“I’m not saying that every off-the-record interaction is against the public interest.”
Why aren’t you saying so?
To cover yourself, you offer a link to an arcane fine-print set of regulations from SANEF. That’s too weak, Guy.
Why is it that when it comes to this matter that is right at the heart of journalism and ethics, you are unable to deal with it in prose, in words of your own?
What is an off-the-record briefing, by the way?
It is different from an unattributable briefing, where the identity of the source is concealed.
In an off-the-record briefing the journalist agrees to conceal the story!
How can that ever be justified?
Your whole rant falls away because you are fudging the central question. Why can’t you just say that off-the-record briefings are wrong?
I agree that it is really strange that a group of journalists would wish to have a meeting with an important leader and not disclose the contents of the meeting; thank you for stressing that.
But is it really ok to have racial exclusivity at otherwise open meetings? Is it ok to ask people to leave venues simply because they have the incorrect skin pigmentation?
Perhaps it’s ok for journalists to do so, or is it only for black journalists? It would seem not to be ok for many other professions. Would you leap to the defence (”it’s a free country”) of the Aryan Bank Managers Forum when they asked a black professional to vacate the premises simply because s/he was black?
“The absurdity of the occasion is matched only by the arrogance of white journalists who tried unsuccessfully to gatecrash it. Hearing these whities whinge afterwards made them sound like a beleaguered and victimised minority.
Count me out of that status.” Really, Guy. Apartheid was about people of race being left out. If someone suggested that “Blacks” stopped whingeing about apartheid they would have been hung, drawn and quartered. Of course this issue is about race. Worse, it is about revenge. It is about nothing else, no matter how much you want to dress it up. Journalists excluded from this briefing on grounds of race had EVERY right to complain. How dare you judge them to be “melatonin-deficient” squealers! You have nailed your colours to the mast.
Why should journalists not organise off-the-record meetings with politicians? There is no earthly reason. The Bulelani Ngcuka issue is a political smokescreen; his behaviour was, in my judgement, appropriate and the smear attacks on him are highly questionable.
To be a black journalist in South Africa today is to command enormous advantage, is it? What flipping advantage? You get to do what you are told by your bosses. And you are supposed to be happy because some of those bosses are black.
You ask:
“What is it, then, with the FBJ that it has to try to bolster itself by cosying up — behind closed doors — with a prominent political leader like Zuma? Why squander its real strengths with a strategy highly unbecoming to journalists?”
The reason is that it is populated by mediocre and racists people who have neither the brass nor the class to stand up in public and make their stance public. They are an affront to black people and to journalists and merely provide ammunition to like minded bigots of the pinkskin variety.
I’d be interested in an official bit of feedback from the journalists involved in this forum.
They should tell all as the saying goes. Off-the-record meetings are nothing new and shouldn’t be banned etc - it’s the pally-pally approach of the journalist forum to the politicians which sadly strips all involved of any subjectivity.
No journalist should think it’s okay to cuddle up to politicans - you can’t write that they have failed in their duties and you’ll inadvertently cover up for them. I’d like to hear from the journalists involved.
Do they feel they have kept their objectivity and can, with a straight face, say they can write both sides of the story or do they think it’s okay to be mates with politicians?
Alex Smit-Stachowski on February 25th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
One wonders:
Did Zuma shower after the meeting?
Did he explain why an innocent person would want to prevent evidence (from Mauritius) being presented in court; surely it would support his innocence??
Does Zuma really think black journos are so inferior that they need special briefings (the equivalent of bridging courses at universities or “mentors” - shadow performers - in commerce or industry)???
Do the black journos who attended really regard themselves as no better than bearers of wood & bearers of water, unable to raise themselves above what Dr V intended for them???? [Snuki & Jon needn’t bother to reply]
Racist in ANCspeak = 1 who disagrees on February 25th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@ SammyD, Domza, MFB
Just say it - “Whites don’t belong in this black country.” At least the white supremacists have the guts to say it.
@ Native - thanks
@ Guy - Don’t you feel that you are trying to swim up the Victoria falls. Not about race, read the replies, everything in the politics of this country is about race. Our government is openly racist in its policies, and the pseudo leader of our country is either an racist, or an idiot and probably both. How does the guy have time for politics by the way, with so many wives, and kids, not to mention the court cases, lovers,…?
“The absurdity of the occasion is matched only by the arrogance of white journalists who tried unsuccessfully to gatecrash it. Hearing these whities whinge afterwards made them sound like a beleaguered and victimised minority.”
Really, Guy, I’d rather have obnoxious and even arrogant journalists gatecrashing stupid events like this and showing little respect for powerful people who seemingly are a law unto themselves, than a limp-wristed set of goody two shoes scribes.
Fact is those two white journalist who went to meeting knew beforehand that they were not invited and as such not welcome.Do I really have to gatecrash someone else party fully knowing I am not welcome.One can surmise the reason this one was to dramatise the whole thing and the continue whingeing endlessly about it on radio {702} and tv{e news}.As some have already indicated, it seems right for black editors to have such briefings but wrong for all other journalist to do so, that is sad.
i have reason to believe that both Ben Said and Grootes were motivated by this racist believe that a black person cannot do anything constructive on his own if a white man is not there no, wonder they saw it fit to gatecrash the meeting.How sad!
If a Forum for White Journalists was formed it would create a huge outcry - because then we would be told that we were racist - but you guys go ahead and form your organisations and its okay. I thought the reason Mandela fought for this Country was to form a democracy and ensure freedom for ALL. For goodness sake its’ been over twelve years and you people are still embittered and pathetic so you have to use reverse racism to prove a point. Why include the Indian and coloured people and leave out the white journalists!!!!!!!!!! I am really grateful that there was an Indian journalist who got up and walk out - at least he had integrity.
Guy Berger is spot on. Clearly there is nothing wrong with an off-the-record briefing. It was the public organisation of an off-the-record briefing that taints the organisers and Mr Zuma.
Politicians often talk to journalists in private. The question is why would journalists want to talk to Mr. Zuma in private? And why would they want to exclude colleagues on the basis of colour?
FBJ should have allowed those white journalists who showed up at the venue of this briefing to be part of the meeting as well. Even if it was their intention to disrupt it, FBJ should have simply allowed them in and let them listen to the black perspective of journalism. This was an off-the-record session, not an anti-white strategy/gossip meeting. The act of throwing somebody out of a meeting on the basis of race is wrong, and is uncessarily hostile.
Can someone please direct me to the White Journalists association, or the White Lawyers association? No? Why not? Because the don’t exist. They would be branded as racist organisations. The same applies to these black racist organisations. They discriminate on the basis of race and provide organised benefits on the basis or race to the exclusion of other races. Read my lips “BLACK RACIST ORGANISATIONS.”
I hope the Human Rights commission does the right thing to stop this.
Forgive me for intruding here. I am an African American with an ever deeping fascination with today’s South African society, economy and prospects.
My thoughts about the FBJ meeting:
Yes, it does seem, on the surface, wrong, exclusive, and of a ‘get back atcha’ nature. In the spirit that I would hope that everyone of goodwill wants to attain in SA, it seems counterproductive.
However, what if these journalists just want to give consturctive feedback to Zuma? If this were public the feedback would not work. It would be jumped on as a putdown. The barricades would go up.
Black journalists are faced with the tension between “professionalism” and the practical. It’s not easy. It might also boil down to whether you are a journalist or not.
I only hope my hypothesis of the necessity of constructive feedback is correct rather than some lower motivation.
As a student of journalism from before 1994 I can tell you that what has happened is really worrying. Secret meetings with select journalists? Attempts at muffling the press? Biased reporting from the mouth piece of the state - SABC. Doesn’t all this sound frighteningly familiar? Freedom of the press is one of the pillars of democracy, let’s not forget that.
I don’t care what people get up on their own time. If petty little prejudices are what turns you on - go for it (FBJ or Oranje).
What gets me as a TV license payer is that I hope Abbey Makoe had taken the day off from the SABC as I bet that organizing racist events is not allowed on the SABC’s time?
@Cinga: The only people who DID kick up a stink about Orania were liberal whites and certain black groups (probably people like yourself, judging by your comment), making it sound like some sort of AWB or Afrikaner separatist enclave.
Then they got bored and moved on, because no one actually cared.
Who do you think is more dangerous? A bunch of white people who actually don’t want anything more to do with this country and its failings, and either won’t or can’t afford to emigrate? Or a group of people being given special treatment by the likely future president of this country?
Sammy D et al appear to assume that because the “Whites Only” signs of 30 years ago were hurtful to so-called nonwhites, that repeating this exercise in reverse — “Blacks Only” — is understandable, justifiable and, actually, long overdue. Hooray! Nothing to be ashamed about.
To people like this JUSTICE and REVENGE are exactly the same thing.
Any wonder then that the glue which binds a nation together is now as brittle and crazed as old varnish?
“Forum spokesman Idi X said that while the organisation was sorry for any offence caused to Mahlangu, mistakes were bound to happen.
“Discriminating against people on the grounds of their skin colour is an inexact science,” he said, adding that the official scrapping of Apartheid-era racial classifications had “muddied the water somewhat for those of us who like to call a spade a spade, and a white reactionary lickspittle a white reactionary lickspittle.”
What interested me most was the inclusion of Coloured and Indians in the forum.. Our ‘African’ brethren are not always so accommodating. If named honestly, it should be called the ‘Non-white Journalists Forum’. The message is that a journalist of an acceptably dark skin colour (no doubt the criteria have been agreed upon), regardless of struggle credentials, will be given preference over a white journalist who fought against apartheid.
I just have a little… possibly ….big gripe if I was honest.
As a newcomer to the notion of a black journalist forum and with a lifelong desire to be a black journalist I was curios to know their definition of a black journalist. Cos when you think about it can’t be so simple. 40yrs of apartheid was plagued by classification criteria with some people still to this day not knowing what their shade of darkeners amounts to. Am I or am I not and the larger issue being would you wish for a or b not knowing what the future holds for either.
So I am assuming this black journo forum have taken some terrific learning’s from our great race dictating forefathers, so schooled in “race”. Lets face it the BJF is keen to classify they could not have better access, on their African doorstep, to legal structures from an apartheid past that are race definition poetry from the Verwoerd kamp. Why re invent the wheel, apartheid was global best practice in helping you find your racial zone? It has all been mastered in the apartheid era. It would be ironic the skills transferring and mentoring of the very skills the ANC sought to eradicate. But hay a journo must join a tight band of brothers.
So here we are post Mandela with a fresh wave of black journo deciding the terms of blackness. I’m curious…On a simple level is it height, build, skin color, a dance routine, an ability to sing and do you have a cool iPod type application that can measure darkness vs lightness and map a person into a roughly acceptable BJF set of criteria. Is it the curliness (you must bring back the pencil test) of your hair or does it relate to name, would Booitjie Niemand get in ir do you prefer Bruintjius Naaiman. Black, zulu 3 wives is right in there. What about born to black dad, white mom and I look quite pail. Do I need to apply to some journo tribunal for fairness alleviation. What about my adopted black child, privately schooled, sounds very English and dislikes being classified, cannot speak an African language apart form English and Afrikaans. Maybe there is a simple facts in blackness machine you have?
Are there helpful tips and suggestions like how to frizz your hair, get tanned and use your mothers maiden name tTeens and Tou rather than Jack or Rope.
Pity my skin is white, top to toe, my name is craig Irving. My mother was portugese so can I apply on a previously disadvantaged tack. I did refuse to carry arms in the 80’s so does that DEFYANCE count does it render me blacker, more African. These are the things I need to know.
I don’t mind a straight answer, “wit man hamba” .
Maby a ten point blackness plan could be published. You could sell parts of it to the black management forum to assist their agenda. And make some extra buks.
My agenda is simple, who are you and what is your intention?. A journalist the very conscience our society requires to remain free and fair is being hijacked by a broederbond, is it a braabond or a beebond or no brainbond. I am concerned.
My dear Craig…
You and your ilk had centuries to practice racism. So it hurts now? You had off-the-record briefings with Dr. V for years and we couldn’t even complain. I am not bitter. For your own information I am quite happy and I speak my mind, even if you don’t like the sound of it.
@Johan
Zuma did not give lessons in journalism. It was a briefing Dr V’s grandson. So where does the issue of extra lessons come in? You are so low
@amused reader…
Whites who truly belong to this country do not see negatives about SA all the time. You certainlt don’t belong so you and your ilk can eff off.
@Sammy D - Sorry to hear the story about the pre school. I have an afrikaans pre school across the road. They DO have some non white kids so all is not lost.
Zuma and the attendees have insulted the white journos & press owners who took on apartheid. Woods, Sparks, Pogrund, Louw spring to mind [apologies to 1000s omitted].
Can one imagine Biko cringing behind racist barriers like these?
Apartheid lives. Viva apartheid, viva.
[…] Zuma FBJ briefing: The row should be about secrecy, not race Read this comment by Guy Berger on the incident thus far. There is nothing wrong with a Forum for Black Journalists being re-established, nor is their anything wrong with that group choosing to exclude white people from its meetings. What is wrong is that the discussions taking place in that meeting with Zuma were done so off the record and in secret. Hardly a practice the profession of Journalism should be proud of. fate shuffles the cards and we play - a.s. […]
Sad really that black journalists feel they can only
speak freely when the ‘baas’ in not in the room. An damning indictment on our country 14 years down the line. Clearly, there is much to be done.
Ok, i’ll put a blindfold on a walk around in the dark, that way i wont see anything negative. (it’ll still be there by the way) and when you finally take your head out of the sand, you, and your white friend you seem to keep mentioning on at least every other post (does he know he is your internet patsy?), it will be too late to save SA.
Personally i’d rather fight to save it before it gets screwed up, but each to their own. I am obviously not as bitter and twisted as you.
The wrong message was sent out to white people living in this country. Sure black is a majority but there are whites living here. The ANC slogan in 1994 was a better life for ALL. Only 14 short years down the track this seems not to be the case anymore. I believed the ANC when the took over and their lies to not discriminate against anyone.
Sammy D: How dare you presume to judge me by my skin colour. Your attitude is exactly what flares up racial tension in SA. What exactly do you think are the traits of my ‘ilk’?
When you use language like ‘YOU whites’ you come across as bitter and you know it.
You seem very happy that white people are experiencing the very type of thing that drove you to fight for freedom - that smacks of deep-seated resentment and a ‘revenge is sweet’ attitude.
This helps nobody and is not what an integrated society is about.
Sammy D, if whites “who truly belong to this country do not see negatives about SA all the time”, what is your reaction to blacks, Indians, coloureds who identify and speak out on perceived “negatives” in SA?
You should report the school who discriminated against you. Finish and klaar.
The point is, just as that school is wrong, the black journalist meeting is not in the spirit of reconciliation, and it does not send out a good messages. Clubs based exclusively on skin colour is suspicious, and everybody believing in reconciliation and racial harmony should deplore it, even if the constitution allows it.
This is not in any way something that ANY journalist should be part of. Excluding white journos and telling them to leave the premises is nothing but racist. Forget what happened to us black people during Apartheid - that we were discriminated against for ages does not suffice as an excuse for this type of behaviour. And these black journos - are they the same ones who will be reporting to us about the injustices of this country. As far as I know racial discrimination constitutes as injustice too. Smacks of the same hypocrisy of our dear government.
And Guy, I agree, being a black journo ought to command much advantage. Sureley if these journalists have issues in the profession there must be better ways of addressing them than cosying up to Jacob Zuma. Form a Trade Union; bet Zwelinzima would have made a better speech anyway
@Sammy D: Clearly the ppl in this forum needed some kind of assistance, the powers that be clearly considered them incapable of competing with the mainstream. Black South Africa proving Verwoerd right? in their own back yard? Showing the world they need extra assistance? They travelled the whole world to prove him wrong. Its called full circle.
@Sammy D: if we eff off, whos gonna fill the trained jobs? You saw what happened in Zim/Moz/Angola/Zaire/Kenya(etc etc) when we did. So how long would it take you 2 then come beggin to our new countries like all the above mentioned. Zim was 20…
I’d thought I’d post this here, since another Thoughtleader blogger is censoring comments. Ndumiso Ngcobo.
why do people use the term ‘coconuts’?
You only have to look at the agenda of the Forum of Black Journalists (FBJ) to understand why they use those terms - they want to exploit the ignorance of poor African people.
The Forum of Black Journalists (FBJ):
To hide the fact that there is a lack of service delivery.
That is why they use the term ‘coconuts’ to censor the views of those that want to expose black leadership’s failure to deliver services in SA and Zimbabwe.
If it were not for the white man, you and I would probably be running around naked, looking after our fathers’ cattle and definitely speaking Zulu ( read mfecane). The white man taught us to read and write and propelled us into the 21st century, hence your office job. Judging by your comments I seriously doubt that you have white friends; -colleagues perhaps. A black racist is as reprehensible as any other. By the way, you know you’re a racist when you think in terms of “us” and “them”.
@Sammy D: we are already “effing off”. In numbers so high that the department of home affairs put a moratorium on collection of statistics on people who emigrated. It’s why SA is in such dire straits. Haven’t you heard about the massive increase in appointments being made with immigration agencies?
But Guy does have a point: And as a white person, let me apologise unreservedly. From all of us. We’re terribly sorry we dragged you kicking and screaming into the industrial age. You’ve got your country back now, and you and “your ilk” are doing a fine job of putting it back the way it was before the Dutch East India company arrived here. Who needs electricity, potable water and efficient medical care anyway? Your government doesn’t seem to think you do. They’ll be happy to knock you all the way back to mud huts and cattle-herding. It keeps you dumb, and it keeps you voting for them.
One last thing before you go: just be sure you hand back crop rotation, writing, and increased life expectancy, OK?
[…] that the FBJ had organised an “off-the-record” briefing. In a well-argued piece, Guy Berger expresses his concern about this too. I believe if journalists were obligated to pass on all […]
Marcus writes: “But Guy does have a point”, and then goes on to say: “Oh, and we’d like the wheel back too please.”
If you take his crazy mentality to its logical conclusion, then let us add in other non-African creations - like concentration camps, cluster bombs, etc. Yes, please, take them back.
Marcus seems too blinkered to perceive that there is lotsa bad stuff that comes out of non-African places.
But worse, can a person in 2008 really claim some kind of group credit for the invention of the wheel, as he does?
Track back your own lineage boet! Even then, so what if it was your great-x-factor-of-500-granma who got the notion? It’s absolutely meaningless.
We’re talking common human heritage, not some bullshit racial property. Marcus, skud yourself man!
Otherwise, you may want to hand over the language you write in. I don’t quite think it originates in the middle east, whence perhaps knowledge of the wheel was first recorded, and which heritage you now wish to appropriate for “us”. Yugh.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Guy Berger is a media academic/activist. He writes a fortnightly column at www.mg.co.za/converse and is active in the South African National Editors' Forum. He also blogs about teaching journalism and new media. Find his research online and micro-blogging from conferences at http://www.twitter.com/guyberger
Thirty years ago this month, six security police arrested a journalism lecturer at Rhodes University. They held him incommunicado and interrogated him...
Strangely, at a time when South Africans are beginning to benefit from better and cheaper broadband connectivity, our communications regulator is toyi...
Loading ...
What I find ironic about access to power is the fact that people enjoy it when they are the ones accessing it and find it unpalatable when they don’t have that access. This event has set back journalistic integrity in the country. Can you imagine Helen Zille having an off-the-record briefing with white journalists? Am I the only black person who finds this whole affair distasteful? I hope not!!
(Report abuse)