Comments on: Save us from the Save David Bullard brigade

By: Melanie

Melanie — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:45:12 +0000

Alas, jealousy makes people nasty. Take that any which way you will.

By: Allan Troskie

Allan Troskie — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:07:24 +0000

Did the Makhanya only find out what was in Bullard’s article after it became a public issue? Or was he fired for writing something that was approved by the editorial team? Seems as though Makhanya bowed to some pressure… A column designed to spark controversy and that is funny is a good thing, but where is humor a prerequisite for political/social criticism??? So jump up onto your high horses and scream racist, Bullard knows he’s right and so do those of us with functioning grey matter and a lack of the amazing faculty to bend over forwards, backwards and sideways to please the ANC. Or, for that matter, any other blacks in power who don’t deserve it and thus make doubly sure that no-one gainsays them… I pity you hand-puppets. History is written by the victors mayhaps, but that only changes the history textbooks not the actual facts…

By: Martha Evans

Martha Evans — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:19:09 +0000

I don’t know what the editorial policy for the Sunday Times is but I suspect that different rules apply for columnists. Columns are not the same as a news articles which can held up against the objectivity yardstick and scoured for legal gremlins. It’s an opinion piece. Few sub-editors are going to stand up and say, “Er, David, I don’t like your opinion in this one, perhaps you could write another … and can you do it in the three hours we have left before we go to print?” As a columnist, he’s expected to police himself. In his apology, he talks about reading the distressed replies to the column, not just raised hackles, but genuine voices of hurt There were surely such responses to earlier columns and these should have been taken as warning signs that his portrayals were becoming deeply offensive. He occupies this privileged position because the editor trusts that he’ll do this. By apologising Bullard practically confesses to abusing that trust.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:33:01 +0000

Bullard definately overstepped the mark, his piece came across shabby and badly researched. One can take into account that bullard is a tongue in cheek columnist and that his satiristic writing has been accepted and of course the freedom of expression argument can be taken into account, the more important question however should be, why did the subs and editor not pick up the problem before going to print? This is after all procedure. Is it viable to say there is more than one person to blame for the publication of the piece? Should it have been allowed to go to print in the first place?

By: Errol

Errol — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:02:04 +0000

Concerning point 6, “Playing the sense of humour card is no different to playing the race card.” Does that mean that we’ll see more local comedians taken to the SAHRC just because someone can’t handle fantasy?

By: katse

katse — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:55:55 +0000

Dithabana,

It’s amen now, the chap has apologised, no more fuss about the in defence of Bullardism hype.

Thanks Robert for being sober minded.

By: Dithabana

Dithabana — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:07:54 +0000

Some people here are not encouraging the right use of their own minds really.

I am black and I loved David’s column a lot but I slowly started to hate his it shortly after he was shot. Why he increasinly continued impartiality and blatantly submitted racist articles so he was putting the Paper on the spot and someone had to deal with that.

By: Sindy

Sindy — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:45:02 +0000

The chickens had come home to roost with the Sunday Times.’Hitler’ views showcased a National Newspaper!! Laughable? No insulting all other nations including whites.No human being could support trash.Sunday Times woke up late!! They fought JZ (they still owe him by the way) back to back with his staffer little did they know that he was seeing them as baby-makers like Zuma…..What an insults!! Now we know that we still have such people in Newspaper!! They are the ones (claimed majority) fighting for Media independence against black Journos and want the Scorpions intact!! Hey Sunday Times will realise late as to why they want Scorpions like they did now with the recent statements.There are Blacks and Whites who love this country!!!They will die for it side by side! To hell with lunatics.Alunta!!!

By: Bheka Mkhize

Bheka Mkhize — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:08:05 +0000

@nijowa
What a coincidence. My cousin was also shot in his home last year. Very suprised that none of your correspondents brought up the fact that my cousin was shot in his home last year – do you all just forget about this type of thing!!
WHO SHOT MY COUSIN WITH A GUN?
Did the bullets hit him? Yes
Could he have been killed? Yes
Why did they shoot him? No-one knows
Who is investigating his shooting? No-one knows
Who shot him????????

Maybe you can tell us more nijowa!

By: Amandzing

Amandzing — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:47:54 +0000

Makhanya claims a ‘special relaltionship’ with columnists. Nonsense, it only means he abdicated responsibility in his duties as editor in chief. Did none of the sub-editors, wip, proof readers, news editors, copy editors, pick up on the supposed problem? At the end of the day, Makhanya is supposed to sign off on copy before it goes to production. Is he actually capable of doing the job, or is he just window dressing? Bullards article did not appear on the page by magic.