The South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) is seeking the public's support for media freedom against the EFF's and its leader Julius Malema's threats against journalists. But the irony is in their own way its members are working against media freedom.
In related news, the EFF has banned the Sunday Times from its events and briefings.
In a statement issued on November 27 SANEF's executive director Kate Skinner said: "While we acknowledge Malema's right to criticise the media, we remain gravely concerned about the threats and intimidation of individual journalists."
Malema's and EFF's threats are unacceptable and must desist through legal means if necessary if they refuse to do so.
But there's much hypocrisy among the media about the 'right to criticise' them and free speech. In many cases the media and editors tolerate no criticism of their publications and actively hinder freedom of speech, one of the fundamental tenets of the constitutions and Press Council's code of conduct, by removing comments and not necessarily for uncivil comments.
Sanef's council members include News24's Adriaan Basson, Daily Maverick's Janet Heard and Primedia's Mahlatse Mahlase, organisations that have either banned comments outright or individual commentators, not for anything uncivil but on the principle of it.
Other organisations that do this are The Conversation Africa, which recently banned me, Independent Media, Groundup, Biznews and this week I see Business Day doesn't have comments. Politicsweb too also removes civil comments at times.
Politicsweb editor James Myburgh recently wrote, "A large part of the press has been captured, the [Sunday Times] is in a state of disgrace and far too much thinking remains conditioned by decades of ANC hegemony."
As I recently wrote in my blog, the media pursue sectarian agendas but claim they’re 'independent', the self-appointed arbiters of truth and morality and only ones worth listening to who know what the truth is. They quote the Press Council’s code of conduct but violate it when it suits them. They’re in no position to self-righteously preach what is and isn’t acceptable conduct.
Daily Maverick lied about returning comments on their revamp in April whether or not it's their prerogative to do so. And these are organisations, individuals and industry we're expected to defend and support, of course when it's convenient for them and to help fight their battles. I wonder how long DM will ride on the Guptaleaks; already I've found its overall credibility waning, a large part due to their lies about the comments.
The Sunday Times, Business Day and others are now almost entirely opinion and so-called analysis, and mostly not very good ones at that but biased, tendentious and leftist agenda-driven. ST's front page lead story this week is alleged illegal mining under FNB Stadium. God help us!
We stopped buying print and I don't subscribe to online because they're so bad. I now read one local online publication daily and perhaps two others once or twice a week. Even news articles are often given an opinion spin - not reporting the news, but making it. It appears journalists now want to write stories parked behind their computers without checking and finding sources - the story must come to them fully formed that's why pages are filled with opinion. Don't try and give them tips; practically they want the tipster to write the story for them.
Local media and journalism is poor and in bad way but we're expected to help defend them. What a joke. I think Julius touched nerve. He and the EFF are news fodder and a god-send and if he bans them whatever will they do and how will they fill their pages. Their threats are uncalled and on principle but on the other hand, the media knows how the EFF plays it.
Skinner: "SANEF calls on all supporters of media freedom to join us in speaking out against the continued bullying and intimidation of journalists."
Media freedom? Now they want the public's support? What a laugh. Didn't I say they're hypocrites? As far as I'm concerned, you're on your own.
In related news, the EFF has banned the Sunday Times from its events and briefings.
In a statement issued on November 27 SANEF's executive director Kate Skinner said: "While we acknowledge Malema's right to criticise the media, we remain gravely concerned about the threats and intimidation of individual journalists."
Malema's and EFF's threats are unacceptable and must desist through legal means if necessary if they refuse to do so.
But there's much hypocrisy among the media about the 'right to criticise' them and free speech. In many cases the media and editors tolerate no criticism of their publications and actively hinder freedom of speech, one of the fundamental tenets of the constitutions and Press Council's code of conduct, by removing comments and not necessarily for uncivil comments.
Sanef's council members include News24's Adriaan Basson, Daily Maverick's Janet Heard and Primedia's Mahlatse Mahlase, organisations that have either banned comments outright or individual commentators, not for anything uncivil but on the principle of it.
Other organisations that do this are The Conversation Africa, which recently banned me, Independent Media, Groundup, Biznews and this week I see Business Day doesn't have comments. Politicsweb too also removes civil comments at times.
Politicsweb editor James Myburgh recently wrote, "A large part of the press has been captured, the [Sunday Times] is in a state of disgrace and far too much thinking remains conditioned by decades of ANC hegemony."
As I recently wrote in my blog, the media pursue sectarian agendas but claim they’re 'independent', the self-appointed arbiters of truth and morality and only ones worth listening to who know what the truth is. They quote the Press Council’s code of conduct but violate it when it suits them. They’re in no position to self-righteously preach what is and isn’t acceptable conduct.
Daily Maverick lied about returning comments on their revamp in April whether or not it's their prerogative to do so. And these are organisations, individuals and industry we're expected to defend and support, of course when it's convenient for them and to help fight their battles. I wonder how long DM will ride on the Guptaleaks; already I've found its overall credibility waning, a large part due to their lies about the comments.
The Sunday Times, Business Day and others are now almost entirely opinion and so-called analysis, and mostly not very good ones at that but biased, tendentious and leftist agenda-driven. ST's front page lead story this week is alleged illegal mining under FNB Stadium. God help us!
We stopped buying print and I don't subscribe to online because they're so bad. I now read one local online publication daily and perhaps two others once or twice a week. Even news articles are often given an opinion spin - not reporting the news, but making it. It appears journalists now want to write stories parked behind their computers without checking and finding sources - the story must come to them fully formed that's why pages are filled with opinion. Don't try and give them tips; practically they want the tipster to write the story for them.
Local media and journalism is poor and in bad way but we're expected to help defend them. What a joke. I think Julius touched nerve. He and the EFF are news fodder and a god-send and if he bans them whatever will they do and how will they fill their pages. Their threats are uncalled and on principle but on the other hand, the media knows how the EFF plays it.
Skinner: "SANEF calls on all supporters of media freedom to join us in speaking out against the continued bullying and intimidation of journalists."
Media freedom? Now they want the public's support? What a laugh. Didn't I say they're hypocrites? As far as I'm concerned, you're on your own.
Comments
Post a Comment