Hardly newsworthy
Yesterday, 567 Cape Talk Radio presenter and veteran journalist John Maytham slammed the Cape Times for devoting half of its front page to the Visagie saga, suggesting in no uncertain terms that it was hardly newsworthy.
This morning, The Times devoted its entire front page to yet another huge photo of Malema and his puerile press conference. While relegating news of one of the world's greatest archaeological finds to some remote inside page.
Is this journalism? Or is it simply profiteering? Using the ravings of extremists to sell more newspapers, and increase TV and radio audience numbers?
What was it that made all those journalists at Malema's press conference too afraid to accept his challenge and walk out behind their BBC colleague? Can the fact that no-one moved be interpreted as a unanimous vote by those present that the story was far greater than making a stand for press freedom?
More importantly, do people like Malema and Visagie genuinely have something of interest and importance to contribute to society or are they just like those nonentities in the Big Brother House whom nobody has ever heard of but then become national celebrities because of the publicity they achieve simply by having childish arguments with their housemates or managing a bit of nookie under the bedclothes?
I believe it was someone in the UK who put it in a nutshell by describing the Big Brother UK "celebrity" Jane Goody as someone who became famous for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever.
In today's Times newspaper, Avusa's public editor, Thabo Leshilo, called for media restraint in terms of publishing anything that might fuel racial hatred. The trouble is, that with most mass media in this country still suffering from the recession and battling to generate more revenue, money tends to push morality onto the sidelines.
It is quite remarkable that even Malema has asked why the media is so obsessed with him. Which is really strange because Malema would be a complete nonentity, were it not for the media giving prominence to his every word, however stupid, insane or utterly illogical it may be.
Did all those journalists pitch up to Malema's press conference because they thought there might be some genuine news in the offing in spite of the fact that it was a foregone conclusion that he would blather on about how great Zimbabwe was and how his new mentor, Mugabe, had shown him the light? Or, were they there hoping that he would provide a display of singular stupidity by singing the "Shoot the Boer" song?
Either way, I believe there was not a single journalist there who believed for a minute that they were going to be able to report on news of genuine national or global interest. They were there for what they hoped would be something of a repeat of the AWB's studio fiasco.
And they got it.
There is no question about the fact that Malema manages to retain a position of enormous strength within the ANC simply because he is able to deliver, as he proved in the last elections, the biggest single block of voters - unemployed and disillusioned black youth.
But one just has to ask, just how powerful, influential and persuasive would he be if the media just stopped treating him as though he and not Zuma was the president of this country?
Should the media take some sort of responsibility for what is and isn't in the public interest? Or, is it ok for us to publish and be damned as long as it sells more newspapers and attracts more viewers and listeners?
I am not for a minute suggesting that the media boycott Malema. I am simply suggesting that it is time the media put what he says and does into perspective.
For more:
