This week President Barack Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan will have to be confirmed by the US Senate before she would be able to take up her post as the third women on the bench of nine justices. I have been following the debate and discussion in the US in the wake of President Obama’s nomination and it has left me rather depressed about the quality of reporting in South Africa about legal issues and about our courts.
The New York Times this week have had at least two stories each day exploring Kagan’s biography, the response of left-wing Democrats to the nomination, Kagan’s own view about the confirmation process, analysis by legal academics about her judicial philosophy, and even a summary of her statements on important issue with links to the relevant documents.
Last year President Jacob Zuma appointed four new members to our own Constitutional Court after a long process which started with the nomination of more than 20 candidates who were later interviewed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). The level of reporting and debate about the various nominees and those eventually chosen was, to say the least, dismal.
One may argue that the media has limited resources and that it could not report extensively on all the nominees. But surely one would have thought that it would at least have tried to find out a bit more about the four candidates eventually chosen to serve on our highest court. These judges have joined the third branch of government – the judiciary – and will wield immense power, yet we know hardly anything about them.
While we know something about President Jacob Zuma and his cabinet and about the leaders in parliament because the media at least sometimes report on their activities and beliefs, we know virtually nothing about the judicial philosophies (if any) of the four newly appointed judges to the Constitutional Court. If one only reads the newspapers and listen to the radio or watches television one might not know whether the appointees are proto-facists or whether they may be fantastically progressive people with a deep concern for the marginalised and vulnerable.
The media focused rather obsessively on the question of whether Judge President John Hlophe would be appointed to the Constitutional Court. There was one good article by my colleagues at the Democratic Governance Rights Units about the interviewing process, but apart from that, one waited in vain for intelligent and informed analysis of what was going on, who was appointed and what it meant for the direction the court might take in the years to come. Sadly, the media failed dismally to inform the public about four people who may very well play a decisive role in declaring invalid laws enacted by a democratically elected Parliament and the actions of our President and his cabinet.
This failure by the media to report intelligently and in an informed manner about the members of the highest court (and also about the decision of the Constitutional Court) is depressing to say the least. We all bemoan the low level of debate and political discourse in our country and point fingers at Julius Malema. Yet, the very media who is supposed to act as a main player in our democracy and has a duty to keep us informed to allow us to make sane and wise decisions, fail us dismally.
In stead of going beyond the headlines to analyse what is happening, we get reports focusing on conflicts and the superficial aspects of the personalities involved. How can we live as responsible and active citizens if we really have no clue what is going on in our country? I probably know more about Najwa Petersen’s murder trial and the kind of clothes she wore to court than I know about any of the four new appointees to the Constitutional Court – and I don’t even read The Voice and Die Son.
Some of this has to do with the rather low standard of journalism in our country. Some also has to do with the fact that the media has not adapted to the fact that we now live in a constitutional democracy in which the Constitutional Court has become a major player whose actions may well have serious political ramifications. While the media still focuses on what happens in parliament or in the Presidency – as if we still live in a system with Parliamentary sovereignty – a major part of what happens in our country and what affects the politics of our country goes unreported.
No wonder the Julius Malema’s of our world thrive.
Great piece my friend,i think it all has to do with “WHO RUNS OUR MEDIA”. Its a topic no one wants to discuss and yet when you look at the trends of reporting,one cannot help but come to undesirable conclusions about the state of our media.
I wonder how many Journos will read this article,if i could i would forward it to all the Media Houses and get their take on this.
They report garbage most of the time,stuff that’s not going to change the price of bread or have an impact in our society.
Prof,
For once you have got no disagreement from me! I totally agree.
The Chief Justice recently approved me as an Amicus, in the matter of The Citizen vs. McBride; and a significant aspect of my media related argument is the media’s ‘If it Bleads, it leads’ violence; while ignoring non-violent Gandhian and/or legal activism efforts for societal change.
But don’t expect the media to inform you of the Chief Justice’s decision…
Prof, it is not just the media, there is a distinct lack of interest in the judiciary from most South Africans.
Speaking to several American friends they can name the US Supreme court judges, their judgements they disagree with (Roe v Wade), the nostalgia of Judge John Paul Stevens’ retirement et cetera et cetera whereas most of my South African friends hardly knows how Judge Edwin Cameron or the CJ are.
Shocking!
—————–Original Message—————–
From: Barack Obama
Subject: Elena Kagan
Friend –
Today, it is my great honor to nominate our Solicitor General, and my friend, Elena Kagan, to be the next justice of the United States Supreme Court.
As I send my nomination to the Senate, I wanted to record a special message for you that I hope will help us launch a national discussion.
Take a minute to watch this video, and then help me to introduce Elena to your friends and family by passing it on.
Watch the video.
Elena is widely regarded as one of the best legal minds of her generation — earning praise from across the ideological spectrum throughout her career. Above all, she is a trailblazer. She wasn’t just the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School — she was one of its most beloved and successful leaders, building a reputation for openness to other viewpoints and skill in working with others to build consensus. These were some of the many reasons why I selected her to be my Solicitor General, the nation’s chief advocate — the first woman to hold that post as well.
Her work as Solicitor General has allowed me to see firsthand just why Elena is particularly well-suited to the Court: She has not only a keen understanding of the law, but also one that is rooted in a deep awareness of its impact on people’s lives. Last year, she made that clear — choosing the Citizens United case as her first to argue before the Supreme Court, defending bipartisan campaign finance reform against special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.
Now, I look forward to the prospect of Elena taking her seat alongside Justice Ginsberg and Justice Sotomayor. For the first time, our nation’s highest court would include three women, ensuring a Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.
When Justice Stevens wrote me to announce his retirement, I knew that the Court would be losing a standard bearer. And I felt a responsibility to nominate an individual capable of being that same guiding force, a consistent voice of reason on the Court.
I am certain I have made the right choice. As you learn more about Elena, I am confident you’ll see what I do — that she is a voice we need on the Supreme Court.
Please watch the message — and share it with others:
http://my.barackobama.com/ElenaKagan
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
It is also interesting that experience and political alignment of the judges are not exploited the way our media normally does. As if having links with SACP, IFP or particular ideology is a sin while being ex-member of Broederbond, CP,apartheid judge is a non- matter.
Good posting Prof.
@ Maggs
Judging by our past, if Zuma were to call a potential judge a friend, that would be enough to disqualify that person.
yup, the place only works if the institutions work, and that’s where we’re weak. And the (broadly defined) press is one of those institutions. That’s why the US will always survive a disaster (like Bush), and we nearly fold after a semi-disaster like Mbeki.
It’s at the heart of democracy, in my view: independent, reliable institutions. Politicians get to make the priority choices, but don’t stick their hands in the delivery. That’s why it matters who runs the NPA, Eskom, the water utilities and all that jazz, whereas it is pretty much irrelevant who sits in Parliament. And that’s why our outlook is bleak – we’ve confused politicians with managers. Grr.
It’s fun to, after a discussion like the one above on their supreme court judges and the like, with americans, to end by asking them to name one or two senators from both parties. They always fail – it simply doesn’t matter there either.
Gwebecimele says:
May 14, 2010 at 13:54 pm
“Judging by our past, if Zuma were to call a potential judge a friend, that would be enough to disqualify that person.”
The sky would definitely fall on our heads.
pekkil monta says:
May 14, 2010 at 13:57 pm
“It’s fun to, after a discussion like the one above on their supreme court judges and the like, with americans, to end by asking them to name one or two senators from both parties. They always fail – it simply doesn’t matter there either.”
That was an interesting post. I tried, after reading it, to see how many ANC MPs I could name excluding Ministers and Deputies, Speaker and Chief Whip – without having my memory jolted, I blushingly and reluctantly admit – ZERO!
what goes into the papers depends on “juiciness” of the content, you probably have seen that the story without julius and or alleged corruption does not sell.even on this blog, there no interest from the blog users if the story is not “juicy”.nobody cares about judiciary unless julius is involved. people want to express their fears and hate and anger, that is the reason why any constructive topic by prof receive very little interest on this blog
Media at it again.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-14-no-one-wants-to-air-2010-documentary
@ Kenneth
Solve this puzzle for me. Why the post on Juju(What about the alleged corruption) is only sitting at 30 postings, if we are to follow your logic?
You said.
“story without julius and or alleged corruption does not sell.even on this blog’
George said: “Prof, it is not just the media, there is a distinct lack of interest in the judiciary from most South Africans.”
And this, unfortunately, is a big (if not the only) reason for the kind of thing Prof de Vos wants to read not making it into papers.
(And which causes journalists to dream about going it on their own and publishing the things they believe really matter).
But it is not the journalist who decides what makes it into the paper – that is the job of the editors.
You can motivate, but the editors must also consider who their readers are and what they want to read. There is a little bit of leeway on the op-ed pages for deeper analysis, but not much.
You can’t force people to care.
I would suggest this clear example you have written on actually reflects most of the avenues in our society and their differences with the west. Its not surprising though, considering that SA is in my view largely anti-west, more pro wild west. The direction here is towards despots, oppressive, anti Democratic, and virtually all of them miserable regimes. It amazes me that SA doesn’t want to tie in its future primarily to the successful western countries, why follow and link with the losers? The benefits would be enormous if clear and selfless thinking was available, but it doesn’t seem to be, nor is there any hint of such a possibility.
SIRJAY JOHNSON, you must be on tik or something, the media in south africa is pro-west, you probably dreaming or dump or you do not read at all. as for Gwebecimele, you should look again on the topics of the blog, the nonjuju once are not well responded to,
Maya says:
May 14, 2010 at 14:58 pm
“But it is not the journalist who decides what makes it into the paper – that is the job of the editors.”
It was the journalists who sat by while one of the Comrades got abused by young Juju.
It’s unlikely that the editors forced journalists to sit around there like goofys and wait for the story to unfold.
All of them could have got up and walked out in disgust (I make a big assumption that they were disgusted not livened up to a potential scoop).
After viewing that “journalistic solidarity”, I reckon that most hacks are ready to sell their souls (so in my view, to the juicy bits that the YL tried unsuccessfully to to get published is not without merit).
That South Africans are disinterested in who potential (even sitting) judges are or their accomplishments is disingenuous at best.
Maggs I agree with you on the not walking out thing.
However what does that have to do with the fact that a journalist, no matter how passionate he or she is about matters judicial, can not force an editor to publish?
@ Maya,
There are various forums that information could be published in, including this one.
Post something here for example and, by Gwebe’s count, it would be exposed to at least 30 viewings (plus those who write nasty emails to Pierre
.
Great article
“This week, when the President first told me he’d chosen Elena Kagan to serve on the Supreme Court, I couldn’t help but smile. I had a chance to interview many great candidates, but Elena stood out. I met her nearly 20 years ago, when she took a break from teaching to join my staff in the Senate. She helped us confirm Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and even then, it wasn’t hard to picture a day when we’d be helping Elena prepare for confirmation hearings of her own.
Since that time, I’ve followed her career, and today, I believe Elena Kagan is an inspired choice for the Supreme Court.
Throughout her career, she’s been a trailblazer, breaking glass ceilings in both academia and government. She’s been a consensus-builder, earning praise for her work with Republicans in trhe Clinton White House and her support for the free exchange of ideas as the dean of Harvard Law. She’s flat-out brilliant, easily one of the best legal minds I’ve ever met. But most importantly, she’s also someone who understands that the application of the law holds real consequences for Americans in all walks of life.
Now her nomination goes to the Senate. I’ve been through this process more than once, and I’ve learned that the success of any nomination is strongly influenced by the public response in the first few days.
Will you stand with the President and me to support Elena Kagan? Sign on to help us show that the American people back her nomination.
As a young attorney, Elena clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. She often calls him her hero. Now, she’s following in his footsteps as the Solicitor General of the United States, the chief legal advocate for our government. If Justice Marshall were with us today, I’m sure he’d be proud of the clerk he used to call “Shorty.”
To see why, look no further than her role in the Citizens United case. It was a legal battle that most experts agreed would be impossible for the government to win. But as Solicitor General, Elena chose this as her first case. She recognized that rolling back bipartisan election law would allow special interests to dominate campaigns across the country and drown out the voice of the American people. Though she knew she’d probably lose, she chose to make it her fight all the same. That’s character.
That kind of decision defines Elena’s career. With her resume, she’s had no shortage of lucrative opportunities. But her parents were both public servants — her mother a school teacher and her father a housing lawyer who fought for tenants’ rights — and she has always followed their example. Like her dad, she’s used her legal knowledge to serve others, and like her mom, she’s been an educator, working to pass her knowledge on to another generation. Now, it’s time to bring that heartfelt, principled commitment to the Supreme Court.
In these crucial early days, help us show that public support for this extraordinary nominee is overwhelming:
http://my.barackobama.com/supportkagan
Thank you,
Vice President Joe Biden”
Maggs, this Blog gets about 1500 hits a day, so a few more than 30! Even Menzi Simelane seems to read it and even post comments…
A story from NYT for those he get nervous when the JSC talks about judicial transformation: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/politics/14diversity.html?hpw
Pierre De Vos says:
May 14, 2010 at 16:52 pm
LOL does he use his own name? I will respect it if you prefer not to say.
Kenneth: all I am suggesting is that if you want to improve your edge, for example, improve your snooker, then play with a better snooker player. If you want to improve your society then interact with a better society (requires humility), rather than play with the worst on offer. Those who do play with the worst are generally birds of a feather, lacking self worth, and not interested in anything other than sycophantic advancement. Gangsters, rather than Democrats come to mind. I trust this clears it up.
Pierre De Vos says:
May 14, 2010 at 16:52 pm
Never mind, I found his posts.
Well, if his holiness at the NPA reads your blog Prof, as I imagine many ANC elite do, especially since you give them occasionally, surprising legal advice, may I say this to the man:
Sir: considering that you will leave a legacy for your tenure at the NPA, what would you have that legacy be? Will it be one, when in your old age, you will feel satisfied, proud of your accomplishments? Satisfied that your actions have advanced this glorious country and the rights of all who live within its borders.
There is no greater service then that which provides human rights under the law, just and legal fairness to all citizens, equal under the law, free from the tyrannical impulses of those who seek to control and extend power.
When you meet your maker, as we all will and do…. will you do so fearless and certain of your actions? Now is only temporary, history and eternity is forever.
Don’t be too hard on yourself, Maggs. You set yourself up for a fall by starting with the names of ANC MP’s who do not have a criminal record.
Pierre De Vos says:
May 14, 2010 at 16:52 pm
“1500 hits a day”.
Impressive!
Maggs: Did you doubt? Best blog in SA, followed only by DB, as uncomfortable as that may be.
Congrats Prof. You are without question a major and most significant voice within the SA landscape, a much needed voice of reason. Without you, our legitimate concerns just waffle in the wind.
As Fass would say: thank you!
Well said. It’s a crying bloody shame, the collapse of intelligent media in this country.
You are certainly correct. But the matter is not limited to the coverage of the judiciary but extends to every level of society. I personally have ceased relying on media reports and read original source documents, and obtain interpretations from all contending forces, in blogs, political sites, party-political sites, etc, etc. Sadly, the influencial middle classes (mostly white) rely on the media as though it manufactures gospel truths, hence their skewed view of the world. Interestingly, studies show that the poor (mostly black) disbelieve the media and rely on their own common sense, hence they are not influenced by our right wing and pro-business press.
PS: You need only listem to the regressive comments of a sirjay jonson to see how corrupting the media is. Truly shameful…
Some good news in the New York Times about President Zuma: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/world/africa/15zuma.html?hp
Pierre De Vos says:
May 15, 2010 at 14:35 pm
No doubt its good news, expect more. USA companies are set to make a killing from Zuma’s policies. Seldom do they have a captive market like RSA, in Africa, free from chinese competition (On ARVs alone, they’re guaranteed a long term cashflow, particularly with the TAC and Zackie as their marketing agents). If I was an equity analyst, I’d say buy US Pharma equities, US Banking stock specialising in sovereign debt, US stocks in the nuclear and clean energy space. As for south africa’s sovereign bonds I’d suggest you sell, and sell very short.
“sell short”. or is it buy short…
@Vuyo:
“Sell short” is correct. And I agree with you: sell them exceedingly short.
@ vuyo
Nope, it’s “sell short”. Sovereign debt of SA is widely assumed to be backed by “gold in the ground”. South Africa released its reserve estimate in 2001, at 36,000 tons of gold. The US Geological Service recently (2008) amended this to 6,000 tons, only half of which is seen to be economically recoverable (which tells you where the call for nationalising the, presumably, 36,000 tons originates).
Combined with the structural economic conditions (populist economics, growing welfare in the face of massive umemployment, current account deficit, etc) – no further worries, sell sovereign debt short. Matter of timing, not direction….
One of my good friends this week, a musician who I jammed with regularly, got in an argument with his girlfriend. The girlfriend’s brother hit him with his fist repeatedly A double heart attack extinguished his life at 30. Today, an elderly woman just outside of our bitjie dorp, about a km, had her throat slit. I’m beginning to feel a little crazy, and anger is too limited a word to describe my feelings.
This craziness has to stop.
And this just puts the number of dead in my life by violence in SA at nine.
sorry to hear about your loss Sirjay; and quite understand your anger.
The violence in SA is truly over the deepend, and unfortunately very very few of our legal, political, academic or media elite; if any wish to take a look at root causes, and most prefer their ideological, racial, political etc blame games.
They are not interested in teh least in implementing any conversation about anything that works to provide people with an outlet to their anger; they refuse to confront that ‘anger management’ makes anger worse… etc.. etc.. but then again, a parasite whose power is derived from violence, is not about to endorse or campaign for the elimination of the host he survives from, is he?
Hope you find someone to help you deal with your anger, so it does not eat you alive…
it does nto seem as if south african elite’s addiction to their parasitism off violence and crime has yet reached the point, where they are willing to admit themselves into rehab…. its going to be a rough ride until they do…
In 55 years in Canada, before immigrating to South Africa, I knew not one victim of murder. This sort of violence is so alien to me. Why do SAfricans permit it? Take my word for it… its soul destroying…. and the nation will fail if it is not stopped.
sirjay jonson says:
May 15, 2010 at 18:22 pm
Re violent crime in Canada, your experience does not seem to concur with the reality – http://www.thefreeradical.ca/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm
Maggs Naidu says:
May 15, 2010 at 20:02 pm
I see your link mentions 458 homicide victims in Canada for 2003. Homicide is not only murder, it includes all cases of a person causing the death of another, even acts of self defence. Canada has a population of just over 34 million people.
Compare that to South Africa, with a population of just over 49 million, 18148 murders for the 2008/09 year (19824 for 2003/04), add to that 12571 cases of culpable homicide (11096 for 2003/04).
I’m afraid Maggs, your link proves that sirjay’s experience absolutely concurs with reality.
@ Chris,
There’s no dispute that we have extraordinarily high levels of violence it is of concern to all sensible and patriotic South Africans.
The causes are complex and for now beyond proper comprehension of the experts.
However, Canada is not free of violent crime – that is not a source of comfort but it does not support the pretence of that country being violence free.
In any event, notwithstanding what the doomsayers may say, our nation will not fail.
On the contrary we are making wonderful progress, despite the enormous challenges we face.
Lovely rant Prof, but the South African media is a business before anything else. Media houses publish stories that will inform people but also guarantee sales. I spoke to a journalist at Die Burger about the standard of articles and she said at the end of the day not all stories are reported and people generally only want to hear a certain type of news.
The South African media is merely responding to the sensationalized environment in which it operates, people in South Africa aren’t all interested in the political background of judges. As much as it is a reflection on the media it is also a reflection of our general country culture.
The USA and much of Europe is a sophisticated democracy where people are interested in k owing as much as they can about official appointees and here we only care about scandal, corruption and drama.
Before the media can change (and risk going out of business) the culture needs to change and people need to be more informed about the arms of government and their roles. That way people will care about who is appointed.
Tata Indica, it seems like a classic chicken and egg situation. The media reports on what editors think their readers want to have reported and readers get used to the kind of gossip and blood and guts stories. Surely it must be possible to find some middle ground. Well written stories, presented in a lively manner that takes cognizance of the needs of the readers, surely has a market? See what the folks at the DAily Dispatch have managed to do with limited resources. If I was an editor I would get my journalists to trawl through the judgments of the CC nominees to find an angle to report informatively, intelligently but also in an easy to understand way on the various judges. In a way that is what I have been trying to do on this Blog, sometimes more successfully than others, given my limited time and limited agility with the English language and its weird spelling.
LOL!
Ons is nog lief vir jou – al kan jy nie spel nie!
Oh, come off it, Brett! Prof is doing splendidly. In fact, he’s getting better every day!
Life’s short. Laugh hard!
@ Maggs
“We are making wonderful progress, despite the enormous challenges we face”
Maggs, are you perchance an acolyte of The Secret?
Hey Dworky,
you’re still afraid of the Dark, I see.
Maggs, Denial ain’t just the name of a river in Egypt!
(And you KNOW that’s true.)
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 16, 2010 at 22:33 pm
Hey Big D,
Unoriginal cliches from you suggest that you are unconvinced of what you pretended to say (which is crap anyway).
Maggs, I can only apologise for having failed to meet your exacting standard of originality in cliche.
Perhaps I can make up to you by paying musical tribute to your infectious optimism — with a wonderful old show song.
It goes something like this:
“There’s got to be a morning after
If we can hold on through the night
We have a chance to find the sunshine
Let’s keep on looking for the light
Oh, can’t you see the morning after?
It’s waiting right outside the storm
Why don’t we cross the bridge together
And find a place that’s safe and warm?
It’s not too late, we should be giving
Only with love can we climb
It’s not too late, not while we’re living
Let’s put our hands out in time
There’s got to be a morning after
We’re moving closer to the shore
I know we’ll be there by tomorrow
And we’ll escape the darkness
We won’t be searching anymore “
Thank you so much!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 17, 2010 at 0:00 am
Hey Big D,
“originality in cliche” – Dworkisms work!
Well done on the musical tribute – you could have not said it better yourself.
my my my, the Poseidon Adventure…. And we know how that trip ended, in Athens, right? Mr Dwork, scary choice of sources!
Anyone know more about this?
“The office of the presidency is claiming an unprecedented degree of executive privilege in an effort to prevent the Mail & Guardian from gaining access to a report commissioned by former president Thabo Mbeki.”
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-14-above-the-law
The weekend headlines of Mean Menzi are another example of hatred for the man. Scorpions under Ngcuka purchased SUV’s and GTI’s for them to perform their jobs of acting swiftly on criminals. THe big wigs at NPA managed to get their bums on these SUV’s. Now Scorpions have moved to SAPS and became Hawks and one would have assummed that they left with their tools(cars).
Again poor Menzi has to do what any other NPA Head would have done, take these luxury SUV’s from prosecutors who have no requirements for them and probably sell them or pass them on to the Hawks.
Since when prosecutors require v8 SUV’s to do their work?
Again the poor guy is attacked for doing the right thing.
http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Mean-Menzi-20100516
Pierre, I havent read all of the comments but it sounds as if, by blaming the media that you are diverting the focus away from how this happened…that if the media doesnt up their game that we are doomed to our sinister government arrogating more and more power.
The recent comments by BMF are poorly explained by their leadership. If Futhi has all the qualities they have listed then it should not matter who voted for her. I suspect that her record at the current institutions where she is serving such as deloitte, Univ of Pretoria etc should tell us if she is really a transformation agent. Her race, gender and votes are irrelevant at this instance.
See interesting article below:
Principles not pigment
SANDILE MAMELA Published: 2010/05/18 07:38:20 AM
The raging debate on whether newly elected Business Unity SA leader Futhi Mthoba is a black or a nonwhite is not a new one (Is Futhi Mthoba not black enough? Letters, May 14). What we need to be honest about is that so- called blacks who have collaborated with apartheid structures for individual benefit have always existed. What has been overlooked in the past 16 years is that, in essence, blackness has never been about skin colour. Its chief exponent, the late Steve Biko, defined it as a “reflection of a mental attitude”.
The country, especially the black community, has to confront the issue of class and race. Assuming that all blacks in top positions are pro-black is fantasy. Simply put, you can be black and be someone who militates against black aspirations. Your skin colour does not automatically qualify you to possess a revolutionary spirit or attitude.
Perhaps what is new for some people is that it is better to deal with a progressive small business leader who puts the interests of the country and its people first than a black self-seeking conservative who is not an agent of transformation.
The Black Management Forum should know that there are far too many black top dogs in its ranks who have no interest in the so-called transformation agenda except when it affects their pockets. That is why we have to ask: what exactly has made Ms Mthoba earn the fury of an organisation that should applaud her election?
We have to begin to wrestle with the question of what is more important: race or “mental attitude”.
Any person with the correct “mental attitude” — black or white — who loves this country more than their own individual privilege and comfort, is exactly what we need for transformation to succeed. We have to recognise that being progressive and pro-poor is not synonymous with skin colour.
There are far too many top dogs in SA who are only interested in being “the only black at the dinner party”.
Let us not judge any man by his skin colour but look at the content of his character and the principles they have espoused over the past 20 years.
Sandile Memela
Midrand
http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2010-05-18-sas-media-and-legal-worlds-reality-check
Hey Maya,
Whatever Stephen Grootes was smoking must have been really, really hectic.
This is an important topic, so I’ll try not be distracted by the invidious comparison with the world’s best, and best resourced, newspapers.
You could fit the entire Mail & Guardian newsroom into the legal desk at the New York Times. And we probably wouldn’t look as bad in comparison to the British press which is probably a more fair comparison in terms of the relative similarity of the legal tradition.
But those are defensive and unhelpful responses.
It is trite that we need broad, deep and rigorous coverage of the judicial system, from the ConCourt down to the woefully ignored Magistracy, and I don’t think I need to rehearse the reasons here.
I would like to have a full time correspondent at the constitutional court who would also handle the JSC and related stories about judicial legislation. It would be a good idea to have someone in Bloemfontein too. Then in each major metro we should have a reporter who spends part of their time at the local high court, and knows it well. I’d like to assign someone to spend a year traveling the country and writing the mind-boggling stories that play out in our magistrates courts.
Budgetary reality means that level of resource commitment is not going to happen in my lifetime. Newsrooms are more stretched than they have ever been (count the bylines in your favourite rag if you don’t believe me).
Clearly news budgets reflect priorities and editors make hard – brutally hard – choices about whom they assign where.
The weakness of our legal journalism, and the excessive focus on the clash of arms around Hlophe and Motata reflects how those choices are distorted when we have very limited capacity, and are driven by the most urgent stories of the day (or week).
It is not just coverage of the legal system that suffers as a result, but reflective, careful, in depth journalism of all kinds (think of parliament, land affairs, poverty, the environment, really good company reporting).
This is an explanation, however, not an excuse.
Fixing the situation requires commitment from editors, but it also requires a partnership with the legal community. The Webber Wentzel prize for legal journalism is one sort of incentive, but we also need more lawyers and judges to take up the space that is available, to talk to us, and to help us drive the conversation forward.
We are working on new, non-profit funding models that enable us to direct resources to the kind of journalism that we believe is at the core of our social mission, but that struggles to find commercial support. That may help a bit.
We also need to think hard about how to keep talented legal journalists committed to the beat at a time when they are strongly drawn to hard politics, or to the profession itself.
I’m committed to getting this right at the Mail & Guardian, but it is not going to happen over night.
Keep hassling us, but also, keep helping us to do the reporting. I can’t promise to employ South Africa’s Dalia Lithwick tomorrow, but I do want to feel like we are addressing the crucial issues on an ongoing basis in the news pages, the opinion pages, and the feature pages.
Nic Dawes says:
May 18, 2010 at 17:13 pm
In short, Pierre is correct!
Maybe Juju too.
M’learned friend. The print media have become fat and lazy. Most journalists are ill equipped to do anything else and the editors are now paid so well that they are terrified of losing their jobs so they pucker up and kiss ass. The journos pucker up to their bosses because they are also afraid to upset anybody and the net result is that only fabulously wealthy gun slingers like myself have the balls to call it as it is. So log on to http://www.newstime.co.za and click on the Sunday column to see how it should be done.
Oh, Bully boy, you cutie. You back again? And blowing your own horn too. We’ve missed you and your bullish comments. When you gonna puff a little cigar smoke in this gal’s direction?
There is no such thing as “the media” in the sense where journalists and owners of media corporations are conflated into “the media”, which does this, that and the other.
Under capitalism, the CEOs and owners of the tiny few media corporations in South Africa – just like the Pick n Pay, Anglogold and Shoprite CEOs – will do anything to make a quick buck and pay themselves bonuses. (M&G excluded, I think).
(http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=82188 refers… In 2009, the AVUSA CEO Prakash Desai, pocketed more than R24m when he split the company in two and sold a valuable stake in pay-TV channel MNet. Business Day’s editor)
This while they pay daily journalists a pittance and make us write three to five stories a day, at least a few of which must be based on “leaked documents” (which sometimes take time to get hold of), pseudo investigations….not to mention immediate filing for “online” and the constant call for multimedia video and audio clips.
This on a seven day shift system where one is frequently on duty on Sundays — and indeed, every day of the week.
Some journalists have no problem with this arrangement, others do use their own time to write serious pieces…which then obviously don’t get published…most of the time, at least.
Of course the media bosses are highly unlikely to take spare cash and hire a few extra specialist journalists who get given more space for intellectual work. And why would you expect them to? no CEO of any other company will take his bonuses or a large share of his profits and use it to advance his workers’ intellectual aspirations when they can rather use it buy a new boat or plane or holiday house in Clifton. So why expect the capitalist press to be different?
Why knock the capitalist press when you really don’t appear to be an anti-capitalist?
Sarah Palin says:
May 19, 2010 at 1:06 am
Hey Sarah – here’s a puff of smoke that can blow your way!
“When I was employed at the Sunday Times I had a large desk right opposite the editor’s office. I also had some very interesting telephone numbers on my cellphone; given to me when the editor and I enjoyed more cordial relations. One of those numbers belonged to a senior anti-Zuma source in the Mbeki administration who would feed us confidential information (or was it misinformation?). Based on this we would launch our weekly attack on Jacob Zuma’s character. I acknowledge that I was part of this appalling abuse of media freedom which is precisely why I apologised to Jacob Zuma last year. Having become the quarry rather than the hunter after my spectacular sacking in April 2008 I got a taste of what it was like to be misrepresented and misreported by a large newspaper with no reasonable right of reply. Considering what I had said about the man I was humbled at his unconditional acceptance of my apology. All Zapiro and Makhanya needed to do was the same but right up until the April elections they and their wage slave lapdogs (Justice Malala, Fred Khumalo and Andrew Donaldson spring to mind) allowed their hatred for Jacob Zuma to dominate the leader pages of the Sunday Times. Were they all too stupid to see that this man was likely to become the new president of this country or were they just brown-nosing the editor? Interestingly, since Jacob Zuma’s landslide victory the tone of these critics seems to have changed. They must be very frightened men.”
I would like to ask ‘Journalist’ a question:
Who outside the media refers to Cezanne Visser as “Advocate Barbie’?
Maggs.
Yes, thanks. But where (what DB orifice, I mean) has it come from?
Sarah Palin says:
May 19, 2010 at 19:28 pm
“But where (what DB orifice, I mean) has it come from?”
The one that blows the smoke!
Maggs quotes
“Since Jacob Zuma’s landslide victory the tone [Zapiro et al] seems to have changed. They must be very frightened men”
Indeed. Zapiro has shown his abject terror by suspending the shower head about 80 cm above JZ’s head.
@ Sarah Palin
Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Guess who said this?
“Eventually, there will be no more public money to steal, no more dodgy deals to be done and that day may not be too far off. When that happens South Africa will descend into a state of utter chaos. Those who have plundered public funds over the years will be guarded by Neanderthal thugs who will have been VIP protection unit members in the days when South Africa still had a sort of government. The sight of food trucks on the road distributing groceries to branches of Pick n Pay, Woollies and Checkers will be a thing of the past. They will have all been hijacked at some point by hungry citizens and so there’s no food distribution. Most shops stand empty because the food is directed straight to the homes of the elite. The country’s hospitals are in a state of disarray with poor facilities and too few staff. The most talented doctors will have left the country and there’s no money left to attract new staff. The elite will fly to Europe for treatment or attend a handful of clinics maintained for the exclusive use of the party officials. Limp wristed white liberals will rue the day they were so gullible and will finally come to realise that the acronym for the party that promised so much but delivered so little makes up the word ANarChy. Having expected the worst all along I won’t be too surprised. “
And 10 cents for guessing who this is about :
Controversial former Sunday Times columnist David Bullard also threw his weight behind the ANC.
“Some of you might be wondering what I’m doing here,” he said.
“Well, I’m a surprise guest.”
He was supporting the ANC because of the success of its economic policies, he said.
“[Since 1994] we had more than a decade of economic growth and repaid the [National Party's] debt.”
The ANC had also allowed people to take money off-shore and it had introduced the National Credit Act, which “stops us getting into the sort of mess the rest of the world is getting in”.
“This is not the time to hand the steering wheel to someone who has never driven before,” said Bullard, dressed in a smart black suit, white shirt, tie and handkerchief.
“God bless the ANC,” he added.
And another five cents for guessing who said this :
“And it’s just as inevitable that white critics will be accused of racism which is why most of them prefer to keep their heads below the parapets and say nothing. That approach has never worked for me and not even being very publicly sacked by the Sunday Times for writing a “racist” (translation: horribly honest) article has stopped me sounding off about the state of the nation. Paradoxically it has done my career a lot of good because audiences will pay good money to listen to a speaker they know will speak honestly. Similarly, writing for uncensored websites like the Richmark Sentinel is much more satisfying than writing for a newspaper that is partly controlled by Luthuli House.”
The wind seems to be blowing his smoke signals in different directions.
Sarah Palin says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:13 am
LOL!
I reckon that it’s blowing upwards.
But not telling where!
Sorry Sarah….I’ve been doing a bit of what you do so well (the lucrative speaking circuit) and haven’t returned to respond to my pithy comment about the media being a bunch of limp dicked woosies. But here I am once again and intrigued to find that Maggs Naidu is such a devited grouoie and can quote everything I have evert written. I used to do that with the Monty Python dead parrot sketch. Maggs…..you deserve a fan club T-shirst at least. Just let me know which size you are and your address and I’ll send one off to you. They come in three sizes 1. Skinny little runt 2. Medium moaner 3. Jealous fat git.
And Sarah….I have fantasies about you and that Ukrainian babe with the complex hairstyle getting it together in a hot tub while Herman Lategan and I mix the cocktails. Ease up on the speaking engagements girl and come and party with us…..CNN need never know.
Useful tip….never send a comment after lunch without first checking the spelling. So sorry….used to having sub-editors.
David Bullard says:
May 20, 2010 at 14:26 pm
LOL!
“They come in three sizes 1. Skinny little runt 2. Medium moaner 3. Jealous fat git.”
So you probably fit comfortably in sizes 2 and 3.
Size 1 is probably a challenge – I get the impression that you are not “skinny”.
Do any come printed with ‘Say unto audiences what the highest bidder will pay for”?
Hey David,
Being the devited grouoie that I am, I found something else interesting.
“Yet I am double Juju’s age, I have two university degrees (plus an honorary one), I have been a newspaper editor, a television executive and a university lecturer and I have published eight very successful books” and “I was lucky because I had other sources of income and wasn’t about to starve”.
Juju managed to achieve your level of rhetoric and other sources of income with only a G in woodwork.
That’s quite something, hey!
Actually Maggs…..you’re quoting Max du Preez in that last post but the point is still well made about JuJu….and he has more money than I have but he isn’t British and that, as we all know, is first prize in life’s raffle.
I’m definitely a size 3….
David Bullard says:
May 20, 2010 at 17:04 pm
“Actually Maggs…..you’re quoting Max du Preez”
Oops!
Never mind, I’ll search for something else that I can insult you with.
What’s so spectacular about being British?
I hate the British.
Not all the British.
Just the comedians.
Not all the comedians.
Only this one – http://www.metacafe.com/watch/640589/russell_peters_south_africa/
oops – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__9KOVFLsFA
Actually, David, Maggs is in the T-shirt business. He has an expectation of a phone call soon to let him know he is the official supplier of T-shirts to the ANC.
Brett Nortje says:
May 20, 2010 at 22:14 pm
hahahaha Brett.
You did not say that I supply variations of size 2 (2 stupid, 2 dull) and so far those are exclusively for you.
p.s. I love your definition of free press = when your mum irons your pants
)
“EUSEBIUS MCKAISER: Is it immoral to have lunch with David Bullard?
“WOULD you be seen dead having lunch with David Bullard? Would you give him a platform to express and debate his views? In case you have forgotten, Bullard is the former Sunday Times columnist who was in famously sacked for a column judged to have expressed racist views about blacks and aspects of black culture. …”
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=109642