Media Flaws

You know the McDonald’s breakfast special? With free coffee? Yes. That one. I can vouch that their free coffee is terrible. An abhor-ration to the palate. It’s like drinking sand with hot water. And I don’t even drink coffee. Terrible.

Speaking of terrible things South African schools, particularly state township / rural schools, seem to be doing their damnedest best to achieve Education for Barbarism (aka Bantu Education) all over again.

Remember, remember, remember Native Education?

“'The education of the white child prepares him for a life in a dominant society and the education of the black child for a subordinate society…' ... this meant inferior education for every section of the Non-Europeans but most of all for the Africans... Native Education meant inferior accommodation and equipment in schools and inferior training... educational starvation of a people...” - I.B. Tabata, 1958

Well guess who’s driving this agenda these days –  black teachers, together with their dear SADTU. Congratulations dear teachers your efforts are paying off. I saw you on the news last night leaving schoolchildren in classrooms, toy’toying, go-slowing and smiling for cameras. Once again, congratulations!

However, before you embark on a self-congratulatory excursion too, dear black teacher, let me remind you that the only hope for this country rests in education. Educate the black child to be specific. The first month of schools has been marred by a “go-slow” in places like the Eastern Cape – whilst schools in suburbia teach, schools in townships and rural communities are at a standstill. Children are being denied education all because teachers want their superintendent-general out. SADTU has set a legal process in motion, but no, teachers cannot await its outcomes. "Let's deny children education to ensure our boss goes!" they think? At which point don’t they realise that this all disadvantages the black child? At which point don’t they realise that they are performing an abortion on the future of black children in this country? You mean to tell me teachers can’t see this?

Well. I’ll be damned.

Under the apartheid government blacks were reduced to helotry. Under the democratically elected black government blacks are still being reduced to helotry.

Well. I’ll be damned.

Black schools in this country are no longer centres of learning but centres of docile indoctrination towards nothingness. Put simply Bantu Education never left us in this country. If anything I believe that Bantu Education is transgenerational i.e.: You needn’t have studied under it to be its product.

Well. I’ll be damned.

It doesn’t require much imagination to actually figure out that black teachers in this country – via SADTU – are killing this country. Why on earth must your gripes affect the learner? Why? Only a sick person, taught to self-loathe, would ever pawn their child. What ever happened to the African adage of “my child is your child”?

Khanizithandeni maan!

Yini le yokuba sibukele lamanyala niwathifela kwikamva labantwana bethu?

Ningootitshala!

Mel’ba niyafundisa, hay’ ukuhlalela ukubulala isizwe esimnyama.
Theth’ba iimpembeleko zeBantu Education zokungazixabisi ungumntu soze ziphele na?
Theth’ba njengamntu omnye umntu womnye umntu ayingomntu kuni?
Theth’ba ikamva ngumva kuni?

Khanizithandeni maan!

Ningootitshala! Hay’ ababulali (-kamva)

Let me conclude with a short story:

Once upon a time there was a Native Affairs minister called Dr Verwoerd in this country.

The end.

To sort out our current education crisis in this country it is a must that we refer and reverse some of Verwoerd’s policies, analyse the legacy of Bantu Education in our current education system and leadership and start working on how to purge these.

In case you're looking for part 1 of Education for Barbarism (by I.B. Tabata) - it's available here.

Well.

Firstly, this entire country still features sprinklings of racism that often peak in rural communities or the northern provinces – where white superiority pans out unquestioned. Nonetheless such instances of overt racism (such as the Wavecrest / Wild Coast resorts in the Eastern Cape which aren’t shy to say “No blacks allowed!”) are much easier to digest as well as address. Such that we cannot say such places are the most racist. The most racist places would have to be those that don’t know they are racist. Like Cape Town. Cape Town takes the cake where racism is concerned because its racists amble about unconsciously offending here and there without so much as batting an eyelid. Such is unconsciousness.

Who are these unconscious racists?

They are faceless and could be white, could be coloured and black even. They are mostly experienced, not seen, as they are deeply institutionalised in the fabric of Cape Town. Their trademark feature is how blacks experience them. There are no “No blacks allowed!” signs in Cape Town and that is what makes its racism far worse than that of the rural areas I mentioned earlier.

To understand this racism we have to understand that blacks are a minority in Cape Town, majority of which lives in townships and primarily moved to Cape Town for menial labour way back then. To this day, the great majority of blacks migrating to Cape Town still do so for menial labour. Their role in the functioning of the Cape has always been menial, such that inferiority complexes were easily adopted. So inferior are Cape blacks that even Cape coloureds see themselves as superior to them. Afterall Cape coloureds share Afrikaans with many a white person and former oppressors of this country. With language alone we are able to already see the barrier. There begins the exclusionary nature of Cape Town. People who have something in common, like language, often never see how their commonality locks others out: They tend to employ, advantage, prefer or relate better with those who have something in common with them, almost by default. This explains the seemingly preferential intake of coloured employees over blacks of equal qualification. It seems qualified or black professionals are a risk employee in the Cape – they’re seen to be race-obsessed, nuisance-ical and uncomfortable to have around if they’re assertive and can raise race matters. It’s better to employ the coloured employee with whom it is easier to bond (via shared social imaginings borne out of this cultural common ground foregrounded by the language of Afrikaans and English).

Where does this leave the Cape black?

Well, it beats the Cape black into submission that indeed “I am of a lower being!” Having accepted this means that Cape whites become accustomed to obedient/subservient blacks who rarely raise concerns nor assert their being as equals. I draw this conclusion based on an elderly Cape white friend who travelled to Swaziland and came back a bit shocked saying, “the black people there are different! The way they speak to us whites, they don’t look down – they look you in the eye. They don’t pull child-like smiles or laughs when talking to you, they just talk to you as a person.” To her mind or from what I gathered from our conversation she was acknowledging that indeed something’s wrong with the Cape black she’s grown accustomed to. I am surprised many a white person has yet to admit that Cape blacks allow themselves into positions of inferiority that enable whites to walk all over them without so much as feeling guilty about it.

The Cape black inferiority complex has become the norm in Cape Town. Such that it is unquestionable. Any black not born nor raised in Cape Town will immediately feel this inferior treatment by whites, coloureds and Cape blacks even. The ones who exert the most racism on behalf of whites are in actual fact coloureds and Cape blacks. Never have I seen so much self-loathing in my life. I’ve been here for 12 years and it still baffles me how coloureds have come to treat blacks with such contempt. Perhaps it’s the insidious nature of whiteness that prevails over Cape blacks and coloureds. It is unacceptable. When a people has been beaten into submission by their master they tend to turn and take out their frustration on one another, rarely on the master. Hence master doesn't see this frustration. It explains why white people, like Helen Zille, will immediately jump to say there’s no racism – show us the racism, where and when it took place. Because in all honesty her experience of blacks is premised by the precedence set by Cape blacks – that her mannerism as a white person is acceptable. All is well. “Mavis-the-maid understands me and I understand Mavis” white internalisation.

I will further go on to state that I personally do not expect any white person to see contemporary racism. I mean how on earth do we expect a people that claimed it couldn’t see racism when it was active pre-94 to suddenly see racism when it has been declared inactive post-94? If you couldn’t see it when it was in front of you, you most likely won’t see it when it has passed you. We’re being way too optimistic in our expectation of white South Africans to see neo-racism. Way too optimistic.

Sadly, I am reducing my argument to black versus white. This is borne out of the online discussions where this entire “Cape Town is racist” was produced months ago. The white stance online is to deny there’s racism in Cape Town – they even ask for evidence. The black stance asserts there is racism in Cape Town – they just aren’t sure how to pinpoint it or resolve it. What makes these online discussions even harder is the fact that white South Africans tend to speak from positions of privilege on the matter (i.e.: they honestly aren’t affected nor were affected) and as such it’s common to find that privileged people tend to hide behind other people’s stories or other places of reference. Hence you will find them saying “That happened in Germany…” or “My domestic worker had a similar…” it’s never really personal engagement – if it is it’s probably gender or something else related. Never race. We rarely hear the white side to this claimed racism. We rarely hear admissions and a “What can we do as white people?” all we hear is “There’s no such, Cape Town isn’t racist!” or at times you will hear, “Can we stick to the facts, stats and tangible aspects? And put race aside!?” or "Let's talk about class and culture, not race!" all in the name of sorting out their discomfort with the subject of race.

For as long as we run away from race, it will continue to catch up with us. We cannot continue to devalue difference in this country. We cannot continuously enforce diversity – put people together and expect osmosis of sorts. Intergroup dialogue is needed, blending won’t just happen naturally. Why are we not engaging one another on these matters seriously?

What can be done about Cape Town’s racism?

One has to ask themself these questions:

1. Would Cape Town be less racist if it had more black professionals or blacks from other
    provinces settling in it?
2. Would Cape Town be less racist if the predominant language were a black language?
3. Would Cape Town be less racist if the ruling Democractic Alliance (DA) and other
    political parties stopped capitalising on black versus coloured rifts come voting season?
4. Would Cape Town be less racist if it had fewer tourists? (the tourists’ question is rarely
    ever considered in this debate – I imagine tourists enter South Africa oblivious to
    the sensitivities of race, they spend and rub in white conspicuous consumption, which
    for the lay black man simply means white people are still rich in this country and are
    unrepentantly spending their riches).
5. Is it possible that Cape Town is racist because white people are free and comfortable to
    be in it and shamelessly flaunt their known-as-inherited-or-stolen good life in front of
    blacks?

It’s possible. It is further possible that all that we interpret as racist behaviour is nothing but fear and self-preservation of a white race that has found itself Cape Town. In the interests of this fear it will resort to infectious cliquey behaviour – stick to own kind, ensure spaces are more frequented by own kind without making it overt, pass on opportunities to own kind or (as mentioned earlier) coloureds they are more comfortable with – all in the interests of self preservation. Even the geography of Cape Town clings steadfast to apartheid ideals – whiteness lives comfortably alone (around convenience), blackness lives far away (around the airport). Hence it’s common to hear white people say “I love Cape Town!” or “I’d love to move to Cape Town” – trust me, it’s not the mountain calling, it’s probably the need to be around more of your kind in an ideal setting, that privileges them further, like Cape Town. Such is human – we’re more free, comfortable, with ease and similarity than with difficulty and difference.

There I was lazily wading through my inbox.  This time of year is madness.

Exam panic !
Marking panic !!
And general panic !!!

                                          … overflowing in my inbox…

Then there’ll be the odd, now seemingly regular:

“Hi there, I came across your blog and particularly enjoyed your x,y,z piece here [provides link]. Would you like to rewrite this for our paper/magazine/website?”

Or, let’s take this out of the inbox and into the direct message box on Twitter. E.g.:

“Ur tweets on this matter r interesting, wud u like 2 expand them into an article for us?”

Quick response is usually:

“No, thank you.” or “Please copy and paste the original from the blog...”

And it ends there. Besides I’ve found that trying to rework something you wrote for a different platform, might not turn out to be the best. Convergence doesn’t always converge.

So, anyway, to handle these failed solicitations, editors usually turn to a demon named Mr Citizen Journalist. Now for those who don’t know Mr Citizen Journalist, let me introduce you: He writes like he’s possessed by some literary spirit. He was born out of the fear that the consumer will produce own content thereby dumping traditional media. His babysitter came from the Newspapers-Are-Dying!!! hysteria era. He was groomed into an adult by stingy opportunists, who identified an incessant preoccupation with seeking Andy Warhol’s 15-minutes of fame lurking within every such demon. Newsrooms have simply converted such preoccupations into a new currency. Sections that were usually limited to 150 - 250 words from readers have now been stretched to 700 - 1500 words per reader. News websites have even dedicated citizen writing orphanage tabs. And boy do they rail in the clicks and reads. All this content for free. Whilst sites cash in.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me!

Look at it this way:

Imagine a newsroom was a gallery and you were a talented painter. These news curators spot your paintings and ask you to come exhibit in their gallery, for free. You will not get any commission from the sale of your paintings. Just exposure, they tell you. Seemingly more painters flock to this gallery for this so-called exposure. Granted a few of these painters will be lucky and get snapped-up by prominent gallerists, who’ll make them settle for lousy commission in the long run anyway.

This is what’s happening in the media. Mr Citizen Journalist's population is booming and newsrooms are only too happy to accommodate him and his ilk. Because they speak for free. This is not a problem. Not a problem at all. No problem. It's a problem, however, for those who write for a living. And to bring this subject even closer to home; the trouble sets in for aspiring writers who now have to contest with professionals from other industries who are willing to write for free. If you can get experts, politicians even, to manoeuvre a complex subject in your publication or website, for free, tell me what’s the use of paying a freelance journalist on that beat? Furthermore, the impact of citizen journalism makes it more convenient for papers to employ less, and even pay less per freelance word. Put simply: Writing for free costs those who write for a fee.

Now. I am not saying this is wrong. But there is something here that is eroding prospects for those who want to make a living out of this. Journalists will have to settle for pittance salaries because they peddle common commodities. Or they can simply run to corporate or government employment, instead. I have yet to see journalists go on strike in this country. Considering what they get paid, I would encourage them to.

I mean what qualified professional can’t even afford to buy a property, take their kid to a decent school and live a life above mere hand-to-mouth survival? Besides teachers and nurses, of course. You cannot have degrees conferred on your head and then settle for a 4-digit salary after tax. It doesn’t make sense. What did you go to school for?

And you cannot have freelance writers charging less than R2 per word. R5 per word should be the minimum. Put simply the quality of journalism in this country cannot improve if you have starving scribes churning out article after article on an empty stomach. It’s like going shopping hungry – you will find junk impulsive buys in your shopping bags when you get home. Much like you will find hungry opinionalism masquerading as news in your paper when you open it. People who are hungry cannot be tasked with the important duty of feeding minds.

Pay journalists more. Make journalism attractive to the more qualified.

And for heaven’s sake could citizens go back to contributing 150 - 250 words only, unless newsrooms are prepared to pay them for anything longer.

Mr Citizen Journalist must learn not to give free lunches to the Khulubuse Zumas obese of newsrooms. It usually ends up costing the poor Aurora mineworkers word miners. Mr Citizen Journalist must start charging.

p.s: For another take on this subject visit the Surreal Footballers, here. They inspired this with their “…if you write for free, whether it works to get you a job or not, you are choosing the selfish path; the one that ensures others will have to work for free also…” line.

p.p.s: “Mr” in Mr Citizen Journalist, can be substituted with “Ms” Citizen Journalist to accommodate all reading preferences. Oh, and "journalist" can be substituted with "writer" for the more pedantic reader.

It's Saturday. I'm driving down Koeberg road looking for a place called Plumblink. Find it. Get what I want whilst wondering why they sell taps without the tools to install them? Am I supposed to call a plumber to unscrew and screw in a new tap? So Ascort Hardware and Builders Warehouse were the next stops. I don't have a plumbing problem so to speak - I just want to replace my current kitchen tap.
 
Government, on the other hand, has major plumbing problems. On this same day, 17 September, it turns out media activists who've found a shelter, hijacked even, the Right2Know (r2k) campaign are trying to dismantle government's already leaky pipes. These apparent plumbers don't want these pipes sealed nor replaced - they want them gone. Flood the house with water.
 
Imagine this water to be information. Imagine the plumber to be the media. Imagine you live in an information age. Imagine the media is the one that will control this water’s flow - mediate it. Reappropriate it. How do you begin to put your faith in one self-appointed man to report information which they dislodged from a context on your behalf and transformed into news? Do you have faith in literary plumbing?
 
Anyway, on Saturday a public protest against the Protection of Information Bill took place in Cape Town - media voices joined in droves; some even from the Highway Africa conference, some from the South African National Editors Forum, some independent, the whole bang bang was there seemingly unaware of the complexity of their involvement and how their presence might be misinterpreted. Their motives might seem nationalist but scratch deeper and you’ll find theirs is to sell. Sell division. Sell stereotypes. Sell fear. Sell you your nightmares and package them as public interest. Yet it’s not public interest, it’s public scopophilia they serve. Feed the eyes of the audience, sell it what it can't avoid looking at: "Government is corrupt!", "Government is corrupt!", "Government is corrupt!" 

To even begin to scream for a Public Interest Defence is to ignore the fact that you a) have no public or assumed homogenous mass of beings to serve and b) it’s solicited interest. To demand things such as press freedom on behalf of an imagined public is beyond me. Are we assuming an indolent citizenry and speaking on its behalf? Are we assuming they do not want to know and need to be told they want to know?

Who is this government we protest against anyway? Isn't government the will of the majority? Isn't government us? Isn't this a democracy? Is this to protest against the will of the majority? Government leaders can easily turn and say: "Look at the media, it marches against the will of the majority, against you - who do they represent? Don't trust the media!" Easily. Such seemingly anti-government protests aren't as simple, because your protest subject is not clearly defined. Who are you fighting, if not fighting the majority?

I understand that the Right2Know campaign is not the media, but because many voices in the media have backed it, Right2Know is now hugely synonymous with South African Media in the minds of many. A friend I'd asked to come join me to see this march blew this invitation off by saying it's for white self-serving interests that seek to hold on to privilege through the power of information, motivated by Zuma-intolerance, backed by the opportunistic Democratic Alliance. Not in these exact words, though. Is this the image members of the media want to be associated with? If members of the media are genuine with this need to know, how about they mobilise society to vote for another party that will allow you to know?

The answer to this question is exactly the point I’m driving at: The Image of the Media in the Media.

If you, the media, were to actively mobilise society to vote for another party this would immediately unmask your political agenda – what are you saying about yourself? Journalists must be careful about how they posture their own public image. You cannot be journalists seen to be holding hands with Democratic Alliance leaders, anti-Zuma factionalists and bashing Zuma puppets publicly. You erode your own credibility in the eyes of that majority that voted for the present government.

And don't think it wasn't apparent how hard the media tried to exclude the hundreds of DA members in their midst on Saturday. The pictures, camera angles were all looking for a black face and actively avoiding the blue shirts and hundreds of concerned white citizens. The journalists didn't bother to show you the rented taxis from Khayelitsha nor interview some of the black children invited - who didn't even know why they were there - just that government is bad or "lasisi uthe masihambe naye size apha [that lady just called us and said let's come here]!" That audience was anything but a true representation of this country and of how the majority feels. I do not claim to know how majority feels, and neither should the media. But engineering reality for newssake is to mislead. Reappropriating an image or information to suit your agenda - to give the impression it's largely the majority of the country that opposes this bill? That's not true and is an example of the danger of our media - the danger of mediated information. And partly why government would want to censor some of this information, to protect it from this form of manipulation by the media.

In fact, how about journalists stay out of these protests? Do their jobs - narrate the complex implications of this bill to all, highlight the work being undertaken by bodies such as Avaaz.org and the Right2Know campaign. Yes, the Protection of Information Bill, in its current form, has far reaching consequences beyond journalists. But journalists are making it about them. Let opposition parties, academics, civic society, NGOs, you name them, oppose such. This is not to deny journalists citizenship, it's about being rational on the unbias nature of their work. Surely a media that can report such threats and complexity effectively can garner concern nationally. But no, it seems this media wants to report itself. Be the news.

Think about this.

The implications of such protests do more harm to the public image of the media, and shift attention from the justified cause – access to information – to politically motivated journalists.

Anyway, I digress. I now have a new kitchen tap. I installed it myself. 
 

Steve Biko would weep for us, if he were alive.
If we are alive, we should weep for ourselves.

Weep for the black image in the black mind.

In 1994 South Africa’s veil on multiracism multiculturism was officially lifted, revealing parallel societies. This veil was replaced with blankets. Blankets of imagined democracy.

17 years later I sit here thinking those were very costly blankets.

17 years later I sit here feeling a gentle wind that consistently reminds us
of who we are and what we were before we got those blankets 
a wind that lifts these blankets as we sleep through existence 
a wind that carries specks of stereotypes beliefs and fears of what lies under blankets
                                        
                                             ?An, unpunctuated; wind! – called_ Media.

For how long will we continue to undermine how the media intentionally or unintentionally reinforces the negatives of this country?

For example...

What is the general image of blacks in South Africa’s media?

- They are largely criminals
- They are largely corrupt
- They are largely incompetent
- They are largely poor
- They are largely needy victims of self
- They are largely more than this list can accomodate

Of course the general image of whites in South Africa’s media is the exact opposite of the above.

Put simply: blacks are inherently inferior in how they are positioned and represented in the media. There’s a limited scope of expression and representation of blacks as humane, on par, equal, in the media. A media with a paucity of positive black models/images that go against pre-1994 stereotypes. The black South African’s image in the media is critical to how they are imagined by an other, and most importantly by themselves.

Take a look at news. If black people are always on the rampage, destroying things, stealing from state coffers and generally represented as social deviants with an inclination towards the worst – how do we suppose the black audience imagines itself? Tell someone they’re a rockstar for long enough and they might just start acting like a rockstar.

The counter-argument is simple: But they are like that, they are doing that – the media’s role is to provide accurate verbal, written and/or visual records.

Correct? No. They might teach you that in Media schools. But I am prepared to stand alone and say that is wrong.

Within the context of South Africa we cannot merely push accuracy or reflection without taking into account the audience’s understanding or what mental representation it stimulates. That would be to be irresponsible. So much so that you will now find people, like mam' Mamphela Ramphele saying “That’s us! We are like that!” upon reflecting on the black’s image in the media. That, I am afraid, is the height of ignorance. That is the problem of the modern person. We accept things as they are with scant regard for codes embedded therein, that leave no room for counter-schematic thought - thought that highlights that not all blacks are like that. “That’s us!” is not us. There are deeper areas we do not want to go into with regards to the media’s [mis]representation of the black image in South Africa. It’s very easy to show people news as they are, but seemingly hard to think about how this bodes for the national psyche. Our media convicts us in the confines of our past.

We need a thinking media.
We need a media attuned to the complexities of the societies they serve.
We need a media that is prepared to facilitate racial comity.
We need a media that is less commercially driven.
We need a media that doesn’t serve “imagined communities”, but Real Communities.

It is very easy to report. Very. Even a toddler can report what they saw. If we limit ourselves to just reporting as we see it, we undermine conceptual and normative complexities of our times.

We need to think carefully about these things and submit ourselves to deeper self-critical awareness in our thinking. We cannot bumble about consuming information without understanding the side-effects.

The problem is the images of one another that we have of one another in one another’s minds. Who reinforces and provides a steady stream of those images?

That’s us.

The Centre for Conflict Resolution recently hosted a public dialogue themed Afro-pessimism or Afro-realism? Western Reporting of Africa. Chaired by City Press editor, Ferial Haffajee. One by one each speaker (Alex Duval Smith, Toby Selander and Mark Paterson) rose to reiterate what each preceding speaker had said: The media is not Afro-pessimist it is Afro-realist, media applies same standards worldwide, speaks to stereotypes and stories are commercial products, etcetera, etcetera.

I wasn’t there. I listened to audio files of dialogue here.

But let me go back and run with what the chair, Haffajee, said in her opening remarks whereby in which she narrated her interaction with African media scholars who have left her with the impression that “…somehow African journalism was meant to be a little less robust, a little more patriotic, a little more respectful, it was more able to explain and justify corruption perhaps, as a cultural norm…” all of which to her is absolute “bunkum” - journalism is just that, journalism. Right. It seems African media scholars have a lot of mist to write through then.

What Haffejee et al fail to understand is that in speaking of an African media one does not necessarily invoke African patriotism and less robustness. It doesn’t mean underreport corruption and poor leadership. To speak of an African media is to speak of a media that carries African interests at heart.

What are these African interests?

That, I am afraid, is a lazy question solely intended to trivialize. But to pander to such pedantry anyway: African interests, to my mind, are interests of the majority of this country or whichever African country journalists work in. It is not the interests of a select few with buying power. Yes, there are diverse interests which can be accommodated through niche media – community media, native language media and even tabloids. "It is not the mainstream media’s burden..." some would say. To say such would be naiveté at its best. It is through this mainstream media that national discourse is shaped. National discourse is not shaped by tabloids or some community radio station in eMqanduli. What sets tongues wagging is not some community newspaper in the Northern Province. What sets national discourse and how people experience one another in this country is mainstream media. And for as long as presumed market demands, often leaning towards minority interests, drive media content, I'm afraid we'll be stuck with the Malema-this-Malema-that bunkum we read for a very long time – bunkum that simply pushes an image of blacks as corrupt, inefficient & criminal way too hard thus eroding our national psyche.

What our media lacks, which African media can offer, is a developmental aspect. We need a media that is grounded in conscience and context. Journalism cannot be just journalism under a single set of universality. Journalism must and can be malleable; journalism cannot be driven by traditionalists who cannot see beyond their own sets of ideology. To be so rigid in one form of ideology means you at no stage are open to reality.

Such is dangerous.
Such is damaging.
Such is self serving.
Such is narrow-mindedness.

So how do we head towards an African journalism? One thing’s for sure it will not be done by the current lot of black journalists in newsrooms. They are probably too far gone by now. Although in interacting with some there’s a glimmer of hope. My visits to newsrooms and other centres of media production have at times made me question the camaraderie therein that inevitably gives rise to unified visions of what the end product should be. You’ll find that black journalists have been swallowed into these shared senses of what news are and how to write for the small gallery. They essentially become constrained by dominant professional norms. These norms become the norm in their construction and navigation throughout their journalism careers. If they go against this or pursue angles that are somewhat counternorm they then have to explain themselves, defend even, or at the worst settle for a thoroughly edited version.

In using black journalists as an example I by no way infer that to be African is to be black, but I am now extending myself to the reality that the majority of this country and many African countries are black. Claptraps of “we are all the same and have same interests” are simply unfounded in this regard.

Such is self serving.
Such is narrow-mindedness.

We need to think beyond the ambit of our own toes when in Africa. What is the reality of the majority? What are stories of interest to them? What would be the best ways to convey these stories to them in mainstream media? And thereafter, how do you make them consume such? What are their patterns of media consumption? To what extent do cultural norms play a role in the manner in which they receive media? Simply put, why are the interests and particular styles of African narrative being disavowed?

Again one will ask: what are these African interests? Africa is not a country, no? What are these African forms of narrative? The answer to these is that: If you were truly African in your grounding (and interests) you would know the answers to these. You would know what an African identity is and its value systems. You wouldn't run to say “but there are so many” – instead of excuses you'd look to find common threads of commonality amongst Africans. Try establish this. You’ll be amazed how much the majorities share in common, regardless of language differences. It should be the majority's discourse that sets national interest, not the minority's. No?

Having reached an understanding of what African media might be, the next question would be:
 
But will it sell?

That there are commercial pressures on media producers is a known, but to be driven by such to depths that tear societies apart is also unacceptable. The British events around News of The World have shown the extreme end of such market pressures. The ideals and/or ways of media are grounded on similar pursuits as those of News of the World staff. That they hacked phones is neither here nor there – but a simple illustration of the dearth of humanity when tasked with market pressures. Moral pressures subside. I will not dwell much on News of the World as there are many Western media dissidents who’ve already caught on and ridden this wave.

To understand why the media needs to change one need only look at its historical origins and match those with present as well as the media’s expanding seat in higher education. It is by no coincidence that journalism / media studies are now taught at centres for higher education. It has changed.

What I will conclude with however is that media strategies need to be evaluated, sources of revenue and what constitutes media narrative need to be assessed via context and effect. We cannot be held at ransom via one set of ideals. The media in Africa must change. It begins with a conscience. It begins with the current lot of media owners being accountable to a reality of difference and fully understanding that the media exerts more power in society than we can have ever imagined. People know through the media. People talk, think and do according to the media whether they like it or not. That, I am afraid is a very powerful tool. A tool that can no longer be left in the hands of people who tripped over it as some form of vocational activity – much like gardening. It cannot be left in the hands of under-educated, yet experienced and passionate scribes. No. What we are dealing with here is something far bigger than governments. We are dealing with core ideology merchants.

How do we change that?

How do we get journalists operating in Africa to fully understand the severity of their ink and pixels? Does the media actually know how much hatred it sows? How many stereotypes it affirms? And exactly what type of discourse it creates beyond the confines of their bustling newsrooms, in Africa? No. I am afraid by the time people point to media as source of rot, it will be too late. The least we can do is change the way Africa does it.

Please note: This is a work in progress.

Disclaimer: I fully support the views that follow below. After twisting her arm, Nomalanga* emailed me her piece on how our media loses itself in translation and lacks the shared social imagination of the majority. It goes as follows:

South Africans are, to all intents and purposes, lost in translation. But it is not all, it is only some, particularly, white (not all, but the majority), and other middle-class suburbanites whose daily chatterings are informed by what they read in mainstream English language media. In a discussion about how to move towards a non-racist society, I said to a friend, ‘the answer is ubuntu but not the way white people say it’.
 
This is the challenge of being multilingual within the monolingual insularity of middle-class South Africa. One has to constantly qualify and translate, for those who only speak English from a particular social lens, what words, idioms and terms mean in specific contexts and moments so as to not be misconstrued or misunderstood. Thus one has to say things like ‘I mean Black with a capital B’, or ‘I don’t mean white ‘phenotypically’, I mean the social positioning of racial privilege.’ It is exhausting.
 
In my experience, these translations are often necessary when talking to white South Africans who have little experience of being politically integrated as whites used to be in the United Democratic Front (UDF) and other formations of the 1980s where people of different social backgrounds learned to become politically intelligible to each because they lived in dangerous times.
 
Fast forward then into the present; the Jimmy Manyi controversy, the Zuma ‘heaven’ statement; the McBride ‘murderer’ label and the ‘Kill the Boer’ saga currently in the courts. Within media discussion, these moments are illustrative of a kind of linguistic malfunctioning as various viewpoints clamour for equal recognition in an unequal society; where former oppressors and those they oppressed want to be heard in this ‘post-conflict’ society.  It makes for fascinating socio-linguistic analysis, but frustrating for political engagement. 
 
Anyone who has sung militant struggle songs, in their original languages, knows that they are not rousing calls to kill. In the 1990s, when Peter Mokaba led toyi-toyi by chanting, ‘Kill the Boer, the farmer’, in English, the African National Congress recognised the danger, and banned it (it has not been used since) because it had a volatile political meaning when chanted in English.
 
However, when we sing ‘Hamba kahle Mkhonto, thina bafana boMkhonto sizimisele ukuwabulala wona lamabhunu’ as a homage to comrades at funerals, it does not translate, or signify malicious militancy, but is in remembrance of a righteous cause against white supremacy.
 
Journalists who directly translated Dubul’ibhunu to ‘Kill the boer’ were just plain wrong, and I mean bawrong man, as Black people say it. Surely they hear these songs sung in African languages at countless political gatherings, with white comrades. If they do not know this, where do they live, whose reality were they representing in their shrill headlines about the song? Just a few weeks ago Grahamstown service delivery protestors sang the popular struggle song ‘Senzeni na? Amabhunu ayizinja’ against the local municipality.
 
Displacing struggle songs from their contexts and translating them into English headlines feeds a social imagination of anxiety prevalent amongst white South Africans who have struggled to adjust politically since 1994. Swaart gevaar is an indelible part of the conservative white South African psyche; it has become pretty obvious that sensational media reporting feeds into these self-constructed delusions. 
 
Murders of white farmers are undoubtedly horrific; however, the claim of special victimhood cannot hold up against the generalised violence that is dispensed against thousands of South Africans who are also viciously tortured and maimed during the course of crime. This is not to deny that there may be retaliatory attacks against some farmers which are fuelled by unresolved tensions over power and land. However, until media reported that Julius Malema sang ‘Dubula’ (translated) as ‘Shoot the Boer’, there was no connection drawn between struggle songs and the shocking murder statistics; only right-wingers did that.
 
It does serve divisive right-wing groups to draw false connections even though similar songs are sung on a daily basis. Ironically, the alarmist reporting on the meaning of the song, and subsequent court action is concretising and legitimising combative and reactionary militancy; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Banning the song will not make vulnerable farmers (and generally under-policed rural populations) safer. 
 
Mainstream reporting, for all its laudable commitment to uncovering corruption, serves a particular social imagination; it is not that of the majority, and it is a social imagination that only speaks in hegemonic conceptions English. It is a language that constructs images of unstable, chaotic and unintelligible Black politicos.
 
Amongst Black colleagues, we confess our frustrations at how much is lost in translation in political discussion, not to us, but to our counterparts who are deeply Anglicised either by schooling or upbringing. We are up against thick and high Anglo-Saxon normativity and the mythical notions of English being the supreme language of political rationalism.
 
Yet shifting ones linguistic universe beyond English, into other languages deepens ones grasp of political dynamics. When politician A says  ‘eZulwini kungenwa ngoKhongolose’, we would share in the joke and put it on page five, instead of blazing it on front pages, drawing heated overreactions from Christians defending God’s name from being abused by these ANC bogeymen. The unwashed masses got the humour. 
 
It is in this sense of shared imaginations that I said to a friend, that we can move beyond our narratives of ‘race’ without diminishing the brutality of its past and present, by using African language idiom. We need to talk more of ubuntu, not ooboontoo, for the Anglicisation of the term in public discourse has denuded the term of its layered idiomatic meaning.
 
To have ubuntu is amongst other things, to have a visceral and deeply ingrained understanding of the effect your presence has on others. It is not simply to be kind or warm in some ‘Jambo!’ happy-go-lucky African Native way. It is a deeply humanistic conception of acceptance and embracing others as your kin.
 
These universes of meaning are missing in mainstream media because of the  dominance of white suburban English. Sometimes it is hilarious, but sometimes it is dangerous. The poor translation of words or social discourses amounts to a mistranslation of the truth; it has the effect of making what is not real, appear real, and then indeed, become real once taken up as a public fact.

I am behind Blade, it should be compulsory to learn an African language as a matter of course in this country; watch how walls will tumble and political debate sharpens as suburbia finally learns to share in the social imaginations of everyone else.

*Written by Nomalanga Mkhize (PhD Candidate at UCT) & first published in Grocott's Mail 28 April 2011.

Happy Africa Day! Even though I wonder what’s to be happy about it as I see no value in celebrating Africa Day when actual Africans have nothing to celebrate.

Not even unity.

There is no glue that holds Africans together instead we have a media that is perceived to be tearing it apart. We have a media that speaks an absolutely different language to the language spoken by the African. The heterogeneity of an African audience is something we have yet to come to grips with. When we speak of press freedom some would invoke the opposite – freedom from the press. We need a press that understands the context in which it operates. Sadly ours is a media that makes no effort to Africanise its narrative and news values and complexities.

For example: The prevalence of the Royal Wedding which occupied all our media, yet African royalty is treated with contempt, disdain and generally of a lesser currency than the set criteria of Western royalty.

Besides not paying homage to Africa respectfully, many African leaders view the media as somewhat of a younger sibling dying to tell “mommy” [read: public] what s/he did wrong. It annoys them. But make no mistake this is not an annoyance unique to leaders only, it is trickling down to the masses who are slowly resisting the media as its identity as a self-regulating, or what we call uzwilakhe, is fast-becoming apparent. To dismiss claims, leaders need only say “You know the media!” and everyone knows what they mean. The media has become this unilateral body that stands in isolation to the majorities of Africa.

I am not saying the media must stand down from exposing corruption, laziness, government incompetence and all other associates of what constituted the description of Africans by colonists. Yet, it seems the media still speaks to this stereotype. What I am saying is that Africa’s media should be aligning itself closer to the values of Africans (in terms of proximity and relevance).

Now by African I do no infer race, but rather location. At present we have a situation where the media are dominant presenters of language (Bill, 1991) and set national discourse – more than the number of discussions one has in a day. Yet, this dominating voice has no resonance with the majority. So who is Africa’s media speaking to? With what objectives in mind? Some would argue it speaks to a minority with media buying power, to affirm their worst fears. Some would say we have indigenous language media as forms of ‘divided illocution’ (Fill, 1986), which means all are served. How are they served though? And what are they served?

I ask this because the thing is news or media as we know it have evolved, but the last ones to realise this will be its producers. If we take a closer look at present-day news, they in actual fact focus less on what they are reporting. e.g. Open toilets. How many open toilets and people sitting on open toilets did you actually see during the flush of open toilet reports? Close to none. Instead reports on open toilets swirled around politicians; paraphrasing their statements, quoting them, yet telling us nothing about the actual open toilets, except that they exist. The proverbial shitstorm was shifted to accountability instead of reportage.

If anything the media have become ideological interventions that have hijacked their watchdog statuses in Africa. I fail to see how Africans in their struggles for power never covered means of holding their own leaders accountable. In days bygone leaders were held to account to by their communities. These days they are held to account by the media. The standard African question is: Who appointed this media? People do not elect themselves in African practise so what we are seeing is an Africa facing self-appointed public protectors.

To the minds of many leaders this is inconceivable. They fought, died or suffered only to have oPRESSive minions rain on their parade. That is how South Africa’s ANC is increasingly viewing the media. That is how African leaders like Mugabe view the media, etcetera. Hence the Anton Hammerls will get shot in numbers as this African intolerance of the unknown prevails. Hence things like the Protection of Information Bill will be passed into law and Media Tribunals will happen. Some might use Nigeria as a counter example (yesterday they passed their freedom of information bill, which I must add hasn't been signed by the current president. The former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, refused to sign such a bill into law in 2007. Think about the "why?"  Because there is an increasing resistance towards this unknown, yet bold, perceived-to-be-self-determining entity. So let's not get ahead of ourselves until President Goodluck Jonathan signs Nigeria's free press bill).

Signed or not signed, I am always amazed at how media players in Africa strut around oblivious to the fact that they are misunderstood. A sense of we-are-entitled-to-be-here, a sense of we-serve-the-public-interest, even though it's known they serve small interest groups. An African thing to do would be to sit down with African leaders establish your roles in their societies, ensure that your methods and objectives are understood, reach an agreement on measures like how to hold one another accountable. Understand their complexities - where they're coming from, what informs their decisions and how these dynamics pan out with their communities. To just report what you see, would be to scratch the surface. Work with them. Saying you will hold yourself accountable to yourself is nonsense for either party.

It’s important to note that I do not agree with much of what I have written here, but I am trying to come to terms with how Africa can be freed from the press and how the press can be free. The media is simply not speaking in the language of Africa. And by this I do not mean they must submit themselves to government and be lapdogs. I am saying the roles, now more than ever need to be cleared up. Otherwise we run the risk of “Aw dubul’ iMedia! Dubula! Dubula! [pause] Aw dubul’ iMedia...” being dubbed a struggle song in the near future.

If Cyndi Lauper were still writing songs she’d have penned “Primedia after Primedia” had she attended this year’s MTN Radio Awards. Talk Radio 702, 567 CapeTalk, 94.7 Highveld and 94.5KFM are Primedia’s offspring and boy are they overachievers if their 13 MTN Radio Awards are anything to go by [they took 17 awards last year]. 31 other radio stations were left to share the leftovers. ‘Station’, ‘Presenter’ and ‘Other’ categories were gobbled up by Primedia.

What I’d like to know is how this happens.

Radio 702 bag Radio Station of the Year [again]? I ask because with radio you are not dealing with a clear case of you-crossed-the-finish-line-first-therefore-you-win. MTN could argue that their radio awards are pinned on actual radio stations submitting entries, five-minute demos and 250-word compressed motivations on why they deserve to win before the judges step in. Well, they received more than 300 entries and only 31 were chosen. So let’s not even attempt the “It depends on whether you submitted an entry” excuse for Primedia’s success.

Furthermore it would seem the judging of these awards was rooted in extinct / golden era requirements of pace, style, nuance and ease on the ear on radio. Do people still look for that in radio? Nuance perhaps. But the rest? Boils down to personal preference, not set conventions. Such is living in a diverse community. Else you run the risk of prioritising a single set of standards around what constitutes better style, better pace etc without taking into account what works for that specific radio station’s listener beyond the ambit of YOUR standards.

Radio is by far the most subjective medium to ever attempt to rate in terms of quality of on-air presence. You could have the best voice, on-air team bonding and come across as knowledgeable or edutaining; yet you might not appeal to the next listener. How do listeners choose you? Look into that. You cannot award awards on navel-gazing mechanisms – whereby you only look at the presenters in isolation of their listeners. Furthermore, I get the sense that these awards carry an onus around how advertiser-friendly presenters and show packaging is. I mention this because lately radio and advertising are fast becoming interchangeable such that advertisers seem to think they can speak authoritatively over what radio is, should be and can’t be. Thus setting an additional judging criterion that isn’t even meant to be there. Fair enough though, radio stations have to make money or be advertiser-whipped. However, not to this extent where the advertising industry has actually swallowed the radio industry. You go to alleged radio conferences only to find they’re more advertising-on-radio conferences.
Focus on the medium, improve the medium and advertisers will follow, surely? Not vice versa. Anyway that’s another gripe for another blog.

Back to the awards: I was on the numbers game which seems to have been intentionally omitted from the judging criteria of these awards - resulting in a stamped “More listeners don’t mean good presenters or good radio” feel to the awards. I find this problematic as it suggests listeners do not have a choice in their listening habits. Unlike attending a philosophy lecture which could literally bore you to death but is essential to your studies, radio is not that - you can switch whenever it pleases you. Ukhozi does not have six million listeners by Zulu default. MetroFM does not have their five million by whatever-default profiling they attribute to themselves. Yes, there’s the music component, but new studies will tell you - music radio isn’t actually about the music at all. Fool yourself as you will. We live in times where your listener probably has had the songs you will play, months before they hit your playlist. Plus they actually have control over it, unlike alleged well-researched music rotation schedules. Your biggest drawcard as a radio station is in actual fact your on-air personalities. So pray do tell how do you assess a personality without taking into account how this personality is received?

The people’s medium must be judged by the people. You cannot leave personality assessments into the hands of a few or hands of the following great judges:

Koos Radebe,  Andy Rice, Anthony Duke, Daryl Ilbury, David Mashabela, Donald Liphoko, Gordon Muller, Jeremy Maggs, Treasure Tshabalala, Toby Shapshak, Zandile Nzalo, Tony Lankester, Andrew Human, Lance Rothschild, Lara Kantor, Lawrence Dube, Matona Sakupwanya, Musa Kalenga, Nomahlubi Simamane, Rob McLennan, Franz Kruger, Ryland Fisher, Stan Katz and Stuart Lee.

No doubt, these are respectable experts in their respective fields - the crème de la crème of radio and media in general. A high level delegation, which if I were to profile individually would be: They are so-called discerning radio listeners – not big fans of back-announcing and on-air chatter or content that does not speak to them in the manner in which they would like to be addressed. They most likely consume more Talk Radio than Music Radio [except Matona Sukupwanya who was literally thrown out of MetroFM as manager and coincidentally MetroFM received no awards beyond the Discovery Sports Centre show]. Some of these judges know and probably engage on a personal level with most of these Talk Radio show hosts. Speculative of me. Yes. Most likely though. How then are we to expect this calibre of judge to effectively gauge radio stations and personalities they have no listenercentric on-air knowledge of beyond a 250-word motivation? Judging radio is a very subjective game and as such if MTN is serious about hosting so called national Radio Awards and not just Primedia Radio Awards they need to open up the judging to encompass the actual listener for whom they are judging on behalf. Thereafter look at how they involve the listener. They’re MTN awards - emphasis on MTN – finding the listeners shouldn’t be difficult at all. The listener knows best as they are in actual fact the listener. You cannot prescribe how one can listen or why one can be a better listener than the other when dealing with such a listener-orientated medium. On the face of it this might seem very ignorant and a parallel argument to counter this could be drawn along the lines of advertising or better yet, television programmes, which are produced to entertain or influence their audience.

Yet, I maintain that radio is none of these. Radio is a medium that is owned by the listener. The clichéd intimate medium. How do you get into the shoes of individual listeners and speak on their behalf? That this is best? When your standards of best are clearly defined and detached from what’s best for the intended recipient. Yes. Talk Radio 702 serves its listenership best, in their way. Similarly as Umhlobo Wenene serves its listenership equally as best in line with its listener profile.

My radio training, radio preferences would’ve probably guided me to lean towards Talk Radio 702 presenters as well. Because they do their job well. However one has to be mindful of the fact that this is Talk Radio – its personalities and news presenters have extra mileage to showcase themselves, hone in on their craft (reading news, traffic, sport, etc) without having to be mindful of the 90 second or so constraints other format presenters have to negotiate. There has to be an element of relativity here. If we do not take into account the format differences it is inevitable that Talk Radio 702 will take these awards year in and year out. What does that do for radio? I could go on.

It’s Cape Town International Jazz Festival time. Or as some purists would prefer it: The Cape Town Jazz-Inspired Festival. The 12th one.

It was Thursday that I ambled into a restaurant where the minister of Arts & Culture, Paul Mashatile, was sitting with a group of artists. The meeting was not about the Jazz festival, but rather about issues affecting the arts in the Western Cape.

However, in the interests of keeping this jazz related I’ll relay a jazzy qualm the minister has – the lack of so-called local artists on the jazz festival line-up. In as much as the festival strives to be on a 50-50 representation of local and international artists, if one takes a quick glance at this year’s line-up you begin to wonder “Where are the South African artists?” If you look closer you'll realise there are many more South Africans though. At some stage the minister admitted to his department being a blind sponsor of the jazz festival as they seldom knew what the line-up would look like prior to sowing funds into the festival. Mashatile further vouched to change this – calling for his department’s active engagement in the actual organization of the jazz festival.

Tricky though. You see in the arts there’s this doing it for the passion and doing it for business juggle. The organizers of the Cape Town Jazz Festival, espAfrika, have successfully merged their business acumen with their passion for ‘jazz’. If you need any proof of this success, look no further than this festival’s R700 million national GDP contribution last year alone. This is business. Will a 70% or 80% local representation of artists in the line-up translate into business sense? Yes and no…

Now I could go on about such politics but it’s 1am on a Saturday as I write this. Earth, Wind & Fire are killing the old timers and their birds in the Kippies stage at the CTICC, right now. You can see the joy of being at the jazz for many in attendance. Spirits are high (in all senses of the pun) as many dash from one performance to the next. Nearly 34 000 people will grace this festival by the end of this weekend.

Great!

Now if you’ve followed my previous late night booze-fuelled jazz blog posts (2010, 2009, 2008 & 2007) you’ll see a change in content herein. Yes. You guessed right. I have not sat with a single performing artist for an interview thusfar. I have an international client with an insatiable appetite for our local artists – yet, that isn’t happening. How so? Apparently there are 600 journalists here who all made requests for one-on-one interviews therefore an interview ‘wishlist’ is largely going to be a wish list, nothing else. So I can’t speak about the nuances of the artists nor produce audio features on them, as yet. I can only speak about their performances:

Dave Koz – the local shebeens’ favourite, I kid you not, go to any shebeen and you’re likely to hear Dave Koz blarring through the speakers – had the crowd eating up all his notes (even better when Bebe Winans joined him on stage). Mozambique’s Ivan Mazuze was great. The Cape Town Tribute Band, although tasked with equipment teething problems were also a much appreciated experience. Christian Scott never disappoints. Hanjin was, in a comedic sense, great. As for Earth, Wind & Fire – well, you’d swear they composed the songs with the massive crowd they drew. Most appreciated was the fact that the sound was amazing on all stages.

Shoo! The paragraph above was a nightmare to write. It’s not what any journalist would hinge their writing on. One would envision personalised reflections on artist performances based on earlier one-on-one interviews. This is not happening. A press conference seldom cuts it as many journalists fear giving away their supposedly golden [read: “what did you have for breakfast?”]  questions for fear of responses being communal or not exclusive. Sadly the only time any journalist can be productive around events such as the Cape Town Jazz Festival is not on the actual performance nights – unless you’re a photojournalist or videographer – it’s at these press conferences. If you merely set-up journalists with watching performances you run the risk of contrite subjective reviews and Tweets. Plenty. You need to meet, tele-interview or digitally-interview your artists. Artists too must make an effort to get maximum interviews from such events. That’s just my personal take.

If you are in the Arts & Culture “business” – make the media your best friend. Above all be public relations savvy or work with a team that can give you extra mileage. There’s no cap to publicity… That said, I owe myself some sleep - before that let me go check out Tortured Soul on the Bassline stage… Day 2 to follow…

In South Africa we have a booming tabloid journalism market that’s overfed with stereotypes. From time to time mainstream media consumers take a peak into tabloidism and whenever they indulge in such peeping-Tommery they run the risk of running to the hills, tossing toys, whilst the day-to-day tabloid reader merely side eyes their reactions. It’s really like going to McDonalds and expecting to be served KFC or let me say it’s like buying a tabloid and expecting classy journalism, when thrashy dictates what it is.

That said here’s the censored Kuli Roberts article, I’ve been receiving requests for, titled Jou Ma Se Kinders:

Being from Cape Town, I must say I miss Cape coloured women.

When I was young I used to love playing with their silky hair and wished I could get rid of my kinky coarse variety.

“What’s wrong with you?” asks my friend while applying skin lightener?

“Black is beautiful. Why would you wanna be any other race?”

I ignore her and her weave and go back to my dreams of being yellow and speaking like I’m singing.

Coloured girls are the future for various reasons:

They will never leave dark foundation on your shirt after a hug.

You will never run out of cigarettes.

You will always be assured of a large family as many of these girls breed as if Allan Boesak sent them on a mission to increase the coloured race.

They don’t have to fork out thousands on their hair as they mostly have long silky hair that doesn’t need relaxers or weaves.

They always know where to get hair curlers and wear them with pride, even in shopping malls.

You don’t have to listen to those clicks most African languages have.

They are the closest thing to being a white woman and we know you black men love them as they look like they’ve popped out of an Usher music video.

Their bruises are more obvious than ours, so if you hit her it will be easier to see.

They don’t have to send their sons to initiation school, where they stand a chance of getting a horrendous infection and even dying. My friend disagrees with me about coloured women.

She insists that black guys don’t date crazy people.

“What?” she says. “Coloureds are nuts because:

They drink Black Label beer and smoke like chimneys.

They shout and throw plates.

They have no front teeth and eat fish like they are trying to deplete the ocean.

They love to fight in public and most are very violent.

They’re always referring to your mother’s this or your mother’s that.

They know exactly what tik is.

They love designer clothes.

They love making love and leave even the randiest negro exhausted.

They walk around in their gowns and pyjamas during the day. What is wrong with my friend? I wonder.

So what if folk walk around in their gowns and pyjamas during the day, especially since they will eventually go back to bed?

Why waste washing powder?

Shouting is also sometimes necessary, especially when you speak to folk like Jimmy Manyi, who might not have a clue what he is talking about.

Designer labels are mostly made in the Cape so why should they not love them?

Referring to one’s mother should also not be an issue unless a monkey gave birth to you.

Besides, reminding you of your mother shouldn’t be a bad idea. Call her now.

What the hell is wrong with loving sex? Should they hate it?

Just because my friend is a lousy lay doesn’t mean the entire coloured nation should not like protected sex.

Knowing what tik is doesn’t necessarily mean one is using it, I told my daft friend.

Saying they are violent is also a generalisation.

I know plenty of coloured fraudsters and coloured Hari Krishas.

Of course I miss Cape coloured people. Which other race do you know that is more obsessed with naai masjiene, Oh, and I don’t mean sewing machines.

Besides, only in the Cape would you hear somebody screaming out: “Jou ma owe jou hond sex geld!”

[by Kuli Roberts]

This writer no longer has a weekly column. I have no personal views on this. Instead for a sober analysis visit Jacques Rousseau's piece here.

PS:
The editor (Wally Mbhele) of the Sunday World in which this column first appeared should’ve taken the heat for this.
Much like Mondli Makhanya should’ve taken the heat for David Bullard’s Sunday Times article that got him fired.
Much like Linda Rulashe should’ve taken the heat for Jon Qwelane's Sunday Sun article that got him fired.
Much like the list is endless…

At the end of the day the same weak editor who let this slip through is the same weak editor that remains editing the next writer.

A year or so ago I was working with a visiting UK journalist (don’t worry Rob, I won’t mention your name) who, during a lunch break started talking about Nelson Mandela. Now in any given context talking about Mandela would seem normal, but what made this conversation odd was the angle – how about me working on Mandela’s forthcoming death? “It’s the next big thing!” Which was true and remains true. Somehow, I felt sickened by the idea of collating archived material and prepping death reports on a living being.

Yesterday, that conversation I had a year ago, became a reality - every journalist’s dream was about to come true. As I write this, the height of reporting is on the verge of being summated as each and every news crew pulls out camp chairs, drinks, snacks and of course recording equipment outside Milpark hospital. I can just see the packs of journalists ambulate outside the hospital each rehearsing their “In breaking news, Mandela has died!” and then stare into cameras with looks of surprise. The excitement and anticipation of this moment cannot go by unnoticed - some newsrooms have had departments dedicated to this for decades.

I’m willing to bet we’ll see some of the best compiled post-Mandela reports within minutes of his death. And as a ‘followee’ of mine on Twitter put it “Can we show concern without being alarmist”

No doubt, some of those ghouls prowling the hospital’s parkade, trying to climb walls, bridges or even sneak into the hospital as patients themselves probably harbour a conscience – a “this can’t be right” mentality. Some might even be concerned. But, I highly doubt it. So caught up in the moment that they’ve forgotten that therein lies a human being. Therein lies a father, grandfather and great-grandfather – to be so insensitive so as to want to interview near-grieving family is no longer news gathering, but a reflection of how inhumane we have become and desensitised to tragedy we are.

Granted we have been told Mandela is in a frail condition, however it has been said that his hospital visit is for mere check-ups. Yet, the media remains sceptical, “No, that won’t do – he must die!” It doesn’t quite wash for those ghouls in their camp chairs – they want to hear slow singing, see wreath-bearing and a hearse reversing in. Why else did they sleep outside a hospital? I mean who sleeps outside a hospital? Isn’t Johannesburg gutted by floods daily anyway? Unless you’re a vagrant, is that even normal?

We, at some stage, have to turn and ask ourselves why are those ghouls going to such extremes? Are you trying to tell me that all those extreme measures are in the name of Public Interest? Are we the public and our insatiable appetites for bad news that hungry for this particular story? I mean here we have a 92 year-old man, who spent a large portion of his life in jail. Obviously his health will wane and at some stage life will give in. However, staging a death camp for the living is no dignified send off for anyone. “They’re waiting for you to die tata” are probably Mandela’s bedside whispers.

Now as a journalist-in-denial I understand the textbook etiquette of these happy Milpark campers. I understand feeding public interest and I also understand the commercial value of such news. Mandela is a currency on his own.

However within my understanding I leave room to ponder the way in which the media is driven by ‘approved contradictions’ which actually stall its progress towards real new media. I often wonder how it is that when referring to media or new media all ideas rest upon the actual means of media and not the actual mediators. For example we celebrate social networking sites as being part of the advancement of media. Yet, in actual fact, nothing has changed - just a new telephone, medium but same reportage styles and guidelines. For real new media to exist we need to go beyond the medium towards humanity or to put it bluntly, apply our brains. Because ways of what's-news? or reporting are and have been on autopilot for way too long.

Our entire media is still pinned on traditional values or reporting and privileging information based on archaic formulas. Surely by now we would have better ways of telling – without necessarily always justifying everything with “public interest therefore it is newsworthy.” The media needs to take a look at itself and allow for more creativity, beyond inverted pyramids and breaking news structures. Add a touch of being human? Perhaps be more sensitive and attuned to the actual damages and desensitisation our journo footprints leave behind. Furthermore I would perhaps advise our media to work together on these Mandela reports - feed off one another, provide steady and measured reports together and not attempt to overwhelm the audience. In the spirit of unity is how we should approach this Mandela story - the way he would have done it, in the spirit of unity. No time for Paparazzi antics here. Respect.

With that said, I trust that Mandela’s recovery will be a speedy one so as to put a damper on camper spirits outside; as well as reunite him with his family. The sooner this happens, the quicker those campers can go do something else like swimming in the country-wide floods and telling us all about it.

“You!” he yelled. “Stand still!”

At first I thought these words were directed at someone else until I felt a hand grab my shoulder. It was in Rondebosch, 2005. The sun had just set and I was walking to the shops. I was frisked and asked where I was going. Having lived there for five years already I didn’t bother to dignify that question with a response - especially with many other people walking up and down Main Road - I just stared at the potbellied Afrikaner cop and his silent partner. Without giving it any second thoughts I mumbled “fucking racists” – needless to say the cop lost his marbles till I eventually told him I lived there and that took some proving...

To cut a long story short I will place this experience against the backdrop of Mam’ Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s latest incident in which her cavalcade was pulled over for alleged speeding and some roughing up before she intervened with expletives and is now laying charges against the police.

Let’s get one thing straight. I do not endorse the actions of Madikizela-Mandela and agree that going over the speed limit is wrong. However it would be unwise of us to not dig deeper into the dynamics of what was at play here.

Somehow I sympathise with Madikizela-Mandela as within her I am sure she sensed - a common feeling amongst many blacks - an invisible type of racism that sought to make her unseen or unaccepted. Yes, an alleged crime was committed, but bear with me. To immediately dismiss her response to police as political arrogance or undermining the law would be naiveté on our part. To give you an idea of where I’m going: Would the encounter have panned out differently were she pulled over by black police officers?

I ask this because I often wonder how transformation within South Africa’s police force has turned out to be. You cannot tell me that the very same police who tortured, looked down upon and called blacks Kaffirs at every turn have now suddenly been lulled by a mere voter’s tick in 1994. Where I’m going with this is that where white police officers are involved it is far easier to evoke racial paranoia from their black subjects – because such police are icons of racism. Nothing they do or say can ever be merited with sincerity in the eyes of blacks even when the blacks are indeed in the wrong. This is a sad realisation and known known within white communities: “Nothing we ever do will ever be right in the eyes of blacks.”

How is it that a society such as South Africa has not looked into relationships between white policemen and black subjects? To make matters worse the authority that police uniforms afford white officers opens itself up to being misread as being stuck-in-the-past – via symbolism of past - hence Madikizela-Mandela’s bodyguard was allegedly able to jump out of the car yelling “Who the hell do you think you are to want to search this vehicle, we are not in the era of apartheid any more”

We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sands of racial enmity and wish away race because essentially it is a large determining factor in our day-to-day encounters – subtle or blatant – it is still a lived reality for many blacks and not just a perception as many would have it. Fact of the matter is that black people were and are wounded, however today they are proverbial patients dealing with proverbial doctors who do not want to engage nor examine their wounds and merely tell them “The pain will go away, put a plaster” even though the wound is rotting inside.  Do you perhaps not think that every time a doctor tells you this, you will eventually develop a thick skin or perhaps come to resent that doctor and all doctors alike?

This is our reality and incidents such as Madikizela-Mandela’s are outbursts or symptoms of the boiling pot of race and if we continue to simmer in not-the-race-card-again dismissals the pot might spill over.

I first wrote this piece for News24, however upon reading the comments I felt it was wasted therein... as the complexities of race continue to fly over heads. Using Winnie Madikizela-Mandela as an example might not have been the best, however I trust you were able to read between the lines.

“What rift?” was the first thought that came to mind as I trolled through The New York Times online.

Little did I know that what I was about to read belonged in the examples-of-bad-journalism folder with an introduction that reads like a requiem for a dream: “The University of Cape Town was once a citadel of white privilege on the majestic slopes of Devil’s Peak…” I’m not sure why “the majestic slopes of Devil’s Peak” is not credited to a Peter Anderson lecture or two, but anyway, let’s lay it down to coincidental descriptions.

Look.

I’m not going to rip off this article. If anything, its intentions and possibilities are blasting through inkjet cartridge seams (waiting to be released / written). What I will do is engage the unsaids of this NY Times article. BUT. First let me get the following out the way:

The article reads like an undergraduate exposition suited to impress a lecturer or some academic panel beknown only to the writer. Secondly, some of the source material quoted is actually from other TV stations’ archived interviews. On a day-to-day newsroom basis this would seem like doing research, but the minute your article gives the impression that you conducted such referenced interviews yourself, well, you know what the chorus is to such behaviour. Speaking of which I counted no less than seven, I repeat seven, interviewees in this ‘rift’ prose – which is quite telling considering the short word count – think paraphrased article. Thirdly, I have a problem with people who interview students. I tend to find interviewing students quite problematic. Don’t get me wrong. It’s easy - far too easy in fact and a shortcut to pilfer whichever points you know you won’t get from ‘the authorities’ so to speak.

Speaking of which, I have yet to encounter an interviewed student who has been 100% over the moon with how they were portrayed once all goes to print. And this bitter taste tingling sensation is not limited to students alone – ask any politician. Sadly, it is most likely that one will never be happy with what comes out – especially if we’re talking print media – where you have no control, unless you stage a sit-in on the editor’s desk or the interviews intention was nothing but a good PR exercise on your behalf. And to this effect, I would gently tug on universities to play a role in protecting students from such exposure. Much like the medical student, Lwando Mpotulo, who in the NY Times videocast insert - accompanying said article - is portrayed as the poorest of the poor reaching out for a plate of food from Fedics caterers, whilst asserting the need for the “necessary evil” of race-based admissions. To get fed?

Anyway. Allow me to flog a dead horse: Race remains one of the best proxies for admission to universities, particularly within the context of South Africa - note that I said “one of…” and not the “only one” - for if we are to address the inequalities created by our past it is only logical that we redress such via race. Not in the an-eye-for-an-eye sense but in the fixing / restorative  sense which I usually exemplify by saying that when your car’s gearbox is bust, you don’t go and replace the accelerator pedal; you replace or fix the gearbox. To this day there are hardened minds that do not want to acclimatise to this reality and that our inequalities are race-based. This is not reverse racism. I do not understand nor do I intend to ever understand such hardened thinking.

Most recently there's a growing trend in these admissions-to-universities debates that seeks to convolute pro-race proxy arguments by conveniently citing the growing number of black middle class and elite black students. To say that UCT or any other institution largely attracts and retains blacks that are from well-off families, is to fail to acknowledge the growing number of so-called lower classed black students silently filtering through the system, studying hard, not making much noise about being disadvantaged and eventually graduating regardless of how long it takes. And if there are black middle-to-upper class students who fit in perfectly well and are on par with white students, you then run the risk of creating the impression that middle-to-upper class blacks are ineffective in the bid to diversify or ‘democratise’ (as Adam on Facebook terms it) institutions. Because by virtue of class, they are white – white in their thinking, white in their grasp of the day-to-day dynamics of living in South Africa and white in their socio-economic standings. It is exactly this type of thinking – that seeks to split blacks into high and low orders – that is the problem. We are a society that is continuously plagued with creating difference and placing emphasis on difference at all costs. Then one wonders how apartheid came to be. It is when that poor student, is made to feel [note: not see, but feel] these class distinctions and starts deeming him/herself as inferior. Is that what we go to school for?

To continue to rouse up socio-economics or class as the new race or the preferred race replacement is equally insulting and damaging to the perceived lowest orders of the class ranks. Furthermore, to create the impression that well-off UCT black students are anti-Affirmative Action, whilst not-well-off UCT black students are pro-Affirmative Action is what I would deem the creation of rifts instead. Exactly what the referenced New York Times article achieves intentionally or unintentionally. Make no mistake, the rift is not about Affirmative Action. In fact there's no rift. Affirmative action it is, Affirmative Action it will be. Get more blacks in. And contrary to research findings accepting more blacks in will not translate into them expecting universities such as that of Cape Town to become townships, to speak their language, be loud, have riots etc. No. That is nonsense. We have to however acknowledge that class [upper to middle class] academically privileges and creates distinctions along the lines of race. Since the majority of this country remains in lower classes – the scales are automatically rendered uneven in such cases and thus we still end up conforming to the ideals of apartheid. We cannot use academic excellence alone as a proxy, largely because class affords some better opportunities to academically excel and get into institutions of higher learning.

Universities should be working harder on programmes that will ensure easy transitions or adjustments into their programmes for their previously disadvantaged intakes. Because, by the look of things it’s going to take a long time before such grooming can happen in rural high schools. Unless admitting black students from disadvantaged backgrounds is done to merely prove “You see? They’re not coping! They must stay in their homeland universities!” we need to take quicker steps towards developing such programmes and in-depth studies to ensure scales are proportionally evened out - pretty fast and not after two to three years of suicidal ambling on university avenue.

I will make no reservations in stating my utter disgust at the levels of gutter journalism employed by eTV’s 3rd Degree.

Last night, 9 November 2010, 3rd Degree embarked on screening their pilgrimage to find the Holy Grail, sorry I mean the most barbaric Ukuthwala practitioners, in the Eastern Cape.

Now Ukuthwala is a practise, which in its most basic form, means ‘To Carry’. Within a traditional context it specifically refers to carrying or taking an unsuspecting wife-to-be to the groom’s family. Yes. I know. Savage. Right? How dare women’s rights be trampled upon like that? Yes. Yes. Would it make a difference if I told you Ukuthwala actually resembles arranged marriages? Much like the ones that continue to go unabated in India and other parts of the world I haven’t bothered to google?

But because we’re in South Africa and this is being practised by an inferior race once-and-continuously stripped of its identity, such cannot be palatable?
A race that comprises of over-grown children, inept of making their own decisions in their own land.
A race whose practises are continuously reduced to triviality via the ease to mock without much media literate opposition from said race.

Anyway.

3rd Degree, in it’s pilgrimage to the Eastern Cape, interviewed children around the ages of 12, 14 and so on who had either been 'cooped' or ‘abducted’ into one of these arranged marriages, ‘raped’ and thereafter forced to live with the kidnapper.

Before I say that this is not the norm.

Before I say that you cannot tarnish an entire practise based on the activities of a few.

Before I even begin to ask questions about interviewing children in the media (You just can’t! Especially when they are not fully media literate – to them it’s just Im-going-to-be-on-TV hype)

Before I even begin to ask about matters of consent and proper interviewee briefing.

Before all of that.

I’d kindly like to know “What the fuck is wrong with you eTV?"

This type of show, the negative portrayal and one-sidedness on Ukuthwala is a classic example of how the media swindles audiences to self-hate and self-de-appreciate via distorted selectively damaging reports on cultural rites. I watched a stream of Tweets under the #3rdDegree tag on Twitter and was quite incensed by the amount of influence and bickering this caused owing to the fact that 3rd Degree failed to put the subject of Ukuthwala in its proper context. Their pre-pilgrimage brainstorming session must have been as follows:

Deborah: We need to expose those savage Ex-ho-sas down there in Lu-siki-siki who are marrying little children!

3rd Degree Team: Yes, Deborah. Yes!

Deborah: We must make sure we belittle those people, mock them hard and trample on their culture – regardless of any positive outcomes that ukuthwala has and might yield when practiced correctly and by those who subscribe to it.

3rd Degree Team: *Cheering*

I find it very difficult to stomach this type of journalism. It is not investigative. Make no mistake. It is not. It is sabotage-like in its intention and I’d go as far as saying it is the remnants of unconscious racism. To even pick such interviewees [children and rural subjects - unaccustomed to media objectives] reveals a predatory intention to exploit the miseries of hijacked cultural rites. Yes, in life almost anything is prone to be corrupted or taken advantage of. That's life. And trust me the type of interviewees selected, and I’m not undermining them, but the type of interviewees – rural, children, etc – are the very same type that will feed ‘umlungu’ / 'baas' exactly what he/she wants to hear; tell you what you want to hear to pacify you and get you off their backs. 3rd Degree could have done in-depth research on Ukuthwala and learnt that Ukuthwala is something that still happens. It is a protected practice whereby in which a young woman who breaks into menstruation thereafter undergoes Intonjana which acknowledges her transition into adulthood. At this stage if a man has spotted her, it gets discussed by the two families and it is agreed that uzakuthwalwa on such-and-such a day at this-and-that particular venue. Get it? So the mother will send the daughter to the shops or river knowing full well that she is going to be carried away once there. That is Ukuthwala. Why call it abduction and kidnapping? What do you seek to achieve via such words? Exactly.

Another problem that arises, is the manner in which a girl is defined as an adult through such a practise. Non-traditional laws define adult as one above 18 or so. And yet this has not been the case in traditional definitions. Therefore in the context of a constitutional framework – taking a woman who has been defined by culture as an adult, but not by law – is in fact illegal. This then puts such cultural practices into jeopardy as they’re not accommodated and cannot be accommodated as they are automatically criminal. It also becomes unacceptable to those uninitiated on the origins of the practice. Add 3rd Degree to this and you have yourself savagery, rape, ‘child’ abuse, abduction or whatever you’d prefer to call the insignificant other’s ways of doing.

It’s rather sad that after 16 years under the myth of democracy we still have a media so oblivious to the harm it continuously imposes upon society in general as well as sensitive cultural dynamics.