Couldn't stand the weather...
Okay, much as it might bore you, I'm going to ask you to read an op-ed piece published to the Web by one of our leading news sources. Go for it...
The media makes the headlines; we don't just write them.
On Tuesday morning, the Cape's broadsheets and tabloids portrayed a gruesome murder of two young men displaying their naked corpses on their front pages.
Of course, the first question is: Why didn't the police cover up the bodies when they arrived at the scene? Weren't they supposed to do that? The scene with two bodies under grey police blankets could have - and should have - told the gruesome story of what is happening in our society.
But, the police did not do their job.
And, granted, the broadsheets may have had serious debate on the pros and cons of running with those images. The tabloids, I'm sure, could not believe their luck thanks to a negligent police force.
But stick to the broadsheets. Is it good enough to argue that "showing it as it is", to show the extent of what is wrong in our society makes it justifiable? Was it in the "public interest"?
In plain language: Showing the defenseless (sic), naked bodies of the two victims was extremely disrespectful. The human rights of these two men were ignored. In fact, they were dehumanised.
We as the public are also dehumanised as a consequence. We didn't have a choice but to be confronted with the cover page. In movies you get an indication of what you could expose yourself to, and have a choice; in TV news you get a warning. With a newspaper, you don't. And one would hope that the paper would make ethical, responsible decisions.
Society as a whole, in fact, was dehumanised and desensitised. If this is becoming so "normal" that we show it on our front pages, what is the next barrier?
In the chapter titled "Stepping on toes: public sensitivities" in Black, white and grey. Ethics in South African journalism by Franz Krüger, the BBC is quoted: "With some news stories a sense of shock is part of a full understanding of what has happened. However, the more often the viewers are shocked, the more it will take to shock them."
One can say that by showing the detail of such horrible, terrible, nauseating misdeeds, the media contributes to a society already staggering under crime and violence, where such crime and such violence becomes "normal".
It is for "entertainment value" that these images are splashed on our front pages? We are all drawn into this spiral of violence.
Is the media, in fact, contributing to it instead of shocking us into action?
Our newspapers, it seems, are not only mirror-images of that terrible flaw in our society, but are also exacerbating the craziness of it all.
Like a train that stops at every station, | We all deal with trials and tribulations. | Fear hangs the fellow that ties up his years. | Entangled in yellow and cries all his tears.
Thank you. Mercifully, that's the end of it. For you, anyway. I live with this sort of crap. Have you ever, in a mainstream publication, read such trite, poorly written drivel? Judith Miller may have a bad name, but she can at least a) plagiarise White House chickenhawk memos, b) rely on her sub-editors to correct her grammar, and c) pose as a journalist.
I mean, for God's sake... "On Tuesday morning, the Cape's broadsheets and tabloids portrayed a gruesome murder of two young men displaying their naked corpses on their front pages." I read that (after the brain-curdling lead in) and went into a flat spin.
Two guys in their mid-twenties were, as far as we know, hijacked after partying at a Camps Bay restaurant. Allegedly abducted by gangsters undergoing initiation, they were stripped, terrorised, and executed before their bodies were dumped at the side of one of Cape Town's busiest highways.
They were not "displaying their naked corpses". Even were they divine puppeteers capable of such an act, their exhibition would not equate to gruesome murder. You get my drift; language is being murdered here.
An immediate presumption of the reader's first question (should there indeed be one) is dumb beyond belief. When I finally figured out what our hapless op-ed writer was trying to say in the preceding sentence, I did not automatically ask myself why the police had not covered the men's bodies.
Our police are inept, corrupt dullards hell bent on seeing through eight-hour shifts with as little effort as possible. Given their payslips, it doesn't surprise me they don't function as we'd like them to. Procedure has gone to hell in a hand basket and no cop in his or her right mind gives a damn. With a national murder rate second to none and no psychiatric services available to police, I suspect most of them are incapable or beyond taking suburban sensibilities into account.
In a horribly awkward, twisted way, our correspondent eventually cuts to the chase and the 'op' of the 'ed' comes to the fore. It seems newspapers should perhaps not put pictures of dead people on their front pages. Why the hell not? Where does this person live? Newspapers exist to feed the families of those owning them, offer sheltered employment to those they employ, and give their advertisers and customers exactly what they want.
It is and always has been all about the bucks. Newspapers are no longer charities offering news to an educated or discerning readership. They do not exist to "speak truth to power". Today, romantic facts of yesteryear are not practicable and make no money. Above the fold, lurid lies and below-the-belt tactics work best.
Ah, stuff it. "The human rights of these two men were ignored. In fact, they were dehumanised." Ho ho ho. I'd say they were dehumanised. I'd also agree that the vile punks who murdered the two youngsters probably weren't unduly concerned about their 'human rights'.
The newspapers? They covered the story. Whether they did so in good or bad taste is beside the point. Let me put this to our columnist. Their reportage of this "...horrible, terrible, nauseating misdeed..." does not 'draw us' "...into this spiral of violence." Like it or not, we're there already, kiddo. The newspapers have been a large part of the problem for decades. We are certainly not...
....umm, let me figure out what's going on here...
"We didn't have a choice but to be confronted with the cover page. In movies you get an indication of what you could expose yourself to, and have a choice; in TV news you get a warning. With a newspaper, you don't."
Jesus Christ! I know people frequently expose themselves in movies, but I had no idea... you're kinky.
Oh, wait a minute... I get it (as does our writer; frequently it seems—at the outset, we almost 'got' two "gruesomes" into one sentence). Listen, Bubba, nobody forces me to read the newspaper. I did not see photographs of dead bodies. Why? With the exception of Vrye Weekblad and the Mail & Guardian, I stopped buying the local papers in 1984. I did so because they lost sight of their purpose; because they became as slipshod, sloppy and shit-brained as the cops who, at the time, were murdering people all over the Cape Peninsula.
Why did the newspapers descend to deception, self-censorship and the bottom line? Because, back in 1984, it was easy and most white South Africans did not want them to do their job which, as we all know, is to give us the facts; those nebulous snippets vital to "the public interest".
Agh, damn it. Let's drop this. I'm tired of it.
Before we go, though, let's give the answer begged by that headline, which sails remarkably close to the edge of linguistic acceptability, "Is South Africa's media crazy?" Yeah, it are.
That's it. I'm done. Rant over. I've cooled off and have slipped into counselling mode. Look, the above article constitutes execrable writing. In the real world, and supposing the author has innate talent—giving the lie to this ghastly piece, he or she should be driven out of the newsroom and sent back to journalism school. But this is South Africa. Agog at the poor prose, I finished the piece to learn that the author, Lizette Rabe, is...
"...head of the postgraduate Department of Journalism at the University of Stellenbosch, a Sanef council member and Sanef-convenor for the Western Cape. And she's addicted to news."
Well, there you go. Things aren't as bad as they seem. She has been sent back to journalism school.
Changes come before we can grow. | Learn to see them before we're too old. | Don't just take me for tryin' to be heavy. | Understand, it's time to get ready for the storm.
Stevie Ray Vaughan | Couldn't Stand the Weather
