I have said all these nice things about her because it just goes to show that no matter how talented you are there will always be complications when writing about religion and politics. Even the best of us [Verashni] will occasional battle.

In the opening paragraph of the story Verashni manages to weaken her entire argument against Zuma by stating the following:

You know, it’s difficult enough being a Christian these days. Not only are there the money-making quacks to avoid, we also have to put up with smug and ill-read atheists. A tough job, all in all.

I believe that the argument is weakened because Verashni singles out one group to take aim at another.

Why is is that Verashni needed to firstly mention Atheists at all and secondly mention them in such a condescending and mocking tone? Hypocrisy? I think so. Verashni, how could you possibly consider writing an article criticising Zuma’s opinion on religion while in the opening paragraph of that criticism take a jab at another group?

There are a few things after the fact that bothered me a little bit more than the initial statement. In a reply to @gordonwells @michaelmeadon on Twitter Verashni believes she didn’t make a generalization. I sort of agree but why single out the “smug Atheists”? Why not applaud the well-read ones? Here’s that tweet: “True. Which is why I didn’t make a generalization. I spoke about a small group of people called smug atheists.”

Then Verashni states that the comment was a throw-away: “Not sure i DID want that. It was just one throw-away line that they’re ALL focusing on now. Sigh.” If it was a throw-away comment then why put it in the opening paragraph or article at all? When not just leave it out? Why pick on Atheists of any kind?

I agree with many of the comments in the original article but most of all what I’d like to add to the debate is that it’s not OK to single out a group in a condescending way if you are an impartial journalist whether you are writing an opinion piece or not. If the shoe was on the other foot and I’d written an article and added in a throw-away: “I hate dealing with Cheats, murderers and cocky Christians”. I imagine that the religious in the crowd would have a few things to say about that.

It’s the same thing. I don’t like being bundled with “Money-making quacks” or “smug and ill-read Atheists”. I am neither but now anyone who read her story thinks that Atheists are smug and ill-read.

Verashni, if you think it’s tough being a Christian in this world, walk a mile in my shoes.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Keep your friends close and enemies closer.
Who gate-keeps the gatekeeper?

Image courtesy of Simon Dingle

Let me state upfront that I am in support of WikiLeaks and Assange. I think he is fast become a world wide target for governments and private entities and he needs to be protected and WikiLeaks needs to be secured.

I must also state however, that I am a journalist by trade. I have studied media theory, media law, media ethics and many, many more subjects around media and journalism. Assange is now in the business of media and publishing and has dabbled in media practices in the past (He ran an activist magazine when he was a kid) but he is, by trade, a programmer. This is scary to me. It’s scary to me that he is skilled and well-versed in technology platforms, that he is well-connected and that he is being sent some of the most sensitive information the world has every seen. Let me reiterate: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What makes Assange different? He is no saint (I don’t even believe that saints are saints). There is no such thing as altruism, so what’s in this for Assange?

What does Assange get out of doing what he is doing? Everyone does something for a reason. There’s no such thing as a free lunch so who’s paying for Assange’s lunch? Who’s paying Assange NOT to publish their sensitive documents? What happens when Assange is bumped in to walking down the street and he launches an all out information war on the person who bumped in to him?

How much does the public really know? As well protected as WikiLeaks is, is not perhaps too open and therefore hiding something in plain sight?

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I am 100% certain that human beings are corruptible, are fallible and the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. How can we possibly put so much faith in to one human being and trust him with all of this information? I know that there is much information being published by WikiLeaks that is open to the public, but for every document being published I am sure there are thousands and thousands that are being sifted through, stored and held in the back just in case they are needed further down the line.

Again, I have to reiterate here that I am in complete support of what has been done so far by Assange and WikiLeaks but we have to be sure, as a people, not be swept up in the moment and maintain our role as public gatekeepers. Just because WikiLeaks is publishing it does not make it 100% fact, does not give anything context or relevance and does not mean that the source is reliable.

What I am calling for, I think, is a sense of ownership of information, judgement and opinion. Have your own opinion and research it, inform yourself and spread the knowledge you gain.

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the reprisals against journalists by Shivambu. His actions constitute a blatant attack on media freedom and a grave infringement on Constitutional rights. It is a disturbing step towards dictatorial rule in South Africa. We call on the ANC and the ANC Youth League to distance themselves from the actions of Shivambu. The media have, time and again, been a vital democratic
safeguard by exposing the actions of individuals who have abused their positions of power for personal and political gain.

The press have played a vital role in the liberation struggle, operating under difficult and often dangerous conditions to document some of the most crucial moments in the struggle against apartheid. It is therefore distressing to note that certain people within the ruling party are willing to maliciously target journalists by invading their privacy and threatening their colleagues in a bid to silence them in their legitimate work.

We also note the breathtaking hubris displayed by Shivambu and the ANC Youth League President Julius Malema in their response to the letter of complaint. Shivambu and Malema clearly have no respect for the media and the rights afforded to the media by the Constitution of South Africa. Such a response serves only to reinforce the position that the motive for leaking the so-called dossier was not a legitimate concern, but a insolent effort to intimidate and bully a journalist who had exposed embarrassing information about the Youth League President.
We urge the ANC as a whole to reaffirm its commitment to media freedom and other Constitutional rights we enjoy as a country.

Blog Roll

http://thoughtleader.co.za/siphohlongwane
http://rwrant.co.za
http://vocfm.co.za/blogs/munadia/
http://vocfm.co.za/blogs/shafiqmorton/
http://blogs.news24.com/needpoint
http://capetowngirl.co.za
http://thoughtleader.co.za/sentletsediakanyo
http://thoughtleader.co.za/davidjsmith
http://letterdash.com/one-eye-only
http://boyuninterrupted.blogspot.com
http://amandasevasti.com
http://blog.empyrean.co.za/
http://letterdash.com/brencro
http://6000.co.za
http://chrisroper.co.za
http://pieftw.com
http://hamishpillay.wordpress.com
http://memoirs4kimya.blogspot.com
http://thoughtleader.co.za/azadessa
http://watkykjy.co.za
http://fredhatman.co.za
http://thelifeanddeathchronicles.blogspot.com/
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/common-dialogue/
http://www.clivesimpkins.blogs.com/
http://mashadutoit.wordpress.com
http://nicharalambous.com
http://sarocks.co.za
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/stompies/
http://helenmoffett.book.co.za/blog/
http://01universe.blogspot.com
http://groundwork.worpress.com
http://iwrotethisforyou.me
http://fionasnyckers.book.co.za
http://attentiontodetail.wordpress.com
http://blogs.women24.com/editor
http://www.missmillib.blogspot.com
http://snowgoose.co.za
http://dreamfoundry.co.za
http://www.vanoodle.blogspot.com
http://www.exmi.co.za
http://cat-dubai.blogspot.com
http://alistairfairweather.com
http://www.zanedickens.com
http://www.nickhuntdavis.com
http://guysa.blogspot.com
http://book.co.za
http://baldy.co.za
http://skinnylaminx.com
http://blogs.african-writing.com/zukiswa
http://www.mielie.wordpress.com
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/gatherer/
http://thoughtleader.co.za/sarahbritten
http://stii.co.za
http://blogs.news24.com/FSB_AP
http://twistedkoeksuster.blogspot.com
http://whensmokegetsinyoureyes.blogspot.com/
http://trinklebean.wordpress.com
http://commentry.wordpress.com/
http://matthewbuckland.com
http://blogs.news24.com/colour-me-fran
http://gormendizer.co.za

But on Sunday I was involved in a freak accident involving a plane, a bakkie and a few bloggers freebording. I ran towards the plane as did our whole group and not for one second did I think about stopping, taking photos or video and sending word to a media organisations. I could’ve, I am capable and I know how to, but I’d rather help. It’s that simple and now I am certain of that.

Talya Goldberg raised an interesting point: By following @aplusk over @cnnbrk is it not reinforcing, notion that celebrity news/culture is more nb than what is happening in the world?

I think this is an extremely valuable debate that needs to take place.

Celebrity vs Mainstream Media

I studied Journalism at University. I wanted to be a journalist since I was 10 years old. I let that all go. I feel that world is shifting away from mainstream propaganda to celeb propaganda. Let’s be real here, both are forms of propaganda. Who own what media organisation is becoming a massive blur between government organisations, private organisations in bed with government organisations and one-person-dictatorship run organisations. So who’s to say that mainstream is more productive or beneficial than celebrity-generated news or information?

The Responsible Celebrity

It’s not a habit of mine to follow celebrities. I am one of those information consumers who takes a variety of factors in to account when reading types of media. I try to know who owns what, who’s in bed with who and how often they are meeting up. The same applies to Celebrities. I try to make up my own mind about who is an “honest” celebrity and who’s just in it for the next big break. Social media has created a fair amount of transparency for celebrities who are willing to embrace the technology out there.

Case in point is Mr Ashton Kutcher who has jumped head first in to Twitter and Qik. Kutcher and his wife Demi Moore are streaming their lives live as often as one can handle. Kutcher streams video live from his phone on Qik and is constantly tweeting. I like that, I can relate to that and I am sure that the almost 1 000 000 followers agree with me.

With 1 000 000 followes just imagine if Ashton Kutcher was to endorse a fight against the shocking regime in Zimbabwe, or if he was to condone the killing of innocents in Tibet or anywhere else. He would have 1 000 000 people listening, responding and interacting with him and this information.

This is where it becomes increasingly important for celebrities to become socially responsible people. Many are not and this is where the danger comes in. This is where mainstream media has the upper hand.

Ethics in the mainstream

It is generally accepted that the media is the Fourth Estate. The people who govern the people who govern. But who governs the fourth estate? No one ever did. Wait, that’s a lie. There are groups of media leaders who form editors forums and sit and govern one another.

There are trained journalists who are taken to task for factual accuracy and ethical reliability. This is all accepted. But do I care as a run-of-the-mill citizen consuming this media? No. Generally not. Nowadays it’s so easy for me to get online and read the same story with variations of facts from a variety of media organisations.

What I want is to make up my own mind. Just as the celebrities want to do and should be allowed to do so.

Celebstream is the new Mainstream

Recently celebrity has become the new hotness in every way. From their social media campaigns to flashing their under-areas to paparazzi to endorsing NGO’s and social causes.

So why would the same not apply to information resources?

I am in no way saying that the celebstream is going to replace the mainstream. I am saying that the two are now heavily entrenched in society. The maistream is becoming a less and less trusted resource by the masses as citizens are taking ownership of their information and news. Celebrities are simply more popular citizens, leaders and trendsetters so they are setting the standards now. However scary a prospect that is, it’s the truth.

On a side not: I still maintain that media should never pay to promote events or attend functions.

I absolutely love Zapiro’s work. I think the man is a genius and one of South Africa’s great heroes. With that said, I think he has made a shocking error with his book launch.

It is not clear whether Zapiro is calling the shots or whether his PR agency has completely and utterly lost their minds. Either way I am a bit shocked.

To attend Zapiro’s book launch as media is going to cost R200 per person. Crew of two = R400 for the event. I have done many weird, strange, odd, different and uncomfortable things in my time in the practice of journalism. I have NEVER paid to cover a story or promote an event.

Zoopy was told to pay R200 per person to attend the event and were basically told that we should feel lucky because media gets a 50% discount. Really? Media get a discount, well gee-wizz-wow I am bowled over at your kindness.

Direct quote from “events coordinator”:

As per our discussion earlier, unfortunately we don’t allow any media to attend any of our upcoming events for free.
Our normal price per person to attend the event is R427-50 including VAT, however we offer Media a discounted rate of R200-00 per person including VAT.
Should you still be interested to attend the event, please contact me before the end of today and have your credit card details ready to process the payment online as we only accept payments upfront to pay the venue. Our system is set-up to only accept credit card payments when a booking is made 5 working days prior to an event.

So in return for our R400 Zapiro’s book launch will get national exposure, a professionally produce media video and the possibility to be featured on some of the biggest news websites in the country. That sounds like a fair trade to me.

I am sorry but I don’t care if you are a journalism intern, the editor of the biggest magazine or Jeremy bloody Clarkson, media should not have to pay to attend any launch of any book that could aid in the sales of that book.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The frustrating thing is that Zoopy (and I am sure many other media organisations) have covered Zapiro launches and events very successfully and for free in the past:

If you want to read Zapiro I suggest you visit Mail&Guardian online every day and have a look at Zapiro’s free.

Again I need to state that I think that Zapiro cartoons and all of his work is absolutely incredible, so don’t make us pay to help you spread the word.

Thanks to the involved party for doing a great job. Here’s the video:

I’ve wanted to take part in this event for a while now but never seemed to get around to it (or get invited). This year however, I have been invited to speak about the tools that can aid citizen journalists and the available services that one can use.

This is an extremely interesting topic for me as I have made a slow and slight transition from mainstream journalism to a more citizen journalism role through my blogs and social media.

I’ll be posting the presentation online once I’m done with it but I doubt it will make too much sense as I enjoy the sound of my own voice and like to make this the focus of my presentations.

Nonetheless the entire weekend (four days) will be great. Matthew Buckland and Vincent Maher will be there and apparently our first stop is the old faithful Rat & Parrot. B-E-A-UTIFUL!

Some people seemingly took great offence that there where no people of colour in the article. Rafiq was invited to participate, he declined. The angle of the article was simply an interview and answer process. Certain people who are major players in the online market were asked to name three people who they would want to work with in the online arena. These people did so. Not based on racial innuendos as justifications. These were simply the people who each interviewee wished to work with on a professional level.

Unfortunately someone needed to respond, someone always need to respond, and needed to emphatically make a racial statement. This is extremely sad. Ramon Thomas took up the cause and titled his article “Who’s who in the non-white Web 2.0 South African Zoo“. The title alone immediately marginalises his audience and those involved in his article. He immediately boxes those in his article and ostracizes those who read it.

The immediate feeling that I get is that this is like affirmative action in sports teams – the Springboks to be precise. The situation that rugby players of colour have faced in the past is a lose-lose, if they are chosen they question the reasons for their selection. If they are not chosen then they wonder if it was due to their race. Lose. Lose.

If I was on Ramon’s list I’d be pretty upset. The candidates on this list are no longer the best in their profession but only the best in their racial class. Mandy’s article might have lacked some depth but she did not force the answers out of the participants, they chose out of their own free will. She also did not classify her article as black or white inspite of the black text and white background colour. Now there are more web professionals who have been dragged in to this to make a statement. They have become pawns in the game of race.

Mandy made an error in undermining hew own article when she used a pull quote that included the words “White boys club”. If this was the angle of the story then I think that this would have been an integral part of an article that would be able to ask some very important questions about the racial state of the online industry. The pull quote was irrelevant in the context of her story and in my opinion undermined the people who took part in the article.

There is an important question to be asked: where are the black professionals in the online industry?

Darren Ravens asks the question more appropriately. But I think that Darren Gorton got it right.

Personally I would like to be considered a media professional for the work that I do, not for the work that I do as a white(ish), Greek (almost), South African male.