Related Articles


  1. 1


    Deceitful garbage. Ivory tower meddling of “concerned white hypocrites” is the last thing the press needs. Its mandate is to inform, uncover, and be a watchdog, white, black, male or female. If the press lacks credibility because it’s white-male dominated then why do black readers support these papers, and if they don’t there’s a market opportunity for someone to feed the need for a black oriented and produced paper isn’t there? But of course this uncomfortable fact would never find it’s way into such carefully articulated bluestocking Stalinism. Yes it is Stalinism – to insist that workers in the media must reflect demograhics 100%. Black journos have had 20 years (and a vibrant tradition in South Africa before that) to get on board – and they are on board, and highly privileged; any white person working in the media wanting recognition or a career will be aware of that. If youth or women or the poor wanted more representation in the media the media would change to accommodate that, to survive. Unfortunately advertising dictates markets. Change that if you want real change. The day this writer gives up her job for a person from the right demographic I’ll change my “hypocrite” label default position. The whole slant of the article is untrue. Do our racist state broadcasters (SAFM – not one white working in the studio) have to transform? Do you think a newspaper owner in Indonesia has to deal with this crap? You can bet your bottom dollar he doesn’t. It’s nasty coercion and political control masquerading as egalitarian and concerned piety. It is actually not egalitarian or true in its real nature, but advances a certain political agenda? If it is argued that the status quo supports a political agenda then start another paper, like the Gupta’s. It’s time newspapers found their voice in this country, and others, and said F&%K You.

  2. 2


    The assumptions are throughout are just absurd. Why does anyone or any group have to see itself reflected in the media? Why does Mz Duncan not take on Hollywood next about “the demographic” reflected. What happened to freedom? And how did the poison of centralised mind-control infect our institutions with nary a whisper of resistance.

  3. 3


    The thrust of the position put forward is this:
    People said: end apartheid – and it was ended.
    People said: apply affirmative action – and it was applied.
    People said give a part of your businesses to Black people – and it was given.
    Now they say: make sure your managers and owners are black – sell the paper?
    And write about what we suggest, not what you or your readers want. Really!

    This week the DA put up a poster that said “E-tolls. Proudly brought to you by the ANC”. The party was up in arms until it realised that it showed their own hypocrisy. Taken literally and put up by the ANC the poster would be seen as being in praise of the etolls, so why do they react to the DA’s version? Gandhi said “no just cause is ever hurt by the truth”. If papers are really so meaningfully lacking in diversity replacement products to respond to the gap would emerge, and if they do not the premise is false. Would Mz Duncan and others have the courage to insist that Woolies only sell stuff to a representational demographic, at a representational price? Why the media only? It’s about power.

  4. 4

    Llewellyn Kriel

    Two dire crises seem to have been ignored by the report – probably quite deliberately.

    The first and most obvious has been the pervasive and consistent lowering of English language editorial standards over the past two decades. Spurred by the headlong stampede for “transformation” at any cost and abetted by ever-tightening budgetary restrictions, the overall quality of reporting (with isolated exceptions) and writing/presentation of the “the news” hit its nadir with the disaster that is ANN7. Measured against a 50-Point scale of Accuracy, Correctness, Compelling, Comprenhensive and Balanced English, South Africa’s media now ranks a miserable 32.

    The second issue of mounting concern has been the pernicious “juniorisation” of newsrooms to the detriment of older reporters, sub-editors and editors. Experienced and eminently capable reporters, subs and editors over the age of 50 are today as rare as competent youngsters. This has been partly due to a lack of in-house training, the cessation of internships, the abolition of cadet reporter colleges, the preponderance of university graduates unsuited to real-life professional requirements and the bias towards political reporting at one extreme “tabloidisation” of news on the other.

    These two glaring shortcomings remaibecausebecause

  5. 5

    Llewellyn Kriel

    Sorry, about the technoglitch in the last comment. Perhaps it’s serendipitous eloquence … 🙂

  6. 6


    these two glaring shortcomings remain because…? Finish it Llewellyn

Comments are closed.

Copyright © 2015 - 2019 The Media Online. All rights reserved. Part of Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd.