New media empowers even the reactionaries
November 17th, 2007
We cry foul if government pressures editors to silence journalists they do not like. We kick and scream if advertisers do the same. But what if it is readers who force a writer’s dismissal? If an editor fires a columnist because readers are up in arms, is that acceptable? That is the issue raised by Rapport’s sacking this week of controversial columnist Deon Maas.
Maas, ironically, was writing about tolerance when he said in Sunday’s edition of the largest Afrikaans paper that Satanism should be legalised. He has very quickly become a victim of intolerance, narrow-mindedness and a sad situation where editor Tim du Plessis felt it necessary to cave in to such sentiments.
Maas had been hired only a few weeks before, and Du Plessis knew that he was taking on a handful. Nobody would hire Maas as a columnist without knowing he is going to stir controversy.
But clearly, for much of the Afrikaans community, just calling Satanism a religion worthy of constitutional protection was a step too far. It seem that they started an SMS campaign, threatened to boycott the newspaper, to boycott shops which stocked it, and even to burn trucks.
New technology has empowered readers in this way. They can use SMSs, email, discussion groups and other interactive tools to assert their power as citizens to challenge the media. No longer are they passive recipients of media messages, but active and involved citizens using these ultra-modern tools to carry a message of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. It is the tools of the 21st century being put to use in pursuit of the values of the Middle Ages.
Du Plessis knew trouble was coming even before the column was published. He wrote on the same day: “Deon made some challenging statements about Satanism. If you read carefully, you’ll see he is calling for an open debate, open minds and open hearts”. Tim distanced himself from these views but took the classic position of defending his right to say it: “A mass-circulation newspaper that only publishes soothing matter is not worthy of being called a newspaper,” he wrote.
Du Plessis had to cancel a long-scheduled work trip to the Western Cape this week, so great was the storm stirred up by the column. Two days later, he posted a note saying he was investigating the matter, and making it clear that Maas’s views were not shared by his newspaper. By Thursday, Maas had been fired.
Announcing it, Du Plessis said Rapport was committed to media freedom, the free expression of ideas and robust debate. “The orchestrated boycott campaign, however, altered the nature of the issue from one of freedom of opinion to one of commercial interests,” he said. In short, Rapport couldn’t take the pain.
Was this a triumph for readers’ rights, for their capacity to take on and defeat the power of big media? In a sense, it was, but what a pity it had to be a victory for intolerance.
Let’s be clear about this: giving in to reader pressure is not the same as giving in to advertisers or political interests. Journalists are there to serve, first and foremost, the public, best represented in the first instance by their regular readers. Giving readers stuff they do not want is a certain recipe to killing a newspaper, and that is hardly the way to encourage free expression.
On the other hand, giving readers only what they want and expect is a certain recipe for the worst journalistic sin of all: being dull and boring.
All media needs to have a strong financial base to serve media freedom. All editors have to find a difficult and uncertain balance between commercial interests and freedom of expression. Tim du Plessis faced a difficult decision this week in trying to find that balance.
As he put it to me: “To my colleagues I can only say: you have never stared into the kind of abyss that I stared into the past week.�
Maas told me that he had not anticipated the reaction and had worse ones in the past: “When I took on the cyclists, the case ended at the Human Rights Commission and we had 4 000 e-mails of complaint. We had similar reactions when I took on emigrants and old people. Satire is a difficult thing to get your head around if you are conservative.
“What makes this different from the past is that my editors had balls (and they were all female).�
Was this a triumph for Rapport’s readers or for a vocal and organised minority? Did their disagreement with the views expressed spill over into threats? It seems they might have.
New media may give each of us the wherewithal to challenge big media, empower citizens to speak out and water the thousand flowers of discussion and debate. How said when such tools are used to promote intolerance and encourage open-mindedness.
It is a reminder that the best tools can be put to evil use.
Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Print
8 Comments Add your own
1. George | November 17th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
What a shocking turn of events. Tim du Plessis should hang his head in shame. How can anyone continue to see Rapport in a serious light after this?
I wish Deon Maas all the best in his future endeavours. For Tim du Plessis, all I can say is: “Shame on you.”
2. alleman | November 18th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Tim should go.
3. Neio | November 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Really, burn truck’s?
Your’s is the only source that AFAIK says this, dont you think you’re bias shows a little too bluntly?
4. Mike Golby | November 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
“The orchestrated boycott campaign, however, altered the nature of the issue from one of freedom of opinion to one of commercial interests.� (Tim du Plessis)
That an editor of a national newspaper can make such an illogical, hypocritical, and cowardly statement ranks him among those who sought Maas’s dismissal. It is a shameful admission by Du Plessis that self-interest does and will continue to trump journalism. His caving to ignorance will ensure that Rapport continues to reflect only the boorish intolerance of its readership.
What a disgrace. Du Plessis hired Maas, vetted the piece, defended it, published it, and refused to bear the consequences for doing so. Who pays (practically and financially) for Du Plessis’s moral cowardice? The yellow suit, vindicated by his army of fools, remains in office to quash controversial pieces at their, rather than his, whim. No longer worth his title, i.e. editor, Tim du Plessis has all but fired himself.
While Maas will bear the practical consequences of this disgrace, Du Plessis (albeit seemingly intact) will not escape it altogether. He has chained himself to his moral turpitude and his cell-toting followers, scenting his timidity, will one day turn on him.
Well, I’d like to think they will…
5. FIX THE FXI | November 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“But clearly, for much of the Afrikaans community, just calling Satanism a religion worthy of constitutional protection was a step too far. It seem that they started an SMS campaign, threatened to boycott the newspaper, to boycott shops which stocked it, and even to burn trucks.” ( Anton Harber)
Everybody has the right not to buy a newspaper but boycotting shops which stock it and threatening to burn trucks is a bit reminiscent to attacks resulting from the publication of the Danish cartoons.
The matter should have been resolved by Tim Du Plessis giving space to letters/ opinion pieces opposing Deon Mass.
You should also address the issue of newspaper editors who stuff their narrow political agenda down their readers’ throats.
Ferial Haffajee, at The Mail and Guardian, is a case in point.
She publishes, ad infinitum, anti-zionist articles but rarely, if ever, allows a balanced debate to emerge. Clearly, the Mail and Guardian effectively silences journalists it does not like.
But do you, Prof Harber ever cry foul ??
Therefore, before you criticize others for their “intolerance”, you should take a close look at your own “refereeing” prejudices.
6. FIX THE FXI | November 19th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“New media may give each of us the wherewithal to challenge big media, empower citizens to speak out and water the thousand flowers of discussion and debate. ” ( Anton Harber)
Prof Harber,
The Harbinger isclearly part of this “new media”. However, it is apparent that you do not engage in “debate” when critical comments are posted. Of course, it might be that you do not have the time to do so. Or it might be that you are unable to effectively argue the points that are being raised. I suppose that readers of your blog will draw their own conclusions.
7. Gavin Meiring MD Heart 104.9 | November 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
What is remarkable about this situation is that Tim Du Plessis obviously would have read the article beforehand, aproved the said article and then did not prepare for the what should have been an anticipated outcome. The nature of a journalist like Maas is that he will always be provocative and these are the kind of personlaities that push the reactionary buttons. The way one manages the aftermath ensures whether the reactionary personality is being used effectively.
It is something that we in the radio industry deal with all the time and personalities deliberately push the boundries for reaction, in the knowledge that even if the reaction is negative, the listener will be back to hear what the personality is going to say next. Removing him from the News Paper just shows the Rapport does not know how to deal with controversy. I am sure other Papers are already trying to sign him, I know if I was managing a newspaper I would.
8. WJWatson | December 14th, 2008 at 1:48 am
“On the other hand, giving readers only what they want and expect is a certain recipe for the worst journalistic sin of all: being dull and boring.”
Maybe the better word would be “pandering.” Telling its viewers things that reinforce their prejudices is what Fox News does. It’s their business model, actually. The so-called main stream media, for all its many obvious faults, at least starts from the premise , in its hard news divisions, that it’s going to try to identify those things people might need to know rather than simply telling them again and again what they want to know.
The empowerment of intolerance is an interesting note to strike. What’s the counterpoint to it? Intolerance is largely immune to reason, logic and appeals to the good angels of human nature.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed