Bullard: How did this happen?
April 17th, 2008
When I opened the Sunday Times last week and read David Bullard’s column, the question I asked myself was this: “How on earth did this get into the newspaper? How did this get past the Sunday Times editors?
That was the real shock for me. At least three copy-editors would have had to see that material before it went to the printers, but these people, who should have alerted the editor to a problem, are either so out of touch that they did not see the potential problem or, more likely, they skimmed over the article.
It is astounding, because it was a piece that belonged in the archives of the AWB. It was so profoundly offensive (suggesting that Africans don’t care about their children) and so deeply imbued with ignorant racist stereotypes (Africans can only arouse themselves from their stupor for the occasional round of ethnic cleansing) that it presented one of those rare occasions when you realise how words can do real damage to our fragile social fabric.
Normally, when a columnist submits material of this sort, the sub-editor assigned to go through it and drop it into the page would alert a senior person that that there was something he or she should see. They would phone the columnist and say that they can’t print this stuff and offer the writer the opportunity to fix it. If the columnist refused, it would amount to a resignation.
That happens without much fuss every now and then at most papers. There is no freedom of speech issue here. A columnist serves at the pleasure of the editor, and there is only a problem if the editor abuses his privilege by sacking a columnist unreasonably, such as for offending an advertiser or shareholder.
Columns are an essential part of a newspaper, bringing opinion and debate to break through the tedium of news and provoking thought and discussion. A sensible editor carries a healthy range of challenging opnion, but makes it clear that there are certain views which go beyond the bounds and will not appear in the newspaper.
If, for example, the deputy minister of safety and security had offered her now famous “Shoot the bastards�? speech as an opinion piece, most sane editors would have pointed out that this was dangerous incitement to break the law and difficult to defend before the Press Council or a court of law.
Rapport editor Tim du Plessis recently caused a storm by hiring controversial columnist Deon Maas, and the firing him quickly. In that case Du Plessis distanced himself and his paper from Maas’ view that Satanism should be treated as just other religion, but printed it, and then backed down when facing a boycott from readers, distributors and advertisers.
I viewed that as an unfortunate victory for intolerance, because it was a provocative column which did not actually degrade or threaten anyone. Bullard’s expression of profound racism, however, is repugnant in a society still grappling to overcome a long history of the most brutal racism. In both cases, editors should ensure they are in a position either to stop something going into the paper, or defend it to the death.
Newspapers are produced under pressurised conditions, in which it is impossible to catch every error and double-check every fact. But when stuff like this gets through and creates a national embarrassment for the editor, then you have to ask what is going wrong. And we know what it is: it is not unlike the Eskom problem. Sub-editors, the sparks of the newspaper world, the behind-the-scenes wizards who actually shape the newspaper and get it out every night, are in short supply. At least good and experienced ones are.
Most young journalists, unsurprisingly, want the glamour of picture by-lines and the pleasure of hanging out with the rich and famous. The prestige of being a quiet crafter of eye-catching headlines and witty captions, the true wordsmiths, the designer of magnificent pages which bring the reporters’ work to life, has diminished in an age of page templates and spell-checks. And we see the messy result on the pages of our newspapers every day.
If editors want to avoid these kinds of embarrassments, it is not that they need to get rid of controversial columnists. They need to invest in more good sub-editors.
*This column was first published in Business Day, 15 April 2008
Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Print
6 Comments Add your own
1. Bernard Sathekge | April 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
100% right Anton! There are thousands of jobs advertised every day, but the question is: who’s getting this jobs? Is s/he suitable for what has been advertised and expected from s/he? Life is quite expensive now and the quality of sub-editors you are talking about, they are there but not given a fair chance when submit their job application. There is a lot of favouritism going on in this industry and it will keep on biting the dust as long as they continue to put wrong people in sensitive positions. Because the chief sub is my friend or my brother-in-law it does’nt mean i’ve got a ticket to work as a sub-editor of the Sunday Times, but it happens in most newsrooms in South Africa!
2. Llewellyn Kriel | May 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
There are many reasons, in my view, why quality sub-editors have become such endangered species - especially in SA where the population has dwindled to an estimated 20 or so.
Electronic subbing saw the deluge of Quark-jockeys - technicians with no journalism experience. Then there is the notion, popular among media such as SABC, Sowetan, The Sun(s), Sunday World, IOL & News24 - that subs are there to cross t’s, dot i’s and make any old shit shine. The myth that any one with a Grade 8 English can be a sub. The disempowerment of sub-editors - a sorry epidemic throughout all media in SA today - that led to the David Bullard fiasco (and many others before him). It adds no value to have good subs whose hands are tied.
And then the utter nonsense of politically correct excuses about English not being the “mother tongue” of the “previously disadvantaged” which brought about the rise of “excuse journalism”.
At the heart lies slaqpgat or gutless editors not fighting for journalistic excellence and misguided and ignorant media managements pinching a penny here and there. Gatekeepers and irksome policemen such as subs have been easy pickings.
I suggest that journalism’s nurseries - universities, technikons etc. - have neglected Sub-Editing as a fully fledged and critical aspect of training. Who would then be surprised at the annual flood of graduates who have a skewed perception of the importance of subs?
And finally, us subs, who have, gratefully, accepted the crumbs from the editors’ tables and allowed our sensibilities to be compromised, our standards to drop - just shrugged our shoulders and headed off to mutter and grumble into our beers, instead of fighting back.
So, as Tom Waits growl, “no-one gets outta here with clean undies, folks”. Least of all Mondli and David, Keswa or me.
3. Malcolm Dunkeld | May 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I wish you would tell newspaper companies how much subs are worth.
Alas, South African newspaper tradition has been to belittle them as failed reporters.
That great “liberal” editor Rene de Villiers once said: “I can find sub-editors in the gutter any day.”
Probably the only South African editors to love them were Joel Mervis and Andrew Drysdale, both of whom appreciated the enormous impact they could have on a paper - if allowed to.
The reason for this is probably historic.
In Fleet Street (or anyway down by the docks), the sub became king thanks to Herr Hitler. Newsprint was rationed and the art of cramming information into a newspaper, while still looking attractive, blossomed.
After rationing ended, proprietors had learned an important lesson - small papers and expensive advertising were profitable, especially when you were selling millions of copies.
Two giants of the craft, Arthur Christiansen and Harold Evans, emerged and revolutionised British newspapers, popular and quality.
In South Africa, a different commercial ethos emerged - one of cheap advertising and large papers - which was also profitable, because fewer copies were printed.
As a result, subs became shovellers of stories, often outdated or terminally dull, as they struggled to fill the dreaded “early pages”.
Editors, mainly retreaded political reporters, began to regard them as drudges and management saw them as costs rather than, as was the case in Fleet Street, as cost benefits.
There were a few exceptions. The Sunday Times hired Fleet Street great Leslie Sellers and the Sunday Tribune was home to the man who probably taught Sellers most, the legendary Brian Parks.
Alas, I know of no newspapers who really care nowadays.
One must be allowed to wonder if the steady decline into boring incoherence which many editors have allowed has much to do with the decline in newspaper readership and the contempt many young people hold for newspapers.
4. FIX THE FXI | June 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am
“There is no freedom of speech issue here.”
A journalist gets sacked for a piece that he writes and Harber blithely states that this is “not a freedom of speech issue”! Has Harber lost his marbles?
5. viva! | February 24th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Well if you only pay R9-12k a month (the going rate for a sub), then what do you expect, quite frankly. Subeditors need to have a university education, broad general knowledge, intelligence, common sense, sophisticated computer skills and an unshakeable grasp of the language. People like that are looking for salaries of 20k +.
6. viva! | February 24th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Llewellyn Kriel – excellent post! But it’s ‘we subs’ not ‘us subs’
(sorry, I can’t help it!)
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