To speak or not to speak

Last week I did an opinion-based piece of what I thought about the DA Debate between Mmusi Maimane and Wolmot James. I was quite surprised  by the reaction I got from a listener.

I questioned Maimane’s stance on holding a referendum to decide on the death penalty with the observation that it showed a lack of the new DA leader’s understanding of the Bill of Rights. You can’t just hold a referendum on a fundamental human right – the right to life. 

The listener wrote back saying, “I think that Terence Pillay just displayed sloppy journalism when he made a comment a few minutes ago about the DA debate and the death Penalty. The candidate who spoke about the death penalty was Musi Maimane. Terence said that his comment about a possible referendum on the death penalty displayed that he did not fully understand the constitution. Yet this was not the case. Reports about the debate and the actual debate itself documents clearly that what Terence Pillay said was extremely unjust.  When questioned about the matter Musi clearly stated that HE DID NOT AGREE with the death penalty. He did, however, go on to say that if the people want to vote, they have the right to vote on the matter - as per the constitution of this country! Simply by saying that, Musi clearly showed that he understood the constitution well enough to understand that the people of this country have the right to be heard. Terence Pillay just echoed what James said. So is he reporting back or being a parrot??? He clearly misunderstood what was being said. I think that he should correct himself. I am not a politician, I am a young citizen of this country who is interested in my well being and future for this country. That means that I have to be update  to what happens in our politics.” [sic] 
   
It was really impressive that a fairly eloquent, young person had taken the time and trouble to really engage with the show. That was fantastic. But it got me thinking about what people really understand about opinion-based journalism. Or the difference between that and a news report or an editorial piece in the newspaper. 

So essentially this young lady talks about my opinion and says she thinks I’m wrong, and I should apologise for my opinion. But on what planet is that acceptable – for a journalist to apologise for having an opinion? 

As a journalist, unless one is making a statement of fact that is incorrect, you shouldn’t have to apologise. It’s the same as that high profile case of Max du Preez who refused to apologise about what he said about Jacob Zuma even though he was under pressure from his publication to do so. 

For one he said he never said anything incorrect so he had checked the facts. And two, it was his opinion about something. So as a journalist, if you are expressing an opinion as an “opinion piece”, you should be entitled to do that. 

It’s about critical engagement. It’s about discussion and debate, which takes the conversation forward and has people thinking about things in a different way. And this is part of the role of journalism; it’s not just a factory which takes in information, synthesises it and spews it out the other end. 

That, is just reportage and there’s a space for that. So for example reportage would be you saying: “we want to report on a particular incident and record the facts.” But sometimes if you’re going to do a more detailed analysis of something and get people to think a little bit outside of what’s just the perception of things – the face value of things – you do need to ask critical questions. 

For example: it was necessary to interrogate Mmusi Maimane’s understanding of the constitution in a deeper way; not just a superficial one. Does he really have a good grasp of constitutionality? And the fact that you cannot subject our constitution to a referendum is the debate.

The fact is everyone has opinions on things and bring a different perspective to a subject. A journalist for example, could perhaps have looked at a history of behaviour or something like that and express an opinion in that context. 

For example, I read a report in the Times Live, the headline of which read: “Horny” Principal engages in inappropriate WhatsApp conversation (or something to that effect) I can’t remember the exact wording of the headline... And they then they just went on to list the facts of the case. 

But if you were to do an opinion-based piece on the role of principal leadership in terms of what is ethical and moral behaviour in relation to grade 11 school girls, you could look at a whole pattern of behaviour across a number of different cases, different countries and express an opinion about that – and ask what do we need  to do about it? Do we need some kind of  moral education? Do we need to improve leadership and so on. 

So I love the fact that this young girl has engaged with the show on this level. I mean, how many young people do this? Most are just interested in what Rhianna’s wearing; and what colour her shoes are! But here’s a young person who’s saying that she cares about the politics and future of this country. I applaud that. Even though she is wrong! No, she is not wrong. But that’s my point! 

But back to the matter at hand, I believe journalism in this country is pretty shocking. For one ninety percent of it is regurgitated and it’s headline driven. Once you get beyond the headline, I don’t think the writer gives much thought to what they’ve written. There’s a great demand for content but what’s happened is the content has got so short and insubstantial. It’s all become “listicles” – ten of this and five of that! Completely flimsy content. 

I understand that things evolve. I’m sure if we went back two hundred years and looked at a newspaper you would think: “how did we ever read this stuff?” There’s nothing wrong with the format of things evolving, but when you lose the balance, you have a problem. What do you lose when you start to whittle things down to “listicles” and reportage, as opposed to something with a bit more substance? If it’s superficial like Ten Best Fleamarkets or something, you can go for your list type story, but if it’s something more substantial, maybe you should forego the list and interrogate the issue. 

At the end of the day, we need to hold our journalists to a higher standard. If articles that are copied and pasted from some dodgy local newspaper in Nebraska or whatever, which has absolutely no bearing on the South African context, don’t be manipulated into believing this to be gospel! 

And learn to understand the difference between reportage, editorial, features and opinion-based journalism. It will make the lives of consumers, like the listener in question, a whole lot easier! 

You can email Terence Pillay at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @terencepillay1 and engage with him there.