Most days, I find the media to be full of nonsense.
I read them with as much critical analysis as I’d read some “interest group”s advocacy materials.
I always ask, What’s the intention here? Why is this story the lead story? Why go at the story from such an angle? What are they not mentioning? What did they miss? Was all of this done just to sell more newspapers than the competitor?
But I will always fight for the media to report. To tell the story. To go at it from any angle. To have the freedom to explore a story and then relay this story to the democratised public, who are supposed to know all public information to make informed political decisions.
The Media has become the 4th arm of the state. And without them, well, the executive could get up to a lot more coercive troubles, the legislature would be running an expensive muck, and the judiciary could idle away their times under their silks.
Occasionally some media take it too far. They become the intimidators. They become too narrowed & subjective in view. Hype is created over an exhausted issue. And the other arms of the state are forced to equalise the situation again, call for some objective order to be reinstated.
Now, delightfully, with social media the public also has some hand space on the media “reins”.
As much as that damned comment section after an article grates me more than gravel along a chalkboard, it at least allows for people to throw back their opinions and interpretations at the journos.
Blogs cough a point of correction.
And other editors love to expose crap reporting.
Accountability and transparency appear to be higher than ever before.
Why all these stories of corruption, laziness, lack of action? Because our media creates transparency that was once hidden. It doesn’t reflect new types of politicians.
I don’t know how much hype needs to go into Malema and his cronies trying to intimidate journos. I often feel that the media gives Malema too much credit for the power he holds in reality. He speaks what he wants, but can he act on what he speaks.
However, I do appreciate the idea that the social media recognises the formal media’s right to speak, to expose, to not be intimidated when pointing out some “inconsistencies” between a political figure’s ideological rants and his bank balance’s supporters.
And so I add my voice to today’s blogging against the ANCYL’s attempt at intimidation of South African journalists.
Some explanations & others blogs on this:
- Sipho Hlongwane: Thought Leader Blog
- Chris Roper: Blogs 4 Free Press
- The Daily Maverick: Blog campaign against ANCYL’s media threats goes viral
- Twisted Koeksuster's "Can we really learn from our past"
- 6000's "Tomorrow"