“Black People Should Not Be Given Top Jobs Just Because of Their Past”
I’m pretty sure that you clicked on this link because you were expecting to read a racially-charged and highly opinionated article. Did the sight of the heading peak your interest or perhaps get your blood boiling before you even read the article? Well you see, that was the point. I did it to highlight an important lesson that many journalists and laypeople may have missed from the recent Huffington Post South Africa mishap. If you haven’t been following the story, here’s what happened:
A blog advocating that white men should not be allowed to vote was submitted for publishing to the Huffington Post SA by a university student and activist named Shelley Garland. The blog was published on the Huffington Post’s Facebook page. While it caused a lot of anger and outrage, the Huffington Post’s editor, Verashni Pillay, defended the Post by calling it “pretty standard for feminist theory” and saying that there was “nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody”.
When it appeared that the author of the blog, Shelley Garland, could not be traced suspicions were raised and the Huffington Post SA decided to investigate. What they found shocked them. A man by the name of Marius Roodt, had actually submitted the story under the false name Shelley Garland. It turns out that Roodt not only used a false identity but also used false facts in the blog such as that 90% of land in South Africa was owned by white people and that majority of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange is owned by whites — claims which Pillay thought should not be shocking or surprising to anybody.
Roodt merely wanted to see if it would gain traction. That’s right, he wanted to see if he could write absolutely anything and whether it would get promoted easily without the facts being verified. Guess what? It got published! And guess what else? The facts of the article and the identity of the author weren’t verified before it was published! (Just because a person’s article is opinion-based, does it mean the “facts” that they quote should not be checked before allowing the public to view it as “information”?) This of course identified a huge gap when it comes to fact-checking in South African journalism. Verashni Pillay resigned as the editor of the Huffington Post SA over the weekend after the ombudsman found that the article was malicious‚ inaccurate‚ against the public interest‚ discriminatory‚ amounted to hate speech and “impaired the dignity of reputation of many people”.
This whole mishap has led to a discussion about fake news, fact-checking and how the identities of writers need to be verified before their articles can be published, which in my opinion would never have been discussed had Marius Roodt not illuminated the flaws that had obviously been left unattended despite worldwide media upping their standards after the American Presidential Election.
What we should be asked is why an article which encouraged racial prejudice was rushed to be promoted in the first place. It’s a simple question with an equally simple answer — the more controversial or outrageous a topic is, the more views, likes, comments and shares it gets on social media. That’s great for business if you’re in media. A racially prejudicial article like Roodt’s (or Shelly Garland) would have gotten many shares, angry comments and equally angry replies in their hundreds. It’s a fact that you are most likely to take interest or be offended by matters that you relate to. And who doesn’t relate to their race? Who would most likely get offended by an article that openly discriminates against white men? Or black women for that matter? People would then share their outrage with their friends via their social media platforms and the media house publishing the article would of course get some form of advertising through this. It’s just business right? I mean getting clicks, likes and comments is more important than considering whether an article that promotes racial division should be promoted in the first place, right?
Many people would argue that “insightful” articles of this sort promote discussion among different racial groups within our community by helping us see the “other side’s” point of view. That’s just a justification. I understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion (no matter how racist or unhelpful that opinion is) and I also understand that the media has the freedom to publish such opinions as they please as long as it does not promote hate-speech, violence or infringe on the rights of others (and as long as it promotes the media house, of course).
But there’s always a grey area when it comes to discrimination and hate speech. We find that the Huffington Post SA saga was an example of an instance where freedom of journalism was used as a lifejacket to wade as close as possible towards controversy (basically discrimination) while trying to remain afloat in the “grey area”.
This raises an important question — if you have the freedom to do something, should you do it even if you know that it isn’t morally correct? Morally correct? What am I talking about you ask? Let’s be honest with ourselves here — South Africa is still struggling with racial issues. We may be a “Rainbow Nation” but underneath that rainbow lies the hurt and pain of our country’s sordid past that many have not gotten over. Racism is still alive and well. It hasn’t been eradicated yet. Is it morally correct to exercise the freedom to promote prejudicial opinions if all you are doing is helping pour petrol over a fire that isn’t quiet dead as yet and calling it a promotion of open discussions?
All that a prejudicial article does is cause anger and create further division. This is proven when the “open discussions” held in the comments section lead to people expressing their racist view against the prejudiced side. Common sense will tell you that this will always happen. Why? Because the article itself is an invitation to express discrimination. It’s also easier to be racist when you can hide behind the mask of social media with no one to reign you in and where every like that you get on your comment is a nudge to continue “expressing” yourself.
Racism is a plague, a sickness that spreads from generation to generation. It will only end when an individual decides that it will end with them and not be passed down to their children. But we have a long way more to go before that happens. I believe in talking openly about racism and openly discussing issues that divide us. But there’s a difference between creating healthy conversation and throwing a piece of meat into a dog fight. Creating anger and outrage is good for business if you’re a media house but is it good for healing South Africa?
