One of the fiercest campaigns by readers against a newspaper in Swaziland that
anyone can remember has been raging this week.
At least six organisations and countless individuals have
criticised the Times Sunday newspaper
after one of its regular columnists wrote last week that battered women were
‘bitches’ and said ‘most’ women who were beaten up by men brought it upon
themselves.
Since the article was published, a petition demanding an apology from the Times and
supported by Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA), Swaziland Coalition
of Concerned Civic Organizations, Coordinating Assembly for Non-Governmental
Organisations (CANGO), Swaziland Concerned Church Leaders, Swaziland National
Association of Teachers, Swaziland Positive Living and the Swaziland
Agricultural Producers Union (SAPU) has been circulating.
The article’s author Qalakaliboli Dlamini is no stranger
to controversy and was suspended by his newspaper in May 2012 after he wrote he
was a proud homophobe and he hated homosexuals.
Once critics complained Qalakaliboli identified himself
as a victim who was having his right of freedom of expression curtailed. Alec
Lushaba, chair of the Swazi chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa
(a press freedom group), and the Times
managing editor Martin Dlamini publicly supported him in this view.
In their support of Qalakaliboli both men missed a
crucial point being made by critics: the attack on the article was not about freedom
of speech, it was about poor journalistic standards at the newspaper.
Here’s an example of what critics meant. In his article
Qalakaliboli wrote that women abused men more than the other way round and said
‘most’ women who are beaten up by men brought it upon themselves. He wrote, ‘Let us be
honest with each other, women are the biggest abusers in the world.’
None of what Qalakaliboli wrote there is actually true.
Nowhere in the world is there a country where more women are accused or convicted
of gender-based violence than men.
Alec Lushaba, chair of MISA, wrote on his Facebook page,‘It is wrong of us to suffocate such opinions.’ Lushaba was wrong because what
Qalakaliboli wrote was not ‘opinion’, which is defined as reasoned argument
based on facts. What the Times Sunday
actually published was Qalakaliboli’s prejudice, which was not based on fact.
What Qalakaliboli said cannot be considered as ‘fair comment’,
since it is provably untrue.
What has angered critics is that journalism standards at
the Times are so poor that his column
was allowed to be printed. Any journalist at the newspaper, including the
editor, who read the article before it reached publication, should be able to
spot the falsehood in Qalakaliboli’s assertions that women abused men more than
the other way round.
The same journalists should also have realised that for Qalakaliboli
to write of a woman trying to escape an abusive marriage, ‘I am reminded
of the saying: “B***es come and go – real women give it their best’, was
unacceptable.
Alec Lushaba, in his support of Qalakaliboli’s ‘right’ to
say what he wanted about violence against women, however unpalatable it might
be, denied his own organisation’s policy on gender violence.
The MISA policy recognises that reporting of gender
violence, ‘is often sensational, lacking in depth, context and analysis’. That
description aptly sums up the Times
Sunday article.
MISA’s policy goes on to state, ‘As one of the main
shapers of public opinion, the media has a critical role to play in the
advancement and attainment of gender equality.’
It also says. ‘As an agenda setter, the media has a duty
to portray not just what is, but what could be ...’
It is baffling to see how Lushaba can reconcile his own
belief that the Times Sunday had a
right to publish Qalakaliboli’s article, with the policy of the organisation he
chairs. Clearly, he has some explaining to do to colleagues at MISA.
Martin Dlamini, the managing editor of Times of Swaziland newspapers and the
man ultimately responsible for what is published, misled his readers badly when he
tried to defend the article. He wrote in his own newspaper that there was evidence
from around the world that women were abusing men. But he did not tackle
Qalakaliboli’s central claim that ‘women are the biggest abusers in the world.’
It is a sad reflection on the poor standards at the Times newspapers that Martin Dlamini,
the most senior person in the company’s three editorial offices, seemed to genuinely
believe that he had provided compelling ‘evidence’ to support Qalakaliboli.
Martin Dlamini also asked rhetorically, ‘Would he have
been said to have used hate speech if the article headline was: “Men are the
worst abusers?”’ The answer to his question, of course, is: No, because that
headline is a statement of provable fact. It is very sad that Martin Dlamini
was unable to see the difference.
Yesterday (14 December 2012), it was revealed that Qalakaliboli
Dlamini was bragging to his Facebook readers that the controversy he had
created with his article would help sales of a book he was about to publish.
This has raised speculation that he had tricked his newspaper and its readers into
creating a publicity stunt for his own ends which raises another question about
the judgement of the Times in
allowing the article to be published.
See also
HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS TAKE ON ‘TIMES’
No comments:
Post a Comment