This is what passes for major news at the Swazi News.
On Saturday (25 August 2007) the main story in the entire newspaper was about two unnamed ‘radio personalities’ who had sex in a studio at a radio station (not, I hasten to add while broadcasting). A security guard with no name saw them and someone with no name (possibly the same security guard) told the Swazi News.
The Swazi News reporter contacted Stan Motsa, the director of the radio station, SBIS, who said he knew nothing about the matter.
The reporter also contacted someone called Mncedisi Mayisela for comment. The newspaper doesn’t say who Mayisela is, so he could be the boy who makes the tea at the radio station, but I’d guess he might be something to do with the human relations department. He said he wouldn’t comment until he is given a mandate to do so. (It is not clear what he is talking about here, but again I’ll take a guess. He means he needs to talk to his boss).
The news report on the Swazi News front page was headed ‘DJ, NEWSREADER CAUGHT HAVING SEX IN STUDIO’. That seems clear enough, except the story itself which was published on page two was all over the place on the central basic ‘fact’ of having sex.
First, the report says they had sex, then it says, ‘it is not clear whether they had penetrative sex in the studio’; then it says they had ‘wild sessions’ (notice the plural, it happened more than once).
To add further confusion the report calls the couple ‘alleged lovebirds’ and says they had ‘alleged sex escapades.’ No, come on tell us: did they have sex or not?
The reporter says, ‘It’s a fact though, that the two radio personalities were called before a former human resources officer concerning the alleged sex escapades in the studio.’ If it is a ‘fact’ how is that the reporter cannot get anyone to confirm it happened? Also, what’s this about a ‘former’ human resources officer? Does this mean the alleged incidents happened some long time ago in the past?
To recap: we have two unnamed people who may or not have been having sex in a radio studio. Another unnamed person saw them and reported them to the newspaper. No one at the radio station will confirm that anything at all happened.
This is not news. This tale of illicit sex (if anything really did happen) is the kind of gossip about friends and colleagues that we like to share in the pub and the Swazi News’ report is about as coherent as a guy who is on his eighth pint of beer.
Newspapers have important roles to play in any society and these roles include keeping people informed about what is going on around them, allowing a wide range of points of view to be published and making people in positions of power account for their actions. Nowhere is this role more important than in Swaziland today as we try to create a more participative, equal and democratic society.
The Swazi News might like to reflect on this a little before serving up similar non-stories in future.
On Saturday (25 August 2007) the main story in the entire newspaper was about two unnamed ‘radio personalities’ who had sex in a studio at a radio station (not, I hasten to add while broadcasting). A security guard with no name saw them and someone with no name (possibly the same security guard) told the Swazi News.
The Swazi News reporter contacted Stan Motsa, the director of the radio station, SBIS, who said he knew nothing about the matter.
The reporter also contacted someone called Mncedisi Mayisela for comment. The newspaper doesn’t say who Mayisela is, so he could be the boy who makes the tea at the radio station, but I’d guess he might be something to do with the human relations department. He said he wouldn’t comment until he is given a mandate to do so. (It is not clear what he is talking about here, but again I’ll take a guess. He means he needs to talk to his boss).
The news report on the Swazi News front page was headed ‘DJ, NEWSREADER CAUGHT HAVING SEX IN STUDIO’. That seems clear enough, except the story itself which was published on page two was all over the place on the central basic ‘fact’ of having sex.
First, the report says they had sex, then it says, ‘it is not clear whether they had penetrative sex in the studio’; then it says they had ‘wild sessions’ (notice the plural, it happened more than once).
To add further confusion the report calls the couple ‘alleged lovebirds’ and says they had ‘alleged sex escapades.’ No, come on tell us: did they have sex or not?
The reporter says, ‘It’s a fact though, that the two radio personalities were called before a former human resources officer concerning the alleged sex escapades in the studio.’ If it is a ‘fact’ how is that the reporter cannot get anyone to confirm it happened? Also, what’s this about a ‘former’ human resources officer? Does this mean the alleged incidents happened some long time ago in the past?
To recap: we have two unnamed people who may or not have been having sex in a radio studio. Another unnamed person saw them and reported them to the newspaper. No one at the radio station will confirm that anything at all happened.
This is not news. This tale of illicit sex (if anything really did happen) is the kind of gossip about friends and colleagues that we like to share in the pub and the Swazi News’ report is about as coherent as a guy who is on his eighth pint of beer.
Newspapers have important roles to play in any society and these roles include keeping people informed about what is going on around them, allowing a wide range of points of view to be published and making people in positions of power account for their actions. Nowhere is this role more important than in Swaziland today as we try to create a more participative, equal and democratic society.
The Swazi News might like to reflect on this a little before serving up similar non-stories in future.
No comments:
Post a Comment