Voltaire once said that man is born free, but is everywhere in chains. And what better example than the latest government onslaught against our constitution?
We are faced with two potentially draconian pieces of legislation – the Protection of Information Bill, and a posited statutory Media Tribunal (see http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-02-press-council-warns-against-media-tribunal and http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-07-law-society-concerned-at-threat-to-media-freedom). And what is vital to remember, is that the Information Bill in particular does not just affect the media – it affects all freedoms set out in Item 16 of the Bill of Rights in our constitution, including freedom of the press and other media, freedom of artistic creativity, the freedom to receive or impart information or ideas, and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
In essence, it affects every single one of us.
South Africa, it seems, has to choose between two fundamentally different and incompatible positions. The first is an assumption that media freedom is indispensable in building and maintaining democratic societies.
In other words, you could argue that the healthier the press in any country, the healthier the body politic. It is important to remember that the press is not a passive indicator – it can play a vital role in influencing and shaping events and values. As many have pointed out, no matter what is wrong with a society, if the media is free, the facts cannot be concealed forever – which is why so many people argue that media freedom is the key to all other freedoms.
The opposing position – which for many years has characterised South Africa’s experience – is that media freedom is a luxury beyond the reach of politically unstable societies.
In this view, a certain level of press freedom may be tolerable, but invariably the government’s bias is towards decreasing that freedom, or at least containing that which already exists. In other words, such governments tend to argue that press freedom is not a right, but a privilege that carries responsibilities – and this undoubtedly leads to the authoritative view that the public has a right to be informed only when is in the interests of the state.
This view emphasises the harm that the press can do. Public discussion inevitably turns to irresponsibility and sensationalism - an evil which governments and politicians are forced to suffer.
In other words, the granting of press freedom is conditional on acceptable performance.
But the price of liberty is this: a free society, which expects responsible conduct from a free press, must go on tolerating and even expect some irresponsibility. Media freedom doesn’t come with any guarantees.
Thus this is the dilemma of developing nations: does one wait until the country has a sufficiently democratic culture to tolerate a free press, or does one allow press freedom to help cultivate a democratic culture?
What would a normal or healthy standard of press freedom be?
According to academic Dennis McQuail, there are seven principles:
• Publications should be free from censorship by any third party;
• The act of publication and distribution should be open to a person or group without a permit or licence;
• Attacks on any governments, officials or political parties (as distinct from attacks on any private individuals
or treason or breaches of security) should not be punishable, even after the event;
• There should be no compulsion to publish anything;
• Publication of “error” is protected equally with that of truth, in matters of opinion and belief;
• No restriction should be placed on the collection, by legal means, of information for publication; and
• There should be no restriction on the export or import, or sending and receiving “messages”, across
international frontiers.
This is the key: if press freedom is to survive, the majority of people must accept it.
There are many factors favouring media freedom in South Africa. Many of us, whether within or without the established media, remember clearly the times when our freedoms were restricted, and we are used to fighting!
And all South African journalists, crossing all media types, are basically in agreement, together with a broader cultural base including churches, some political parties, trade unions and cultural groups.
Perhaps most importantly, one assumes the ANC knows the rest of the world (as well as those in South Africa) are constantly comparing their human rights record with that of the National Party during apartheid.
However, there are equally many factors impeding press freedom, not least an absolute intolerance of free expression. Old habits die hard, and from official circles we have always received an ill-defined commitment to any media freedom; apart from the Bill of Rights, there has never been a clearly articulated stand on the issue from the ANC, for example.
Added to that, a general African legacy of human rights isn’t a promising influence for any South African government – we don’t have to look too far, for example, for ways of dealing with a dissident press.
And political expediency, as ever, plays a role. Groups tend to view media freedom instrumentally – it is only valued so long as it is helping them.
I believe South Africans simply cannot allow current legislative threats to develop any further. We have come so far, and we have united as a diverse nation; we are managing to hold our leaders accountable, and we are building, together, a beautiful country. Do we really want to sit back and allow this to be taken from us?
In the words of David Bowman, former editor in chief of the Sydney Morning Herald, looking at the issue historically, you could say that what we are now facing is the second great battle for a freedom we can no longer afford to take for granted.
See also:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-08-malema-the-media-think-they-are-untouchable
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-06-sunday-times-reporter-free-on-r5-000-bail
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-02-nzimande-sa-media-is-threat-to-democracy
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-30-media-tribunal-would-be-a-very-dangerous-move
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article591780.ece/Journalists-harrowing-account
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article591789.ece/United-we-stand--Auckland-Park-declaration
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article591773.ece/Senior-Policemans-startling-admission--Arrest-was-political
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Being Short is No Tall Story...
Wallowing in a patch of uncharacteristic introspection this week, it occurred to me that many of my greatest problems in life could be attributed to my height.
And before I go any further, I would like to state for the record, to all those people whose heads are closer to the ground than they would desire, that I have no hidden malicious intent towards anyone.
I’ve always harboured a secret desire to be around 6’4”, with legs up to my armpits – one of those head-turning Amazon women who could, if they wished, pirouette into a room in their underwear with elegance. However, I’m more of the variety on whom a mere kilogram of excess good living picked up during the festive season can transform from a reasonably-sized human to a wobbling female impersonation of Humpty Dumpty.
These feelings of inferiority have recently been exacerbated by the incredible growth of my two oldest sons, who now look down on me, usually with a supercilious expression tinged with sympathy. Admittedly, they remain marginally intellectually inferior on account of my advanced years, but it is still very difficult to yell at someone from an upside-down position. I’m not sure if this is what has brought on my current abnormal feelings of aggression, but I’m sure my therapist would say that had something to do with it all.
And adding insult to injury, is that there is simply no term to describe the feelings of inferiority suffered by short women. Blatant sexism, if you ask me.
There are even dictionary definitions to describe the emotional state of men who feel they are too short. “Short man syndrome” is, in pseudo-scientific terms, the phenomenon of appearing overly aggressive, assertive or needlessly bumptious as a reaction after repeatedly suffering height discrimination in the workplace, in relationships with women, or elsewhere during socialisation.
In other words, angry vertically challenged men are allowed to behave badly in an attempt to gain respect and recognition from others and compensate for their abnormally short stature. Women, one assumes, are expected to take their petite place in society with the usual stoicism with which they accept all other iniquities, such as having to shimmy up supermarket shelves, put up the hems on every single article of clothing they buy, and needing a ladder to reach the top wardrobe shelves.
Indeed, life can be difficult when one needs to climb trees in order to be seen. Male politicians know this and have perfected the art: those with seriously vertical dilemmas have designer, craftily-disguised platform shoes, and tidy wooden boxes, carried around by their personal assistants and placed strategically where they are to stand before press conferences when they are to appear with taller statesmen.
Women politicians, on the other hand, particularly in Africa, appear to feel that if they are vertically challenged, they may as well go the whole hog and do the horizontally challenged thing as well; one presumes they imagine that at least there will be more of them to look at that way.
I have considered all these strategies at some length. It wasn’t quite such an issue when I was still at school and none of my male friends had grown yet. However, university and the workplace produced unforeseen problems, ranging from snide remarks about standing me on a box in order to kiss me, to colleagues suggesting dwarf-throwing competitions in the newsroom.
The final straw was when I was introduced by a former National Party man at a public meeting, after listing my male colleagues and their media organisations, as “the little girl from The Daily News”.
Ah well, at least it wasn’t as bad as the mother-in-law wedding comment to a very short colleague: “What a waste of a tall man!”
It’s all very well to point out that most women want male partners who are taller than they are; what people are inclined to forget is that most men want women who at least reach to their shoulders, without the help of stilts.
But back to the strategies adopted by the rich and famous. Where footwear is concerned, I do tend to go for the heeled variety, but the only problem is that skinny stiletto-type heels take a great deal of practice to walk in. I’ve always been amazed that no one offers courses in how to walk elegantly in ridiculously high shoes. Also, they’re incredibly impractical for a journalist – you try running fast in little black strap-ons with a crowd of angry hecklers after you.
And thick heels just don’t have the same panache as itsy-bitsy ones, particularly if donned with a short skirt or a little black number in an attempt to look sophisticated and impressive.
The horizontal growth in order to compensate for the lack of the vertical just doesn’t appeal to me. Why create extra problems? Besides, there are dangers in being short and overweight, not least slipping on a hillside and doing the unwilling impersonation of a snowball.
As I’m not famous enough for my own wooden box, I guess I’ll just have to stand on a chair when chastising the Teenagers from now onwards. But if anyone has a medieval torture rack stored away in their garage, I’d be grateful if you’d let me know.
And before I go any further, I would like to state for the record, to all those people whose heads are closer to the ground than they would desire, that I have no hidden malicious intent towards anyone.
I’ve always harboured a secret desire to be around 6’4”, with legs up to my armpits – one of those head-turning Amazon women who could, if they wished, pirouette into a room in their underwear with elegance. However, I’m more of the variety on whom a mere kilogram of excess good living picked up during the festive season can transform from a reasonably-sized human to a wobbling female impersonation of Humpty Dumpty.
These feelings of inferiority have recently been exacerbated by the incredible growth of my two oldest sons, who now look down on me, usually with a supercilious expression tinged with sympathy. Admittedly, they remain marginally intellectually inferior on account of my advanced years, but it is still very difficult to yell at someone from an upside-down position. I’m not sure if this is what has brought on my current abnormal feelings of aggression, but I’m sure my therapist would say that had something to do with it all.
And adding insult to injury, is that there is simply no term to describe the feelings of inferiority suffered by short women. Blatant sexism, if you ask me.
There are even dictionary definitions to describe the emotional state of men who feel they are too short. “Short man syndrome” is, in pseudo-scientific terms, the phenomenon of appearing overly aggressive, assertive or needlessly bumptious as a reaction after repeatedly suffering height discrimination in the workplace, in relationships with women, or elsewhere during socialisation.
In other words, angry vertically challenged men are allowed to behave badly in an attempt to gain respect and recognition from others and compensate for their abnormally short stature. Women, one assumes, are expected to take their petite place in society with the usual stoicism with which they accept all other iniquities, such as having to shimmy up supermarket shelves, put up the hems on every single article of clothing they buy, and needing a ladder to reach the top wardrobe shelves.
Indeed, life can be difficult when one needs to climb trees in order to be seen. Male politicians know this and have perfected the art: those with seriously vertical dilemmas have designer, craftily-disguised platform shoes, and tidy wooden boxes, carried around by their personal assistants and placed strategically where they are to stand before press conferences when they are to appear with taller statesmen.
Women politicians, on the other hand, particularly in Africa, appear to feel that if they are vertically challenged, they may as well go the whole hog and do the horizontally challenged thing as well; one presumes they imagine that at least there will be more of them to look at that way.
I have considered all these strategies at some length. It wasn’t quite such an issue when I was still at school and none of my male friends had grown yet. However, university and the workplace produced unforeseen problems, ranging from snide remarks about standing me on a box in order to kiss me, to colleagues suggesting dwarf-throwing competitions in the newsroom.
The final straw was when I was introduced by a former National Party man at a public meeting, after listing my male colleagues and their media organisations, as “the little girl from The Daily News”.
Ah well, at least it wasn’t as bad as the mother-in-law wedding comment to a very short colleague: “What a waste of a tall man!”
It’s all very well to point out that most women want male partners who are taller than they are; what people are inclined to forget is that most men want women who at least reach to their shoulders, without the help of stilts.
But back to the strategies adopted by the rich and famous. Where footwear is concerned, I do tend to go for the heeled variety, but the only problem is that skinny stiletto-type heels take a great deal of practice to walk in. I’ve always been amazed that no one offers courses in how to walk elegantly in ridiculously high shoes. Also, they’re incredibly impractical for a journalist – you try running fast in little black strap-ons with a crowd of angry hecklers after you.
And thick heels just don’t have the same panache as itsy-bitsy ones, particularly if donned with a short skirt or a little black number in an attempt to look sophisticated and impressive.
The horizontal growth in order to compensate for the lack of the vertical just doesn’t appeal to me. Why create extra problems? Besides, there are dangers in being short and overweight, not least slipping on a hillside and doing the unwilling impersonation of a snowball.
As I’m not famous enough for my own wooden box, I guess I’ll just have to stand on a chair when chastising the Teenagers from now onwards. But if anyone has a medieval torture rack stored away in their garage, I’d be grateful if you’d let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)