Malema boycott a silly idea
DA city councillor in Johannesburg We should not conclude that media depend on Malema for circulation. They could survive without him, and he without them.
Among the silliest responses to Julius Malema’s outrageous comments is the suggestion that the media should stop mentioning him. Don’t give him the oxygen he craves, that’ll teach him, is the call. Get real. Reporters will not stop covering Malema. Media houses who ignore him will lose market share to competitors.
Some folk refer to the media as a collective, as if there is unity. Yet there is no evidence to support this notion. The media will not act in unison to deny Malema coverage. Any attempt to do so would reflect poor news judgment. If he says something newsworthy, it should be published, whether you like him or not.
Former Western Cape premier Helen Zille, who was a fine reporter in her youth, repeatedly says journalists hunt in packs. That’s debatable. If they do, there are always enough hacks outside the pack to write usable stories that others omit.
Journalists collectively boycotting people whom they do not like would be contrary to freedom of expression. Journalists have a right not to cover any story, but they have no right to prevent others from reporting.
I don’t like Malema. His racism and misogyny are appalling. He gets away with too much. And he is no Steve Biko. Although Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) thugs boast about “superior logic”, their leader lacks the intellectual heft of the Black Consciousness Movement hero.
The hate Malema spews is divisive. Former Democratic Alliance (DA) leader Tony Leon noted that Malema’s tweet of a Robert Mugabe quote, “The only white man you can trust is a dead white man”, would not go down well with DA voters in Johannesburg.
We now know Barry Bateman does not like Malema, after the reporter was caught on camera mouthing a post-interview insult. Bateman might have had more support if he had called the guy a prick, or used gender-neutral invective.
It is possible that certain readers of The Citizen don’t like Malema and some don’t want to see his picture or read about him. During my time as a full-time employee on the paper, such sentiments were expressed in surveys and letters.
Yet on days when posters or front-page headlines featured Malema, newspaper sales were above average. Perhaps people love to hate him. We should not conclude that the media depend on Malema for circulation. They could survive without him, and he without them.
Malema has presence outside traditional media. His 2.6 million Twitter following dwarfs most newspaper readerships and outnumbers the 1 882 480 who voted for the EFF in May. Not all followers are fans.
Malema’s Twitter army is always ready to pounce, deflecting attention from his lifestyle hypocrisies uncovered by the amaBhungane investigation into VBS. He is a hypocrite deluxe.
Of course, Malema is wrong to ban amaBhungane from media briefings. His bullying behaviour is undemocratic. But a tit-for-tat boycott is not the solution.
Critics say Malema’s bluster is a sign of panic. That may be wishful thinking, similar to the 2011 Politics Web column, “Ignore Malema: he’ll go away”.
The writer disappeared from public view. We can’t say the same for Malema. Not yet.