Why should expressing an opinion on a website be regarded as ‘intolerance’ – and what possible ‘consequences’ might match this sin?
My opinion piece on why we shouldn’t spend yet more taxpayer money to bail out our lamentable national broadcaster was apparently well received, judging by the many comments on Twitter last week.
One notable exception was Michael Markovitz who tweeted: ‘No surprise @lunchout2 and @IRR_South Africa say shut SABC down & care not for 30m people accessing #SABC’s 19 radio stations in all languages & that @SABCNewsOnline + SA’s 2nd biggest online news source. Their views, not SABC, should be in a museum – a museum of intolerance.’
It also came as no surprise to learn that Markovitz is a board member of the SABC. He later retweeted a supporting tweet which read: ‘Agree 100% – Racist right wingers like Bullard and the IRR are getting blatantly more arrogantly outspoken with no fear of consequences.’
What is particularly worrying, particularly coming from a well-remunerated member of the SABC board, is why expressing an opinion on a website should be regarded as an example of ‘intolerance’ and what consequences the author of the retweet would regard as appropriate for such an offence. Chemical castration, perhaps, or death by stoning?
In fairness to the IRR, they did quite clearly state below my piece that the views of the author aren’t necessarily the views of the IRR and it may very well be that the IRR feel that a few billion rands to wire the SABC to a life support system is money well spent. However, they are a liberal bunch at the IRR and are quite happy to publish my and other’s opinions if they believe they may contribute to the national conversation. There are some things that the IRR say that I may not agree with but I can’t see that as reason to flounce off in a sulk. We are, both of us, far from being intolerant of Mr Markovitz.
I did, I admit, bait Mr Markovitz by referring to him as a comedian and the board of the SABC as ‘a useless bunch of bloodsucking nobodies’ for his suggestion that a R2 billion bailout was money well spent just to provide 30 million people with more government propaganda.
For that intemperate outburst I apologise but there’s something about Twitter that brings out the worst in all of us. I invited him to write a piece entitled ‘Why Bullard is wrong about the SABC’, which I rather presumptuously suggested that the IRR would publish as a right of reply after Mr Markovitz accused me of ‘trolling’ him on Twitter.
Clearly the definition of trolling has expanded somewhat because I simply responded (albeit by referring to him as a ‘comedian’) to his tweet commenting on my article. Trolling is normally associated with repeated and obscene abuse from an anonymous source on social media but it now seems to have an extended definition which includes ‘daring to have a difference of opinion with a board member of the SABC’.
Mr Markovitz pointed out in another tweet that he had ‘volunteered’ for service on the SABC board, which made me feel rather ashamed of myself – until he responded to a question of mine and admitted that his voluntary work came with a reasonable stipend. A rather unusual, but technically not incorrect, use of the word ‘volunteered’, which prompted me to mention that I once ‘volunteered’ to work for a merchant bank. How much kindlier would capitalism be regarded if we could all use these terms?
That same week Mandy Wiener penned a piece on News24 suggesting that the money would be better directed towards the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the Hawks rather than being spent on the SABC which hasn’t made a profit for six years and actually needs a bailout of R6.8 billion just to square the books.
Mandy correctly points out that most SOE’s can be regarded as dogs while the NPA should be regarded as a priority case when it comes to funding. Unless it’s just there for show, of course, and we are all just being duped into thinking that the rich and powerful will be dragged to court on corruption charges anytime soon.
Mr Markovitz had ‘no issue’ with Mandy’s piece and commented that she was ‘entitled to her view’ as indeed she is.
I have no personal issue with Michael Markovitz and must afford him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to him wanting to improve the finances and services of the SABC.
My comment last week was simply an opinion piece expressing a view that the SABC should be abandoned because it serves no useful function and will bleed taxpayers for years to come. Maybe if I had had the column published on News24 I would have got away with it. However, the fact remains that a board member of the national broadcasting service has such problems with a dissenting opinion doesn’t bode well for the future of the SABC.
* * *
Humility, as I’ve often been reminded, is not one of my more obvious qualities. Which is why I was indebted to the Democratic Alliance’s shadow minister for communication and digi-tech, Phumzile Van Damme, this week for reminding me of my lowly status in the great scheme of things.
Ms Van Damme had decided to promote the dailyfriend.co.za website on Twitter and garnered some 824 retweets. That’s the sort of free publicity one can only dream of and I thanked her for her endorsement, to which she replied: ‘You’re really not that important. Or your writing.’ It is truly humbling to be reminded of this by someone so important.
(Sensitive politicians, journalists and public servants can relax for a couple of weeks. I will be observing wildlife well beyond the reach of such fripperies as broadband connectivity. The column returns on November 3rd)
David Bullard is a columnist, author and celebrity public speaker known for his
controversial satire.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, become a Friend of the IRR if you aren’t already one by SMSing your name to 32823 or clicking here. Each SMS costs R1.’ Terms & Conditions Apply.