ANC asks e.tv to do the honourable thing

JungleBoy said:
So is it alright for E-TV to provide criminals with a platform to make threats...? They might as well assist them commit the crimes.
I really don't get this part...:confused:
Click to expand...

For one thing it's not making threats it's stating their intentions. You'd rather not know if someone intended assaulting you?

And for another thing how on earth do you make the leap from providing a platform to speak to aiding in criminal activity? I really don't get this part...:confused:

Criminals are allowed to vote in this country. Surely a small thing like freedom of speech can be afforded them as well?
 
people who are complaining about e.tv highlighting this just want the criminals to get on with their crime behind closed doors. Typical South African Ostrich mentality. If we ignore it, it doesn't exist.
 
Garyvdh said:
people who are complaining about e.tv highlighting this just want the criminals to get on with their crime behind closed doors. Typical South African Ostrich mentality. If we ignore it, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

agreed.

these guys and others are going to commit the crimes even if e.tv did not show them. I guess some people just felt better if they ignored the problem.
 
Garyvdh said:
people who are complaining about e.tv highlighting this just want the criminals to get on with their crime behind closed doors. Typical South African Ostrich mentality. If we ignore it, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I think the ANC is just upset because their inability to handle crime in South Africa was highlighted again. The irony is that if they did not make a fuss about it nobody would have talked about it.
 
Why do people not grasp that e-tv is not responsible for removing and catching criminals. Just like any news channel they cannot go arresting people because it would hurt them and e-tv is a business you do not hurt your business.

Now if the ANC did something about the crime e-tv would not be able to report such things would they?
 
killadoob said:
Why do people not grasp that e-tv is not responsible for removing and catching criminals. Just like any news channel they cannot go arresting people because it would hurt them and e-tv is a business you do not hurt your business.

Now if the ANC did something about the crime e-tv would not be able to report such things would they?
Click to expand...

I agree - etv is a business. But they shouldn't try and hinder the police behind some nonsense about protecting sources in this case. These aren't 'sources'.

On top of that, the footage should be used as a confession. I am sure that there will be all sorts of nonsense about admissability. If the criminals try and say that it was all a hoax, then etv can join them in the dock for wasting time and 'terrorising' us.

I guess a similar message should go to 702. I really don't want to hear phone calls from prison, or stories about mules being stuck in foreign jails.
 
Garyvdh said:
people who are complaining about e.tv highlighting this just want the criminals to get on with their crime behind closed doors. Typical South African Ostrich mentality. If we ignore it, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I think that crime should be exposed and that etv should have shopped those criminals.
 
Nick333 said:
For one thing it's not making threats it's stating their intentions. You'd rather not know if someone intended assaulting you?

And for another thing how on earth do you make the leap from providing a platform to speak to aiding in criminal activity? I really don't get this part...:confused:

Criminals are allowed to vote in this country. Surely a small thing like freedom of speech can be afforded them as well?
Click to expand...

Picture this...
A lunatic goes on TV and declares he will bomb a stadium during match day.
We laugh it off and say he has the right to make threats - freedom of speech, blah blah.
On match day, the stadium blows up and people die - what then?
The TV station knows their identity but they won't give them up... :confused:

Isn't this aiding criminal activity?
 
Last edited:
DigitalSoldier said:
agreed.

these guys and others are going to commit the crimes even if e.tv did not show them. I guess some people just felt better if they ignored the problem.
Click to expand...

E-TV should then do the right thing by giving up their identities so the crimes can be prevented. But no they refuse because they can't divulge their sources. So then it must be true that they are aiding criminals, isn't it?
 
JungleBoy said:
E-TV should then do the right thing by giving up their identities so the crimes can be prevented. But no they refuse because they can't divulge their sources. So then it must be true that they are aiding criminals, isn't it?
Click to expand...

As I stated in another thread I watched only about 5mins of the broadcast because I hated the arrogance displayed by those criminals. I have no problem if they are behind bars, but what president would it set if journalists suddenly start to reveal sources ?

Edit:
The original source "committed suicide", does e.tv still have to protect the identity of the criminals ?
 
Last edited:
Albereth said:
I agree - etv is a business. But they shouldn't try and hinder the police behind some nonsense about protecting sources in this case. These aren't 'sources'.

On top of that, the footage should be used as a confession. I am sure that there will be all sorts of nonsense about admissability. If the criminals try and say that it was all a hoax, then etv can join them in the dock for wasting time and 'terrorising' us.

I guess a similar message should go to 702. I really don't want to hear phone calls from prison, or stories about mules being stuck in foreign jails.
Click to expand...

Dude you know nothing about channels like e-tv then, if they did all that they would never have sources now would they?

They have a job to report, the cops have a job to catch the bad guys. You cannot mix the 2. For some reason people cannot accept that e-tv is a news channel that should never reveal their sources.

Go ask carte blanch to reveal all their sources i bet you they will show you the finger as would cnn and the like. Remember carte blanch interviewed a guy on the run from the police, the police could not find him but carte blanch did i never heard anyone calling for carte blanch to arrest the guy.
 
DigitalSoldier said:
As I stated in another thread I watched only about 5mins of the broadcast because I hated the arrogance displayed by those criminals. I have no problem if they are behind bars, but what president would it set if journalists suddenly start to reveal sources ?
Click to expand...

Criminal sources should not be protected under the same banner...!!!!
The man threatened to rob people.
He loaded and cocked his gun on national TV....most likely unlicensed firearm and possession of live ammunition.
E-tv just witnesed a possible crime and they will do nothing about it.
 
The options are:

1.)Know about the intentions of criminals before the crimes are committed.

2.)Not know about the intentions of criminals until after the crimes are committed.

If etv reveals their sources criminals will not be willing to talk publicly about their intentions.

I think tourists and soccer fans have the right to know what is potentially in store for them.

I also think the police should do their job instead of expecting broadcasters to track down criminals, get confessions of intent from them then hand them over. Besides which it's a trick a broadcaster can only preform once before it becomes impossible for them to do again.

And you can't prosecute people for saying they will commit a crime.
 
killadoob said:
Dude you know nothing about channels like e-tv then, if they did all that they would never have sources now would they?

They have a job to report, the cops have a job to catch the bad guys. You cannot mix the 2. For some reason people cannot accept that e-tv is a news channel that should never reveal their sources.

Go ask carte blanch to reveal all their sources i bet you they will show you the finger as would cnn and the like. Remember carte blanch interviewed a guy on the run from the police, the police could not find him but carte blanch did i never heard anyone calling for carte blanch to arrest the guy.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. I think I have a pretty fair idea of how they work.

Let's say that the arguement isn't particularly one that only etv has. It is supposedly a journalism issue - a journalist doesn't reveal his sources.

The point that a lot of people (including myself) are making is that these are not sources. A source would be the person who tells etv that so-and-so is planning to rob and murder FIFA visitors. etv have stuffed up and now are trying to justify their sensationalism.

I am not saying that sources cannot be criminals, but the news services are not able to given you any absolution.

Extend the same arguement to that of the confession box in church. 'Forgive me father for I have murdered .... ' isn't going to give you any protection no matter how Hollywood would have you think.

I am not in favour of the police shooting the messenger either. Either way this is an interesting issue.

As for Carte Blanche - don't watch it. Yes, I have seen it and sometimes they do some good. But they have also had carjackers in disguise.
 
You guys know nothing about journalistic sources and freedom of the press.

as already said, stopping crime is not e.tv's business, it is the responsibility of the police and the govt.

If e.tv gives up these names, then they will have lost all credibility with the public and the next time an opportunity presents itself to interview a potential criminal, the criminal won't talk to e.tv because he can't trust them. so he goes unreported and free to do his crime and nobody gets to hear about it.

Please do a little bit of reading on freedom of the press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
 
Nick333 said:
The options are:

1.)Know about the intentions of criminals before the crimes are committed.

2.)Not know about the intentions of criminals until after the crimes are committed.

If etv reveals their sources criminals will not be willing to talk publicly about their intentions.

I think tourists and soccer fans have the right to know what is potentially in store for them.

I also think the police should do their job instead of expecting broadcasters to track down criminals, get confessions of intent from them then hand them over. Besides which it's a trick a broadcaster can only preform once before it becomes impossible for them to do again.

And you can't prosecute people for saying they will commit a crime.
Click to expand...

Check it out...

INTIMIDATION ACT 72 OF 1982

(1) Any person who-
(a) without lawful reason and with intent to compel or induce any person or persons of a particular nature, class or kind or persons in general to do or to abstain from doing any act or to assume or to abandon a particular standpoint-
(i) assaults, injures or causes damage to any person; or
(ii) in any manner threatens to kill, assault, injure or cause damage to any person or persons of a particular nature, class or kind; or
(b) acts or conducts himself in such a manner or utters or publishes such words that it has or they have the effect, or that it might reasonably be expected that the natural and probable consequences thereof would be, that a person perceiving the act, conduct, utterance or publication-
(i) fears for his own safety or the safety of his property or the security of his livelihood, or for the safety of any other person or the safety of the property of any other person or the security of the livelihood of any other person; and
 
Garyvdh said:
You guys know nothing about journalistic sources and freedom of the press.

as already said, stopping crime is not e.tv's business, it is the responsibility of the police and the govt.

If e.tv gives up these names, then they will have lost all credibility with the public and the next time an opportunity presents itself to interview a potential criminal, the criminal won't talk to e.tv because he can't trust them. so he goes unreported and free to do his crime and nobody gets to hear about it.

Please do a little bit of reading on freedom of the press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
Click to expand...

I have no problem with e-tv refusing to give up the criminals.
I do however have a real problem with them providing the criminals with the soap box. It was incredibly irresponsible of them to air the story to start off. They cannot even claim public interest because of all debates I have listened to, an overwhelming majority does not condone e-tv's actions.

The political fall out is just politicians doing what they do best.
 
Garyvdh said:
If e.tv gives up these names, then they will have lost all credibility with the public and the next time an opportunity presents itself to interview a potential criminal, the criminal won't talk to e.tv because he can't trust them. so he goes unreported and free to do his crime and nobody gets to hear about it.

Please do a little bit of reading on freedom of the press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
Click to expand...

But the original source, the guy that put e.tv in contact with the criminals, is dead does e.tv still have to protect their identity ?

I am all for protecting your sources but what if the informant is dead ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X