MBSA Managers Suspended

chiskop said:
Um, what did they withhold? What did they sensationalise? Sure, the part about the company function was left out of the original post - but I'm not sure that the full story was quoted.

The article isn't TBH sensationalised - read a tabloid to see what sensationalism looks like.

Remember, just because you don't agree with how the story is reported or the story itself, doesn't mean it's sensationalised or incitement to hatred.
Click to expand...

Actually they have two versions of the story on the Dispatch website. The version containing all the facts is the official version, I think.

The other version has been created to generate more sympathy for the victim and is a blog discussion, as opposed to the whole truth.

Unfortunately we received the latter version, which was obviously missing some vital information.

So, yes, I agree tabloids are a lot worse - but that is there job, and we are aware of that. Responsible reporting at a respected daily newspaper must be careful not to border on such similar trash. Which, I will concede, in this instance they have not and it was unfortunate that that is not the version we discussed as it would have saved a lot of pointless argument.

But its not what is reported, or as you say how it is reported, but rather what is not reported that leads me to believe that the story is trying to be sensationalist and incite hatred. The latter version (the one in this thread) most definitely does. Of course, this isn't the official article, so I do not blame the Despatch. Had it been then I would have continued to do so.

The original article is far more responsible and objective, which is what I ask of respected newspapers.
 
How is it inciting hatred? Please, you keep saying that, but you're unable to show me in the article where they're actually doing that.

It is reporting on an event - there is no editorial or opinion in the article.
 
chiskop said:
How is it inciting hatred? Please, you keep saying that, but you're unable to show me in the article where they're actually doing that.

It is reporting on an event - there is no editorial or opinion in the article.
Click to expand...

The article quoted here isn't the article! Its a carefully edited version for a blog.

It puts all of the blame on the two managers, and neglects to mention that there were obviously extenuating leading to the incident. And judging by the comments to the blog it has worked. It makes it out like these two managers were purposefully stalking and targetting this individual - which was not the case. Yes, the incident it regrettable and being drunk is no excuse. But Qonono was not the specific target of a hate crime.

The original article is NOT sensationalist or inciting hatred.
 
timgaul said:
Following on that, some sort of social environment involves alcohol 9 times out of 10.
Click to expand...

Link to those stats please?

Hmmm. Also no mention of a "social environment"!

You should be a long jump athlete!
 
Last edited:
Omac said:
Link to those stats please?

Hmmm. Also no mention of a "social environment"!

You should be a long jump athlete!
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the whole thread through? This version is an edited verion on a blog. The original version states:

The alleged attack occurred when managers from Ikhwezi Truck Tech went to a Kei Mouth resort to commemorate the buying-out of their company, which on March 1 was taken over by MBSA.

He said the attack took place as they were retiring to their chalets at the resort after spending the night at the bar.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So which part of "social environment" does not include a bar. Which bar doesn't serve alcohol again? Read before you reach you silly little conclusions. Because by my count you just leaped way past me.
 
timgaul said:
Did you actually read the whole thread through? This version is an edited verion on a blog. The original version states:



So which part of "social environment" does not include a bar. Which bar doesn't serve alcohol again? Read before you reach you silly little conclusions. Because by my count you just leaped way past me.
Click to expand...

You've left out the stats!
 
chiskop said:
Okay, how do you reach this conclusion?
Click to expand...

The key word being specific. It may have been a racist attack, I can't refute or uphold that. However, it was not premeditated - this guy was not a specific target singled out for being black. It was accelerated by the fact that alcohol was introduced into the situation.

My general opinion is that this was, as I have previously said, a drunken brawl that went to far. Whether it was fuelled by some sort of racist hatred is mere speculation.

chiskop said:
So where is the incitement to hatred you've been talking about? Frankly, I don't see it in either the original post or the dispatch article linked.
Click to expand...

I have explained.
 
He's also left out the part where there is any incitement to hatred, in any of the quoted or linked articles.

[-]He's also left out the part where he explains how he came to the conclusion that "Qonono was not the specific target of a hate crime".[/-] Sorry, posted before I read your word-play. So it was a racist attack, but not pre-meditated?

But with this guy, it is par for the course. :rolleyes:
 
timgaul said:
bar n 1: a room or establishment where alcoholic drinks are served over a counter [syn: barroom, saloon, ginmill, taproom]
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm familiar with the concept of a bar. It's the 9 out of ten part that needs explaining.

I have explained.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I missed it. Where did you explain, and where did you quote the specific parts of either article that you claimed incited hatred?
 
Last edited:
chiskop said:
He's also left out the part where there is any incitement to hatred, in any of the quoted or linked articles.

He's also left out the part where he explains how he came to the conclusion that "Qonono was not the specific target of a hate crime".

But with this guy, it is par for the course. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can not realise that reporting something from a slightly slanted viewpoint cannot cause people to believe something one way or another. You are obviously a massive tabloid reader and perhaps don't understand responsbile journalism.

When you've finished reading your YOU magazine go read something worthwhile and perhaps you'll understand. Or maybe you'll stick to people magazine, with you, it seems, it is par for the course.

Heres an example:

2 boys are playing cricket on a field in Durban, one is attacked by a vicious Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy took his cricket bat and managed to wedge it down the dog's collar and twist,luckily breaking the dog's neck and stopping its attack. A reporter sees the incident, and rushes over to interview the boy.
"Young Sharks Fan Saves Friend From Vicious Animal, "he starts writing in his notebook.
"But I'm not a Sharks fan," the little hero replied.
"Sorry, since we are in Durban, I just assumed you were," said the reporter and starts again.
"Western Province Fan Rescues Friend from Horrific Attack ..."
"I'm not a Western Province fan either!" the boy said.
"I assumed everyone in Durban was either for the Sharks or Western Province." "So what team DO you root for?"
"I'm a Blue Bulls fan!" the child beamed.
The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes,
"Little Bastard from Pretoria Kills Beloved Family Pet"

Its extreme but depends on how you put across your point of view. Neglecting certain details puts emphasis on the wrong aspects and can change how a story is perceived.
 
timgaul said:
I don't understand how you can not realise that reporting something from a slightly slanted viewpoint cannot cause people to believe something one way or another. You are obviously a massive tabloid reader and perhaps don't understand responsbile journalism.
Click to expand...

I have a reasonable understanding of journalism - I lecture it.

Your example was entertaining, but doesn't answer the question of how this story is slanted.
 
Last edited:
dlk001 said:
Seems to be the case when the alleged perpetrators of the evil had alcohol intake.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if you have ever seen any drunken brawls they almost seem to come out of nowhere. One minute, best of buddies, the next moment in fisticuffs.
 
timgaul said:
"Little Bastard from Pretoria Kills Beloved Family Pet"

Its extreme but depends on how you put across your point of view. Neglecting certain details puts emphasis on the wrong aspects and can change how a story is perceived.
Click to expand...

but your example does indeed sound extremely off the point.
 
timgaul said:
Exactly, if you have ever seen any drunken brawls they almost seem to come out of nowhere. One minute, best of buddies, the next moment in fisticuffs.
Click to expand...

Indeed, drunken brawls come out of nowhere. Its just the evil that comes from somewhere! That liquor does not justify the evil.
 
timgaul said:
Point is: perception is in the way it is reported.
Click to expand...

True. Even Mbeki and Zuma has said a lot about media perceptions. It seems the said perpetrators of this alleged racist act have resorted to quiet diplomacy! Lets hope they come out with their version soon. I'm sure the media would like that story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X