Jan

Who's the Boss?
Staff member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
7,515

deesef

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
2,209
Geez, what company does not selfishly protect their bottom line?
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
30,310
Lol they even sued Paul hjul
Note that Paul is pro-Telkom on this one, @rpm and @Jan still fail to seek comment from Telkom for half these pieces, at least they now mention some of the reasons Telkom is opposing like:
Telkom’s concerns with Icasa’s proposed spectrum auction are manifold and include — auctioning spectrum that E-tv refuses to give up by the deadline, not considering Vodacom and MTN’s market dominance, and not licensing a national wireless open-access network at the same time.
And there are more reasons than just that, but every single MyBB article comes with select quotes that seek to say how terrible Telkom is for trying to get an interdict.
Was also interesting how @rpm and @Jan did not publish the previous court case result where the judge basically said ICASA's entire auction was unlawful since:
1615840325900-png.11850

1615840346359-png.11851

And a host of other issues, you can read it here:

And the digital migration is still not complete, this auction cannot proceed.

@rpm you should actually declare in the article that you have been paid quite a bit in regards to add space from Vodacom and your cloud conference only key partner:
1641422861724.png
 

Jan

Who's the Boss?
Staff member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
7,515
still fail to seek comment from Telkom
That is simply not true. We wrote an article this week that featured basically *only* comment from Telkom on this.

the judge basically said ICASA's entire auction was unlawful
That's an interesting perspective, since Telkom itself told me on Monday that part of the problem with the last round in court was that the judge did not pronounce on the merits of the case.

What they've done this time around, as I understand it, is ask for a speedy judgement on the actual merits.

Regardless, we certainly did write about the court case result last year and mentioned it in summary in a multitude of follow-up articles.

More to your point, we wrote a few articles quoting operators explaining their problems with the ITA, e.g.:

 

Mawirepower

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
297
This is one of those instances I envy the Chinese government! Nothing gets in their way of progress.
 

Shadowchaser1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
559
This is one of those instances I envy the Chinese government! Nothing gets in their way of progress.
Spot on. The following has nothing to do with communication but this is how the Chinese Government Plan, move and progress.

Three lessons from China’s effort to bring electricity to 1.4 billion people​

1. Co Ordinate all Stakeholders 2. Select Appropiate Technologies 3. Embed Electrification in Development.

Unfortunately for SA, ICASA is a Government Department. Don't think there will no auction in the 1st 6 months of 2022, if any @ all. Just a thought, as they are not known to be in a hurry.
 

markings

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
2,024
If I can't get it it right with the 2nd try, or is it even more, I would also get angry but ICASA is angry with the wrong entity, it should be themselves. And why no anger at e-tv who are really the root cause of this?
I am fully behind Telkom here.
 

boboudts

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
507
Those companies in which the marxist anti free- market anc have an interest in!
 

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
26,359
Telkom just can't shake that monopoly mentality when it comes to competing..
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
30,310
That is simply not true. We wrote an article this week that featured basically *only* comment from Telkom on this.
Which is what you shouldn't do, you should have a comment from everyone on the topic, you can't just post full comment of one.
That's an interesting perspective, since Telkom itself told me on Monday that part of the problem with the last round in court was that the judge did not pronounce on the merits of the case.
What? I quoted from the judgement, I would expect you to have read it, in it it states that the ICASA auction was unlawful, and nothing has changed, just that the judge hasn't done the final ruling due to other parts also that haven't been ruled on.
What they've done this time around, as I understand it, is ask for a speedy judgement on the actual merits.

Regardless, we certainly did write about the court case result last year and mentioned it in summary in a multitude of follow-up articles.
And constantly the tone of the articles was how terrible Telkom is to have done the interdicts, you cannot use a headline like in this article "Telkom launched "pre-emptive strike" — serves "narrow and selfish commercial interests" will not be interpreted as ICASA saying it, it's interpreted as MyBB having that opinion after knowledge of the case. You constantly do this and it is the equivalent to Buzzfeed tbh.
More to your point, we wrote a few articles quoting operators explaining their problems with the ITA, e.g.:

That article is mostly neutral, but it's standalone and never mentioned again, you should make a summary article that constantly gets linked to for each of them.

In this matter, MyBB should be supporting Telkom, it doesn't make sense why you are supporting Vodacom and MTN. ICASA is trying to license spectrum it doesn't have, trying to force large bids that Telkom and any other operator will not be able to bid, since it can't handle a deposit of a few billion rand with nothing to show for it besides a promise for a process that has previously shown to be flawed, constant digital migration failure for over a decade.

The only reason that MyBB would support Vodacom in this is due to the sponsorship, I also see nothing in your post mentioning that, and you have failed in each of your articles on the matter to state it.

In the press code of ethics:
1.8 seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated;
That means each and every single article, you ask for comment, not post a new one after the fact.

Also:
2.Independence and Conflicts of Interest

The media shall:

2.1 not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism;
2.2 not accept any benefit which may influence coverage;
2.3 indicate clearly when an outside organization has contributed to the cost of news gathering; and
2.4 keep editorial material clearly distinct from advertising and sponsored events.

They sponsor your site, you need to disclose that.
 

RedViking

Nord of the South
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
47,357
I'm sure Vodacom can't wait to get their claws on it.

What about making it available, but ban MTN and Vodacom from accessing it?

Let's see how humble they really are.
 

markings

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
2,024
….. not even the human rights of their citizens?
Are you aware that there is a huge amount of democracy within the CPC? That their decisions are not the arbitrary whim of an elite but the result of vigorous discussion among technocrats? If you base your comment on the Xinjiang 'genocide' it has been thoroughly debunked and the latest reversal of the US Olympic boycott only confirms this.
That is communism with Chinese characteristics and it works for them. There is nothing wrong with it.
If the CPC is as evil as the West portrays it how come that the vast majority of the population is supporting them? Let the Chinese people deal with their own problems in their own way.
 

Jan

Who's the Boss?
Staff member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
7,515
Which is what you shouldn't do, you should have a comment from everyone on the topic, you can't just post full comment of one.
This is not possible, nor is it required by the press code in this specific context.

While there are definitely instances where one must ask for comment from all parties before going to print, that does not apply in this specific case.

You've also seen how many respondents Telkom cited in its papers. It is unreasonable to expect any media outlet to ask every single one of them for comment before going to print with a press release from one of them.

Just like it is fruitless to expect a journalist to go and ask for comment from Vodacom, MTN, ICASA, and others before running the story that Telkom is taking ICASA to court, it is also not practical or necessary to expect a journalist to wait for comment that might never come before running ICASA's response to said legal challenge.

In this case, my duty was to relay the news as quickly and accurately as possible, then follow-up. I would not be serving our readers properly if I waited days for comment before reporting ICASA's statement.

You might not like the headline, but we offer the benefit of strong headlines to Telkom too:


FWIW I have followed up. Even though the operators have mostly declined to comment because the matter is before court, you can expect a follow-up article soon. (Update: MTN has issued a press release - they are opposing Telkom's application.)

In this matter, MyBB should be supporting Telkom, it doesn't make sense why you are supporting Vodacom and MTN.

You can't argue that we're not neutral and then say we need to support Telkom.

Based on that statement, is it not possible that you are seeing balanced reporting as biased because to you "balanced" or "fair" or "reasonable" would mean supporting Telkom?

ICASA is trying to license spectrum it doesn't have, trying to force large bids that Telkom and any other operator will not be able to bid, since it can't handle a deposit of a few billion rand with nothing to show for it besides a promise for a process that has previously shown to be flawed, constant digital migration failure for over a decade.

I would love to have this discussion with you. But based on the way you've approached this I unfortunately can't assume good faith, without which a constructive discussion/debate is not possible :(

In the press code of ethics:

This is a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the press code.

The only reason that MyBB would support Vodacom in this is due to the sponsorship, I also see nothing in your post mentioning that, and you have failed in each of your articles on the matter to state it.

This is cherry-picking and assuming the conclusion in your premise ("When did you stop beating your wife?").

Aside from the fact that last I checked all the major operators advertise with us and not only Vodacom, the reporting is balanced.

Even if you accept the evidence as complete (which it isn't), concluding that we must be supporting Vodacom is fallacious. The evidence supports multiple conclusions, with no justification given for why they weren't equally likely.

There are valid legal and possibly technical reasons to support delaying the auction. Conversely, there are also good reasons to push for the auction to be held in March. Hopefully they figure out a solution this time.
 

MarkKC001

New Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1
Everybody forgets the history, Telkom was the Monopoly and owned 50% of Vodacom. They were rolling in cash and sold out to shareholders, now they are crying poverty and want special, also ran awards.
Here is their history

The Telkom story – From a dominant monopoly to begging for help

 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
30,310
This is not possible, nor is it required by the press code in this specific context.

While there are definitely instances where one must ask for comment from all parties before going to print, that does not apply in this specific case.

You've also seen how many respondents Telkom cited in its papers. It is unreasonable to expect any media outlet to ask every single one of them for comment before going to print with a press release from one of them.
It is reasonable for you to include previous articles/comments in the article if they've already been given.
Just like it is fruitless to expect a journalist to go and ask for comment from Vodacom, MTN, ICASA, and others before running the story that Telkom is taking ICASA to court, it is also not practical or necessary to expect a journalist to wait for comment that might never come before running ICASA's response to said legal challenge.
Again, you already have info/previous comment, and it is perfectly reasonable for you to publish it without comment if the chance for comment was given.
In this case, my duty was to relay the news as quickly and accurately as possible, then follow-up. I would not be serving our readers properly if I waited days for comment before reporting ICASA's statement.
Sure, but you have had previous comment that you can include.
You might not like the headline, but we offer the benefit of strong headlines to Telkom too:


FWIW I have followed up. Even though the operators have mostly declined to comment because the matter is before court, you can expect a follow-up article soon. (Update: MTN has issued a press release - they are opposing Telkom's application.)
Did you notice that your title there states Telkom said so, meanwhile the title for this article does not?
You can't argue that we're not neutral and then say we need to support Telkom.
No, I said I'd expect you to support Telkom in opinion pieces summarizing it, where you clearly mark it as opinion and not news.
Based on that statement, is it not possible that you are seeing balanced reporting as biased because to you "balanced" or "fair" or "reasonable" would mean supporting Telkom?
Seems like you like reading half a post and then spinning it.
I would love to have this discussion with you. But based on the way you've approached this I unfortunately can't assume good faith, without which a constructive discussion/debate is not possible :(
What do you mean not assume good faith? So now you're making more unsubstantiated claims, spinning it. My entire comment is you are loading your content with polarizing stuff, so far it seems to all benefit Vodacom who are a major sponsor of yours.
This is a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the press code.

This is cherry-picking and assuming the conclusion in your premise ("When did you stop beating your wife?").

Aside from the fact that last I checked all the major operators advertise with us and not only Vodacom, the reporting is balanced.

Even if you accept the evidence as complete (which it isn't), concluding that we must be supporting Vodacom is fallacious. The evidence supports multiple conclusions, with no justification given for why they weren't equally likely.

There are valid legal and possibly technical reasons to support delaying the auction. Conversely, there are also good reasons to push for the auction to be held in March. Hopefully they figure out a solution this time.
I quoted the entire section on independence, completely cherry picking...

I'll quote and highlight section 1 for you as well then:
1. Gathering and reporting of news
The media shall:

1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;
1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization;
1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such;
1.4 obtain news legally, honestly and fairly, unless public interest dictates otherwise;
1.5 use personal information for journalistic purposes only;
1.6 identify themselves as such, unless public interest or their safety dictates otherwise;
1.7 verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, this shall be stated;
1.8 seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated;
1.9 state where a report is based on limited information, and supplement it once new information becomes available;
1.10 make amends for presenting inaccurate information or comment by publishing promptly and with appropriate prominence a retraction, correction, explanation or an apology on every platform where the original content was published, such as the member’s website, social media accounts or any other online platform; and ensure that every journalist or freelancer employed by them who shared content on their personal social media accounts also shares any retraction, correction, explanation or apology relating to that content on their personal social media accounts;
1.11 prominently indicate when content that was published online has been amended or an apology or retraction published. The original content may continue to remain online but a link to the amendment, retraction or apology must be included in every version of the content which remains available online;
1.12 not be obliged to remove any content which is not unlawfully defamatory; and
1.13 not plagiarise.
Note 1.2.

The fact that this was in a previous court case already where the judge ruled ICASA's actions as unlawful could definitely be considered as material omission, wouldn't you think?
 
Top