Press Freedom

Thought I’d get on the band wagon on this issue…

There’s a couple of articles thats been published recently that was heavily discussed in the media and on the comment lines of the articles themselfs:

1. David Bullard @ Sunday Times: “Imagine for a moment what life would be like in South Africa if the evil white man hadn’t come to disturb the rustic idyll of the early black settlers” http://www.thetimes.co.za/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=741855.

2. Jon Qwelane @ News24: “Poor President Robert Mugabe, he’s having a very rough time at the hands of western and South African racists, who are being aided and abetted by their loyal puppy, Morgan Tsvangirai”  (http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_2305349,00.html).

These 2 writers are writing commentary on political issues in SA in an already unstable political environment. Their commentary for me borderlines racism. Do we really need that right now?

The problem I see with it is that press freedom, like we have it, is way too open for interpretation. I constantly see articles being published that is stepping over the line of good reporting and should have been stopped from being publshed by the editors in the first place. If you followed these articles you would have seen from the reactions that people are getting worked-up even more so than they already are. In our present society that can not be a good thing!

I say reporters who writes on public published articles should be restricted, same as you aren’t allowed to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded building. You are not allowed to do that, but you may work a nation into a bloodlust frenzy over your interpretation of events? And you’re talking about a reporter/ commentator that probably doesn’t have any relevant qualifications in the applicable field. How is he or she qualified to give an objective opinion? A mere good writer?

Jake White (Springbok rugby coach: 2004-2007) wrote in his book, ‘In black and White’ about how some reporters wrote half truths and plain lies to sensationalise the stories or had some vendetta against him. That reporter is in being waging various sportmans futures in his hands. How can that be allowed in any way because of press freedom? Some of those reports almost cost our nation the best national event of ‘07- wouldn’t that have been fun to report on.

From what I understand there is some restrictions on press freedom. I say it must be restricted more by an approved counsel that will put clear guidelines in place for reporters to follow.

Long live pesticides

There’s a lot of organic products available on the shelves I see. What I take as organic is basically food that wasn’t sprayed with chemicals to protect it against pesticides or the soil artificially treated to increase crop yield.

Now what puzzles me is what part about technological advancement do these people not understand! The average age of the human race has significantly increased due to increased sanitary and quality of living. This surely includes quality of food too!? I think the chemical treatment of food had a significant positive impact: food lasted longer and people came off healthier because of quality products. Surely that makes sense.

Now if we were to take this away, wouldn’t it cause some decline in health to us in some way? I’m not suggesting high toxin dosing of food, but complete removal of pesticides like they suggest? Hmmm…

I think most of these people are like the Amish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish) who refuse advancement in life in any way. What are all these hippies gonna do when one day everything has to be grown artificially? Wait for an apple to fall off a tree and then eat it?

I like controlled pesticides the way they are thank you. And it’s cheaper because of higher crop yield. Go have your worms!