.@AdriaanBasson’s piece on his apparent anti Zuma “collaboration” with @EffSouthAfrica CIC @Julius_S_Malema requires some reflection.
Over the past few weeks there has been talk of and questions asked about Malema’s targeting of certain members of the media. Central to these discussions has been some questioning whether or not the CIC’s recent statements should be seen as a threat to media freedom
Many have been critical of the CIC and I believe that in some cases, rightfully so. What cannot happen however is to have a one sided critique of the supposed threat to media freedom without also turning the spotlight on some in “the media”
Reading his piece, Basson doesn’t seem to fathom the seriousness of what he is admitting to and how that feeds into the narrative of some in the media playing politics.
The battle between the EFF and Zuma was a political one and Basson has effectively admitted to being Malema’s tool in that battle. Unwittingly or not. Make no mistake, the EFF leader knew what he was doing in feeding Basson stories or angles and it worked.
Whether Basson recognizes it or not, Malema used him in the anti-Zuma push and his place in the media is no longer of use to the EFF’s current focus.
What Basson needs to answer for is how, as a journalist, he was willing and admits to having ignored Malema’s wrongs in the On Point matter, for the sake of having a series of anti-Zuma articles.
The “common thread” Basson speaks to is not new according to him so why was it ok to ignore it then and now it’s an issue?
The glaring thing for me is that Basson’s piece is driven in part by having been referred to as a “racist thing” as compared to a time when Malema would take his calls. He is no longer “in” with Malema and the CIC’s reference to his race is a sore point.
Agree with him or not, Malema has never been shy to speak to race, whether now or during his ANCYL days. Remember the British journo being thrown out of Luthuli House? Basson knows this but due to the quid pro quo “in” he had with Malema then, it was never an issue. Why is it now
Journalists having a politician as a source for stories is not illegal. But should that journo be left to cry foul when that same source has turned on them and is using language that the journo has always known the source to use, all for the sake of a story?
If a journo admits to having ignored the wrong doings of a source for the sake of another agenda, what are we to make of the same journo now being critical of the source having been allegedly implicated in things similar to the ones the journos has previously ignored?
