Money talks and bullshit walks

I've always wondered when I was going to get a genuine, bone fide excuse to use this phrase. Thank you Rapport and Deon Maas.

I'll be honest, my Afrikaans might well represent an improvement on that of a lot of Engels speakers I know, but it's still pretty lousy. Nonetheless, I do get the gist of what the inimitable Mr Maas wrote in his column; given the near-hysterical outcry his words generated, it would be hard not to.

If anything is to be seen as symptomatic of the political and general discourse dwang this country – and the world in general - seems to be in, forget the Sunday Times vs Manto, this is it. Why is it that so many ordinary and not-so-ordinary people today seem incapable of understanding the difference between an argument/theoretical point and a personal endorsement or attack? A lot of things might not be working properly in this country, but it's abundantly clear that our collective knee joint is not on that list.

The columnist in question chose what I personally think was a tasteless/extreme/inappropriate analogy in favour of his argument, but I'm guessing that, apart from wishing to fan the flames of controversy, Deon Maas is no satanist. He used a lousy example to advance the notion that what many of those pleading for tolerance for human beliefs actually mean is tolerance for their beliefs, and not yours, thank you very much. Some time ago, the same columnist wrote something to the effect that the best place for road cyclists (or “fascictiese fiets-twatte” as I believe he referred to them) was under the wheels of a car. Was there outcry? Was there, heck. Most people took it from whence it came, the world kept turning and we all moved on. Because nobody really believed that the guy was advocating some kind of monster kill-all-cyclists rally, they figured he was either being a complete or was utilising the time-honoured journalistic device of irony.

It seems harsh to characterise a significant portion of a country's population as humourless or sufficiently unsophisticated to spot when they're having the bars of their cage rattled – if a guy smart enough to have once been the deputy president of our country can't cope with cartoons taking the mickey out of him, who are we to demand it of the ordinary people? It doesn't make it any easier to accept, though.

Fact: Rapport hired this guy because they thought his controversial line would sell papers, and we all know that good circulation figures keep the board and the advertisers happy. Fact: the editorial board deemed the column in question fit to publish. But when the advertisers and readers expressed their freedom of speech in condemnation of Maas's exercising of the same privilege, he became the journalistic equivalent of the kid with the excessively snotty nose that no one wants to sit next to at school. Shoot the messenger, why don't you.

These days, most people working on the editorial side of this industry will tell you that's it's increasingly difficult to escape the pressure of “our sponsors”. You don't have to look far to see which publications have folded under the pressure – they're the ones where you'll seldom see an unfavourable comment or review of pretty much anything. We all need to make a buck, so we tread a delicate course or brave it out if the heat is turned up.

It's ironic that so many of those who lauded the stance of the Sunday Times during the recent Health Minister saga, pointing out to anyone who would listen that it was indicative of the fact that we're living in some kind of banana republic are among the first to squeal when it's their belief, bank balance or reputation at stake.

But there you go: money talks and bullshit has left the building.