Round Number One . . . Ding!!

This is what came to mind while reading the latest newspaper reports; and boxing is really not my favourite sport. Our journalism has really sunk to the new low levels of "mine is bigger than yours" - tough talk that is.

The first jab is aimed at the infamous jaw of one Mr Vavi, he who says the minister of finance must tow the line or go. The left hook goes for Mr Malema's midrif, he who says killing is an expression of passion and support for political leadership. I am not sure what the role of the fourth estate should be in the 14 year old democracy but clearly baiting conflict does not strike me as a role I would choose for the media. Tough talk is the business that both Mr Malema and Mr Vavi understand very well, their respective careers were built on tough talk and tough actions. These are the men who stood up when many members of the 4th estate did not. Does this make the tough talk of Messrs Vavi and Malema right? Of course not, less so the tough talk of the media!

Incitement remains a common law crime in South Africa, a crime that has to a greater or lesser extent contributed to the creation of the wonder that is our constitution. The tough talk of the two gentlemen is one that was commonly used by the liberation movement (made up of many political formations from End Conscription Campaign to Azasm) to incite the people of this country to stand up against the tyranny of the apartheid regime. Other times tough talk was accompanied by tough actions against both victims and perpetrators of oppression. This is the history that shaped the political views and expressions of the two gentlemen. That being so, what would be the chances of either of them backing down when referred to as buffoons?

What is it that incites Messrs Vavi and Malema to engage in such fighting talk? Once again dear reader this is a separate question to whether the two gentlemen should engage in fighting talk, even when incited to do so.

Mr Malema believes, correctly or not, that there is a conspiracy against his leader that has resulted in the leader now having to stand trial based on concocted corruption charges. He is not the only one who holds that view. In response to his fighting talk, the media's blood boiled and the DA farted back, or did they fight back? The media could not find enough adjectives to describe Mr Malema's idiocy and the DA wanted him charged with a crime. The human rights commission threatened action of its own. None of these rantings made our country a safer place to live. All that the rantings achieved was to further polarise an already polarised society.

It is actually fascinating how having labelled Messrs Vavi and Malema buffoons, the clever people proceeded to behave. The way I understand it, the clever people hold the view (correctly so) that fighting talk will lead to fighting and everyone will lose and our children will have no future and so on and so forth. But then the clever people proceed to engage in fighting talk of their own; saying such things as South Africa has no place for such buffoonery, are they saying Malema and Vavi must go live elsewhere? Of course not, I suspect that what they want is that Malema and Vavi should please stop with the fighting talk, which is making everybody nervous.

We all have a responsibility to this country, the fourth estate and the opposition parties included, we have a responsibility not to square up to Messrs Malema and Vavi. We have a responsibility to engage them and to put our point accross in a way that will serve our democracy and not destroy it.

The headlines are nothing but cheap points at the expense of a greater good; the fourth estate should know better.