DISQUS

Ewan · 2 years ago

I mostly agree with you, and it's nice to see another side to the story for once - thanks for the post.

I can't believe he posted without expecting exactly the kind of repercussions he is facing now - he is a veteran after all, and I don't think he has any excuse for his "petty rant". I also agree that the core issue isn't blogging related, and he wasn't "fired for blogging".

Tertia · 2 years ago

you make some very sensible points Justin. well written.

Craig · 2 years ago

This definitely created some good traffic for Thought Leader, and I am sure the moderators would have known this too, thus I find your point on moderation very interesting...I would really like to know if the post was approved or shown to someone else before it was published...

Yusuf · 2 years ago

This high profile incident opens up the debate, there are least ten issues worthy of debate - freedom of expression & old/new media are the obvious but it goes further - talent risks, professionalism/ethics and role of regulators/HR.

Paul Jacobson · 2 years ago

I think you might appreciate the column I just submitted to The Times about this. It will probably only be published next week though.

Darren · 2 years ago

Agree with Tertia - well written - a strong standpoint on what will increasingly become a sensitive issue in corporate SA.

Dave · 2 years ago

Good points made here Justin, although I'd disagree with point 5. The M&G didn't sign any agreements with Avusa about not publishing their internal information. At the most, it may have been courteous to check with Avusa before publishing it, but that's certainly not their obligation. This is between Llewellyn Kriel and Avusa.

Justin Hartman · 2 years ago

Hi Guys

Thanks for all your comments on this post. Just to clarify once again - point 5 was an extremist view on the matter and I agree with Dave. I did feel however that point 5 needed to be argued.

Matthew Buckland · 2 years ago

I second Dave’s point and I agree on all Justin’s points -- except most definitely point 5, which raises the ominous question of “industrial sabotage” on our behalf. It's a very serious allegation -- and I should state categorically there is no such thing and that it is nonsense.

Remember, we don't tell ThoughtLeader bloggers what to write about. All of the 700 posts we have so far are issues chosen by the bloggers themselves.

We asked our editor for his reasons on why he approved the post in question – and to him it seemed rather innocuous at the time of approving. It only took on significance after the action to fire Kriel. Furthermore our editor himself used to be a sub-editor and for him it raised important questions about issues that all newsrooms are facing these days in SA.

Also our editor is not sensitised to the issues between Avusa and its employees. He cannot get involved in the specifics involving relationships between people and their companies re: what they may or may not do... it’s up to them to police. As Dave said, it’s between Llewellyn Kriel and Avusa. Frankly, it's none of our business.

Another point is that I do think this is a new media issue. I agree the blog angle has sensationalised this issue, but never-the-less it is still worth talking about and it is interesting that it happened via a blog… the fact that it happened on a competitor platform is probably irrelevant. ie...

I think this is worth talking about, not shutting down the debate...

Vincent Maher · 2 years ago

Guys, honestly - why bring up sabotage and say you don't believe it? Justin needs to explain why it's worth putting it on the agenda if he doesn't believe it - does this mean there are people who do, and on what basis? This is a serious thing to put out there, not something to be said lightly.

Here is an email I sent to Justin on my feelings about this matter and I was planning to keep this conversation off-line originally but the more I think about it, the more the red herring about sabotage irritates me:

"The way I see it there are 3 things going on here:

1. Kriel was fired for breach of confidentiality, this is clear to everyone

The questions it raises are the following:

2. Is the internal working of the media something that can be
protected by corporate policy or is it more important for the public
to know? If you see media strictly as a business then yes, corporate
policy can dictate what information must be public knowledge. If, on
the other hand, you see the media as playing a formative social role -
and this is the general consensus in terms of media theory - then a
situation affecting the way a media company produces its product is
genuinely in the public interest because it affects them directly. To
give you an example, readers of the paper will generally use what the
paper contains as their own news agenda. If what the paper says is
news is being affected by cutbacks and corporate mismanagement then
people must know that their trusted news source can no longer be
trusted.

3. Ignoring the specifics of how Thought Leader works, what this case
highlights is how much easier personal publishing tools make the
violation of corporate policy. This is the new media angle. Fools
like Catto who think they are above the law just because they have a
blog are just adding noise around this issue - the crux is that before
blogs you would have to go to a much greater effort to reach an
audience of a few thousand to tell your secret to - now its so easy
people could not even realise the consequences until after.

I suppose it was my and Arthur's choice of headline rather than the
actual arguments that make you think we're looking at this thing from
one dimension only. My main concern is how media professionals are
not questioning the blind following of corporate policy, but this is
because I come from an academic background and see media as being a
public service first and a corporate concern second, in the bigger
scheme of things."

Now, to those of you who agree that this can be reduced to the one-dimensional view that everything that happens is governed strictly by corporate policy, ask yourselves this - is this really your experience of how the world works?

The fact is that Kriel has a self-acknowledged history of rubbing management up the wrong way at the Sowetan and in his previous positions at other papers. This is actually reminiscent of a previous dismissal at another publication. So obviously this is not only about a violation of corporate policy but also about the context in which the policy was violated, by whom, and who it affected aside from the company as a whole. People all over the place violate corporate policy all the time and are not fired for it, they are given a warning.

Another thing worth asking is why Avusa didn't ask us to take down the post that offended them. I guess it would have been harder to hang Kriel's head on the city walls if the problem went away relatively quietly.

Needless to say these politics have nothing to do with the Mail & Guardian and we weren't even aware of them when this thing went down - Kriel's comments about the media, insofar as they can be generalised, are important because the functioning of the media matters to the public. So to suggest subtly that we're out to sabotage Avusa seems like a smokescreen, as is the focus on Ray's blog about the extremes of the arguments. As an example of a lack of double standard, our print editor has been criticised heavily on our own platform - taking criticism is part of the industry we're in, its what makes the media industry robust.

And seeing as we're discussing this openly I'd like to see which bloggers exactly are saying that blogging is above the law, other than Catto, and whether they are representative of the whole. I'd also like to know why Justin initially decided not to link to our GM's post that wasn't critical of Avusa.

None of this is said to damage personal relationships, just to show that there actually is another side to this story.

Old hand · 2 years ago

And what about the rubbish peddled by this self-described "shit....angel...drunk"?

Here are just two:

1. "Copiers are buckling under the strain of CVs being prepared at Johncom these days. Maybe not so much at FM and Business Day, but at Sunday Times and Sowetan the pace is frenetic." Pray offer us some proof, Mr Veteran Journalist.

2. "The happiest dudes (are) at an outfit supposedly worth R7-billion are at Exclusive Books and Nu Metro." R7-billion? The oke can't even count!

And what about Kriel's remarks about his fellow (black?) journalists? QUOTE: "We’ve got reporters for whom the basic tenets of English grammar are as alien as the five Ws and the H. That’s where “shit-shining” comes into it. And that vapid excuse of English not being their mother tongue is just rhetorical litter: they wanted to be English journalists. No one forced them."

So, let's stop feeling sorry for a blogger who ran out of interestings to say and decided to bite the hand that fed him and to slander the young journalists who work at his newspaper. He surely didn't expect to get away with it?

Sharon van Wyk · 2 years ago

Justin makes some valid points and by and large I agree that Kriel effectively committed cyber career suicide by venting his frustrations in a public forum. He should have known better. But, and here's the rub, irrespective of his lack of foresight, common sense and ability to curb his virtual tongue, the issues at the core of his ire should be scrutinised.
Once upon a time, I was the Deputy Chief Sub Editor of the Pretoria News, considered a good journalist by my peers but also something of a loose cannon. I began working for Aunty Argus in the early 90s, a year or two before she was sold down the river to an Irish bean-canner known as O'Reilly. There then followed a ten-year period of steady degradation of both the products and morale in the once mighty Argus group which eventually led to me producing the capital's morning paper each night with a total of five sub editors (myself included).
We too went through a staff morale survey, a succession of MDs and jobs freeze. Stress levels were intense and only surpassed by the level of griping and moaning of subbing staff who had, on average, more than 90 days leave each owing to them due to the fact that for them to take leave would have made it impossible to produce the paper.
I eventually cracked under the pressure, after a particularly hard night, and told my MD what I thought, like Kriel, in no uncertain terms in an e-mail which I then copied to heads of department at the Pretoria News.
I then sent an e-mail to my immediate superior, who I thought was my best friend, berating my editor, deputy editor and the impossible working conditions. This e-mail somehow found its way into an unmarked envelope on the editor's desk, in spite of being private correspondence.
I was disciplined and fired. I lost my CCMA case because I should have known better after 20 years in the business. Like Kriel, I refused to let go, took the case to the Labour Court and lost again.
My arguments at the time were Kriel's arguments. E-mail, and the changes it was making to the world of media, was the problematic new technology of the moment, just as blogging is the hot potato of today.
It isn't comforting to know that the problems I experienced all those years ago are still prevalent today. It's actually a cause for great concern. The print media houses of South Africa are living on borrowed time if they think that Kriel's public outburst is an isolated incident.
While Justin is correct in his feeling that sensitive corporate information should not have been made public on a "rival" publication's site, it is perhaps interesting that the Mail & Guardian picked up the pieces of me that Independent Newspapers threw to the floor, taking me under its wing as a freelance sub and writer, helping me to establish what is now a thriving career as an independent journalist writing what I want, when I want, and for who I want.
Yes, Avusa was justified in its actions. But consider the state of mind of a man, with 30 years experience under his belt, who has been driven to the apparent madness which cost him his job and livelihood.
Perhaps it is time that the big print media moguls in this country looked inwards at the men and women who jump through hoops on a daily basis to help them achieve their profit margins, in spite of often impossible expectations. Every time a newspaper hits the street a team of people has collectively pulled a rabit out of a hat, created a silk purse from a sow's ear and fought the good fight of editorial integrity, sometimes in a company whose leaders cannot even spell those two words, let alone understand their meaning.
Good sub editors are the backbone of the print media industry, and they are in short supply - ask any editor. If the press is truly to remain free in this country then it needs the experience and expertise of people like Kriel, people who have survived the dark days of apartheid and who know what this game is all about. Ultimately, what makes a good publication is not its profit margin, but the people who work hard to produce it.
There are some excellent writers in this country, but some would do well to remember that it's a sub who puts their copy on the page, fine tunes it and helps them to win the accolades without ever having a byline to say so. It's a sub who sits for hours on a full bladder on deadline hammering out the gremlins in copy, thinking up the hard-hitting headlines, the witty standfirsts and eye-grabbing pulls, cramming it all above the fold so it can sell the paper on the street, getting the job done with little, or no recognition.
To Mr Kriel I say this: let this go and get on with your life as quickly as you can and hopefully, like me, you will realise that the Sowetan has done you the best favour possible by setting you free from the shackles of boardroom journalism.
To the print media of South Africa I say this: rethink the way you do business - your biggest assets are your employees. Pay them well, treat them well and remember that they are human beings with lives that should not revolve around you. You are not the centre of their universe but they are the core of yours.

Sharon van Wyk

Howard Donaldson · 2 years ago

Hear, hear, Ms van Wyk. I agree entirely with your sentiments. I worked with Llewellyn at Indescribable Newspapers and, although he might be viewed as something of "a loose cannon" by the managers who now run newspapers, his integrity as a journalist and his steadfast belief in the protection of free speech is indisputable.