Moneyweb’s Clive Simpkins and writing
This can happen to anyone who writes. You write something, and when people read it (perhaps including you, later on), they see merely a weak piece that reveals a lot about you, the writer, instead of something that is informative or wise.
Take the case of Clive Simpkins’ article in which he argues that Afrikaans should be banished from the education system.
In his haste to have his go at Afrikaans, he states that ‘Afrikaans is still a compulsory subject at school’ - a lie that is easily disproved. How will this lie reflect on Moneyweb’s journalism?
When Afrikaners and Afrikaans are being targeted by the wealthy English-speaking elites, we don’t claim racism, because we are the same race in many cases. But it seems to me that to dismiss the rights of a group in such a way is the same kind of thing as racism - to target a group and try to step on them. Unfortunately for Clive, his discrimination is now published for the world to see.
He then goes on to say that African languages should be taught instead (along with English) - nothing wrong with that of course, but does it tell us something about Clive wanting to suck up to black people, and perhaps even his fears (as a white person) for his career?
In the past, paid columnist were protected from themselves by sub-editors. It seems that newspapers’ response to blogging (more blogging by their own columnists), cause editorial control to fall by the wayside. However, what difference then between a paid columnist and an ordinary blogger?
