David Jones and his team just don't get it.
[permalink]

I know our journalists are generally quite poorly paid and we have learnt to expect only a certain level of journalism from our local papers. But I was always under the impression that The Sunday Independent was created to give the South African people a BETTER read, with BETTER stories and a BETTER level of journalism. Unlike this website for example, the paper certainly does come across as a more sophisticated read. Its typeface and layout does lend itself to sophistication and perhaps, even, a read offering intellectual stimulation and argument.

Now, as I said, we have learnt to expect mistakes in our local papers and sometimes we don't even notice errors in grammar, let alone facts and details. But I am amazed when facts and details are incorrect when dealing with an accompanying image on a page. It's one thing telling me that the car at the scene of a crime was blue, when it was actually red - but when there is a photograph of a red car in the article......it is surely unforgivable? Someone has fucked up - either the writer, the proof readers or the editor. Whoever it is, it's emboerrissing.

You may have read this headline in The Sunday Independent, this Sunday, 7 January 2007.

The sub-heading of David Jones's article, should you be struggling to read, states, "Observers see pivotal role in Iraq for Hussein's eldest daughter, The Gucci wearing 'Little Saddam', whose husband her father killed"

The article went on to repeat, more than once, the fact that she wears Gucci sunglasses. The article THEN went on to feature a photograph of our girl, wearing a pair of sunglasses - the logo of which is so prominent that is verges on being the focal point of the entire page, let alone the article. If I may:

The "Gucci" sunglasses

In this day and age of fashion and brand obsession, would you not think it a tad emboerrissing for a 'top-class' publication, such as The Sunday Independent, to come across as either unaware of the difference between the brands 'Gucci' and 'Chanel', or perhaps so completely unaware and detached that they consider the name 'Gucci' a generic?

Annoying people will argue that they are unaffected by fashion and not everyone is as obsessed as, perhaps, I am. Then why mention a brand at all? Would a clueless person be so bold as to choose a brand at random, hoping they got the right one? In a NATIONAL NEWSPAPER? Surely it would be easier to use the safer South African favourite term "designer" shades? Why risk fucking up the name, ESPECIALLY with an accompanying photograph? A simple search on Google for "chanel logo", found me this little gem.

A turtle would recognise the logo as the same interlinking 'C's' as those found on the sunglasses belonging to the dictator's daughter. A search on Google for "gucci logo" finds no such interlinking 'C's'.

Do our newspapers have internet access?

I am happy to report that I found the exact pair of Chanels that I had lost a few weeks back, at a store in Constantia Village. (Thank you to the concerned members of the public for their support during this time). Again, we see those little interlinking 'C's'.

Something is very worrying, strange and naive about our local media. And it's not just the newspapers. News and sports readers on the radio and television sound not too dissimilar to the english orals my peers and I used to deliver in standard 6 (Grade 8 to the new generation). Our magazine articles feature articles about idiots, written by idiots - apparently FOR idiots. The only good read out there is 17 Magazine - at least it is aimed at teenagers, and that is exactly what they get.

Seth Rotherham
Editor
2oceansvibe.com
[permalink]