I had barely placed the glass to my lips before I was already afloat in an ocean of cliches. Each lapping, bland wave threatened to sink me at any moment.I ‘d switched the television over to “The View”. The view in question is a weekly televisual study of Norneverland politics. I’d been happily grazing on a re-run of Tarantino’s black comedy on World War Two films, “Inglourious Basterds” but my wife quickly brought me to attention with, “How many times have you seen that before?”
I’ve got to say ,I do enjoy Tarantino’s quirky devilment, at times . Not always , you understand , but he’s made some really interesting films. In this film , the performance of the Nazi Jew Hunter is a comic -book study in villainy brought ably to life by the very fine and meticulous dramatics of the actor Christoph Waltz…….Tarantino’s films have no truck with reality ,of course. They mess about with time and human foolishness but are ultimately better than most good popcorn.
The wife was right of course. It had probably been on television many times before, so it was back to “the View”.This time a raddled grouping of our local Norneverland politicians had been assembled to pick over the bones of the Non -Agreement Talks ,just ended in time for Santa’s arrival and the holidays. Just in time to be buried under a mountain of food and drink.This had been on television many times before too, so it felt like a re- run of amateur dramatics. Everyone looked well -fed and composed, possibly having just let out their collective waists .Their jobs were obviously safe for another while so they were relaxing in palpable complacency.That’s is where I really began to twitch as the cliches began to ooze and flow..
….suddenly…all bets were off…all in due time…any port in a storm……as plain as the nose on your face ….kicking that can down the road …at the end of the day…..as the crow flies….as useful as a lead balloon….as ye sow so shall ye reap….asleep at the wheel….at the crack of dawn…at the drop of a hat….at the eleventh hour….at the last minute …he had an axe to grind…backs were against the wall …with this deal breaker…but we were back from the dead anyhoo…..and back in the saddle….never minding the back stabbers …for one moment….but there was bad blood…and in the end of the day…it was a bad call…
.Well if you had a ….bad hair day like TV Mike was obviously having …or were… as bad to the bone…. as Broken Mouth , Gregory Cam Beal…..you would take your …bags and baggage …and your.. half-baked …ball of wax …and kick that ball back into your court….too !!!
I should have stuck with the the Tarantino film ; at least he knows how make the best use of cliched situations …..and they call this entertainment….sorry …politics!!.
A while back you strayed into the dangerous territory of “trial by media” and I voiced disagreement.
Posting the following by a South African journo on my Facebook site was a pleasure, therefore.
As a journalist of the old school and knowing the law, it continually shocks me that kangaroo court and lynch mob people seem not only to be educated in the modern world but their numbers are growing — back to the bush for the vast majority, sadly!
Cliches?
http://ewn.co.za/2014/12/09/OPINION-Mandy-Wiener-Convicted-by-the-court-of-public-opinion
“Mandy Wiener looks at what the court of public opinion has to say about the Oscar Pistorius case.
At book stores, restaurants, country clubs, advocate’s chambers and conference rooms, each time the scene has been precisely the same.
Nearly every single hand in the room goes up, reaching proudly skyward without the slightest flicker of hesitation. Sometimes, both hands will shoot up, so strong is the conviction of its owner.
It’s a simple poll consisting of two questions.
Who in the room believes that Oscar Pistorius genuinely knew that Reeva was behind the toilet door when he shot his firearm?
Who in the room believes that Oscar Pistorius genuinely believed there was an intruder behind the door when he fired?
I’ve been carrying out this crude poll at each event I’ve done around the country over the past two months since Pistorius was acquitted of murder and convicted of culpable homicide. Without fail around 98 percent of those in the room raise their hands in response to the first question.
In some instances, there will be one, maybe two, at best three, who answer in the affirmative to the second. Intriguingly, those who do dare to go against the overwhelming public consensus are invariably very angry, as if having to justify their decision.
There is no doubt that despite the finding of the court of law, the court of public opinion has roundly convicted Oscar Pistorius of murder. I have little doubt that a similar poll conducted in the hair salons, beauty shops, restaurants and offices of South Africa regarding Shrien Dewani would return a similar result. The general view of the public is that they ‘got away with murder’.
But who, or what, is responsible for entrenching such a strong belief amongst the public that has seen the erosion of the central pillar of our judicial system – that the accused must be seen as innocent until proven guilty?
Is it the fault of the police appointed investigating officers who probe the crimes and identify the suspects, gathering evidence and bringing them to court as accused? In cases which garner intense media interest, such as the Senzo Meyiwa case, for example, officers are under massive pressure to be seen to cracking a case and making an arrest and have to have someone behind bars.
The arrest of a suspect by cops is lauded by the public who automatically assume they got ‘the right guy’. The ‘accused’ is vilified and condemned and convicted.
A narrative is then created around the crime based on the investigations and pedaled through the media to the public. This narrative is usually reinforced by prosecutors in court who endeavour to present evidence to support this version, beyond any degree of reasonable doubt. In both the Pistorius and Dewani trials, the evidence failed dismally to support the narrative and the prosecution’s cases collapsed spectacularly.
But the damage had already been done. The narrative had already been created and the public sold on the story, despite the lack of facts to support this and evidence on the contrary showing incontrovertible that it could not be true. In the court of public opinion, Oscar and Reeva had an argument, he chased her into the bathroom and intentionally gunned her down. Similarly, Shrien Dewani conspired and plotted, hiring men to kill his bride Anni as he wanted her dead.
Why has the court of public opinion handed down these rulings? Perhaps it is time for the media to do some introspection on its role in influencing opinions and moulding perspectives on such intensely reported trials. Invariably, at each event where I have conducted this crude poll to determine guilt versus innocence, my own personal opinion has been asked. ‘Come on, what do you believe?’. ‘Just tell us, you’ve got all the facts, you must have an opinion’.
While it may be interpreted as self-righteous or naïve, my answer is always that ‘I don’t get to have an opinion’ and ‘We are guided by the court’. As a journalist endeavouring to be objective and provide balanced coverage of a case, I cannot pronounce on the guilt or innocence of an accused. Our job is to present the facts and the arguments and allow the reader or listener or viewer to decide.
But despite the largely ‘noble’ efforts to retain objectivity, we have to consider the possibility that we are inadvertently influencing the public one way or another.
It may be in our choice of descriptors such as ‘killing’ instead of ‘tragic accident’ or ‘gunned down’ instead of ‘shot’. Is may also lie in our interpretations and analysis on social media, the flourish of colour in a tweet or an explanation of law jammed in to 140 characters.
In the case of Oscar Pistorius, however, the public was able to watch the entire trial broadcast live on television and reach their own conclusions on the evidence, without a jaundiced view or through the subjective view of a journalist. In fact, this is one of the very reasons Judge Dustan Mlambo granted an order allowing the trial to be broadcast live.
But could we, the media, have done more to interrogate the narrative presented to us by the prosecution instead of replicating it wholesale to a public with an insatiable appetite for the story? Certainly on Twitter, journalists are consistently vociferously attacked by the cynical and the passionate for choosing sides, writing anything that will sell newspapers or books and having scant regard for the truth, whatever an individual might deem that truth to be.
Perhaps this is unnecessarily critical of myself and those in my profession.
Has the court of public opinion convicted because there is a general frustration with the criminal justice system, that society wants vengeance and compensation for their own suffering? Or is it because we have some kind of instinctive bias where, if an individual is being tried, we assume they must be guilty as a result? Does the responsibility then lie with the prosecuting authority in ensuring it does not identify the wrong accused and present a false narrative to the public?
Or is it all so much simpler – have the cops and the prosecutors failed so miserably to present the proper evidence to the court of law to convict an accused that they have actually got away with murder and the public is rightfully outraged and disenchanted? It is important to also remember that the test to convict is higher for a judge – the court of law must convict beyond reasonable doubt while the public can convict on a balance of probabilities.
Whatever the influence on the court of public opinion, it serves to show that our country’s lawmakers were wise in deciding that a verdict should not be reached by a jury of one’s peers but rather by a presiding officer applying the law.
As Judge Jeanette Traverso ruled in granting Dewani’s application for a discharge, a court cannot reach a decision based on public opinion. If that were to happen, there would be anarchy.
Mandy Wiener is an Eyewitness News journalist and author. She co-wrote Behind The Door: The Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp story with Eyewitness News reporter Barry Bateman. Follow her on Twitter: @mandywiener
This column first appeared on Daily Maverick.”
Anthony, sorry I haven’t responded quicker , but life does get in the way sometimes.I’m not sure what set you off on this riff again in relation to this piece, but I see we’re back in the court again. It’s early and I’m not quite focused yet , those two stories seem to have kept you excited while here they are last week’s news now. That’s how quickly the public get bored and dispose of a news story. ….but…..In relation to these two stories , i think you have to factor in the public’s sense of gullibility. That majority of “guilty” voters you mention seem to feel that the wool has been pulled over their eyes. To them there is the simple common sense that the deaths seem much too coincidental and they imagine themselves in the position of the murdered person based on whatever “reality” they already know …the cause and the effect of a relationship in real time …in the real world …and what actually really occurs between a man and a woman in a relationship..
In pistorius’s case , they can’t really conceive that a man can get out of bed and not first check that his partner is alright before going to protect her from an “assailant” that wasn’t actually there. In the other case , they see the husband as a gay man who has married a woman out of sheer societal convenience .They see him as being forced into a situation he didn’t want to be in.In both cases there appeared to be “staged” emotional emoting or talk of mental or behavioural illness. When the public see that , their first instinct is to smell a rat. They feel that this is a show being put on to sway their emotions and the instinct is to fight that and not believe it.They think , this person thinks we are so gullible as to believe his foolish tears in court or his insanity plea.People do not enjoy expressions of vulnerability like that. They see it as weakness and as an act. That is why there is so much disbelief in the verdicts,They don’t like being disappointed either when some famous celebrity lets them down by being exposed as a closet sex fiend.The public will never forgive someone like rolf Harris , no matter what other qualities he might have …he ultimately let them down.