Press release: Government, don't touch us on our podcasters, even if they are vulgar, crass and childish
Press release
Government, don't touch us on our podcasters, even if they're vulgar, crass and childish
The government is at risk of being hypocritical in trying to be the gatekeeper to protect us from exercising our freedom because of selective outrage.
Khuselo Diko, ANC NEC Member and MP, in her role as Chairperson of Portfolio Committee on Communications & Digital Technologies has summoned MacGyver "MacG" Mukwevho, one of the podcast duo of Podcast & Chill, to explain the misogynistic and frankly crassly stupid remarks he made on a recent podcast about a female celebrity.
Mukwevho's Podcast & Chill Network, which hosts the podcast, also produces content such as "variety shows, insightful comedy and engaging celebrity interviews" which apparently gets over 3.3 million weekly views, 2.3 million unique users and has over 1 million subscribers on YouTube.
He has won awards and is worth millions.
None of his considerable achievements excuse his crass, misogynist and completely tasteless comments and questions Mukwevho posed to celebrity guest Minnie Dlamini. Dlamini is "an on-air personality, actress and model".
Women for Change, an organisation that focuses on gender-based violence and femicide, issued a statement condemning Mukwevho's misogynistic and degrading remarks about Dlamini.
The FSU SA agrees with the criticism of MacG and that he certainly deserves blow back from society for being uncouth and vulgar. Given Dlamini's public profile, she is well positioned to exact her own revenge.
However, social media is a huge beast that has confounded governments world-wide in their grappling with how to regulate the various platforms.
The problem is that social media platforms are not like the professional legacy media. It is a comparative free-for-all.
The public is free to push back in many creative ways and, usually, what has the most impact is public pressure that leads to a drop in audience numbers or frightens off sponsors.
What is neither necessary nor desirable is for the government to get involved. The real risk posed by the ANC is that what is considered hateful could be extended to impinge on and limit rational and considered criticism of the government. NGOs and analysts critical of the government − of which there are a significant number − are the most at risk in the circumstances. Ultimately, government intervention of this kind threatens South Africa’s prospects of remaining a free and open society.
South Africans don't need to be nannied by the government: they should be trusted to choose to respond, or not, to hateful speech. Government must leave it in society's hands and stay out of the way.
