Do you think there is a significant difference between this on the one hand: ‘Minister suggests that this movement must be broken and the police must perhaps act a bit more drastically and hard-handedly which would bring with it more deaths’, and this on the other hand: ‘Minister suggests that this movement must be broken and the police must perhaps act a bit more drastically and hard-handedly to bring about more deaths’?
If you don’t think there is a difference, then you surely shouldn’t be in journalism.
If you do think there is a difference, then how dare you offer to the world, on page two (‘Killing was NP policy,’ November 29 to December 5), the latter-quoted passage when the former-quoted passage is a correct translation?
There is surely a significant difference between the two: in the first translation, the object is the drastic and hard-handed action, and the perceived consequence is more deaths. In the latter-quoted translation, the object is the increase in deaths.
This is not a mere difference in grammar, it is a difference in emphasis, and it consequently bears a difference in blameworthiness.
I don’t mean to excuse Kruger and the Cabinet which agreed with him. But nor should such shockingly poor journalism be excused. If you are going to headline a quote, get it right. ‘ Advocate JF Mullins, Pretoria