Amid the furore over plucky Sowetan‘s decision to bravely take on the dark forces of corruption and evil by publishing front-page pictures of a policewoman and a correctional services officer bonking, we seem to have overlooked an important question. Why did the Sowetan decide that “Big” and “Nina” were suitable pseudonyms for the two?
I have not seen the video, but the newspaper says: “In the 15-minute video … Big is seen dancing while waiting for Nina to arrive. He is seen fondling her while she smiles.”
Then there is some foreplay — or at least what passes for foreplay among the uniformed classes, which the Sowetan faithfully reports in detail, although with a worrying emphasis on words such as “hastily” and “swiftly”. Presumably, in the fine tradition of investigative journalism, these details are necessary to establish the veracity of the source. Then we get to the money shot. “Big swiftly unzips his brown pants before appearing to penetrate her without a condom.”
Nowhere in this description is there any indication of why our protagonist is called “Big”. He does have a sizeable firearm attached to his belt, but he never takes it out.
Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa was particularly incensed by this. “The fact that this immoral act was conducted … with the firearms totally neglected leaves much to be desired.” As a criticism of Big’s sexual technique, it is scathing. Equally, the choice of “Nina” seems random. Does she look like a Nina? I guess it could be worse — they could have called her “Constable Wet” to compliment “Officer Big”.
Why, you ask, are newspapers reduced to running stories like this? Happily, this is yet another thing we can blame on Julius Malema. Not really, but you would like to, wouldn’t you? Unfortunately, newspapers have got used to the easy win. Do a story about Juju and your readership grows. But we cannot keep relying on that, so the next best thing is sex. Yes, sex is the new Malema. There can be no other justification for publishing non-stories like this one.
A Sowetan editorial attempts a justification, which goes something like this: We know it is wrong to publish these pictures. We know “sound journalistic codes would also not allow for publication of such material”. But we are doing it anyway, because “Don’t to [sic] it in our name. The uniform, the badges, the venue of the act itself and the time used belong to the people of the Republic of South Africa.”
Basically, the reason you are exposing your readers to something you yourself say you should not is because the officers shouted “Oh, Sowetan!’ when they came, instead of the more usual “Up the Bucs”? And because, to echo that great rallying cry of the struggle, a wet spot on a government desk is a wet spot on all? Thanks for watching out for our country, Sowetan. I feel much safer now.
Follow Chris Roper on Twitter @chrisroperza