Response to Ismail Lagardien's article on the Daily Maverick

Written by Michael Owen - December 23rd, 2020

News

This piece is in direct response to an article by Ismail Lagardien titled ‘Mogoeng is not just wrong, he is also dangerous - mainly because people take him seriously’ published on the 15th of December 2020 on the Daily Maverick’s website.

Lagardien’s article not only lacks basic journalistic professionalism, but is also insensitive insofar as it is intentionally and unapologetically anti-Christian. This is evident at numerous points throughout his article, but is most pointedly expressed in the words:

“What I will throw down, here, is that the divine, miracle-working Jesus of Nazareth who holds such a central place in the Abrahamic religions is, indeed, a myth that has been developed over many centuries…”

Lagardien wrote his article in response to the recent remarks made by our Chief Justice, Mogoeng, on Covid-19 vaccinations. Mogoeng had publicly commented on and prayed against any vaccines that are “evil”—maliciously concocted to corrupt human DNA. This remark, when understood in its proper context, is not ambiguous or void of comprehensible meaning. But Lagardien has provided little to no context for what Mogoeng said, or why he said it. Instead, Lagardien opted to reference another news outlet, thinking that this was sufficient to provide his readers with the necessary context. When one visits the page of that hyperlinked article, all it offers is screenshots of Twitter users sharing their thoughts on Mogoeng’s remarks. This is very slack journalism indeed.

So what was the true context of Mogoeng’s statements that Lagardien failed to provide? Mogoeng said that if any vaccines have been deliberately produced to damage human DNA, then these vaccines are satanic, and should not see the light of day. There is no sliver of truth to the idea that Mogoeng is against any and all Covid-19 vaccines that are being produced. I am sure he recognises that the right vaccine would save many lives. Stooping to Lagardien’s level of journalism for a moment, I will reference a different news outlet that has video footage of Mogoeng clarifying his position. Mogoeng’s stance is simply that any vaccine which is harmful must be condemned immediately, and we must pray that such a vaccine is never used.

What is so “terribly confusing” and “absurd” about the idea of pharmaceutical companies producing substances that may have negative long-term effects on the human body? Can one not argue that, in the food industry, genetically modified foods have had such an impact? Pumping hormones into animals and crops is often done to keep up with the demands of an overpopulated, hyper-capitalist Earth. If we accept this, it is at least possible that there are greedy, unethical people out there willing to hastily produce poor-quality vaccines that can have devastating effects on our DNA.

Let me now proceed to the next and most important prong of Lagardien’s article – that is, his unrelenting attack on Christianity.

Perhaps Lagardien ought to be reminded of the media’s role as the fourth estate. There is the executive, the legislature, the judiciary—and then comes the media. The media’s role is to hold the other three estates accountable, and foster constructive debate in the public forum.

Admittedly, Lagardien’s article does somewhat fulfil this watchdog role insofar as it reports, albeit incompetently, on Mogoeng’s activities and utterances in his official capacity as the head of the judiciary. But Lagardien’s dogmatic statements on Christianity, based on his belief that it is nothing more than a myth, are not worthy of a journalist. For the same reason that a separation of powers exists between the courts and parliament, the media is confined in some respects. Their duty is to report on facts and, where appropriate, offer insights on these facts. Merely labelling your article an “opinion piece” does not give you the right to proceed into such terrain as a representative of a media outlet. That exceeds the bounds of the media’s remit.

What gives a journalist the right to trivialise the faith of believers, claiming that it amounts to nothing more than a fairytale, or as you call it, Mr Lagardien, a “myth”? Whenever one produces content in the media landscape—be it in the broadcast, print, or digital world—journalists have a mandate to report fairly, accurately, and respectfully (even if it is an opinion piece). Yet you have written an article with the attitude that you have final, authoritative knowledge on the truthfulness of Christianity. Your narrative goes against the very fabric of our diverse country. The fanning of such flames is wholly offensive, and you should be ashamed to have engaged in such distastefulness in your professional capacity.

Your simplistic, inflammatory views on Christianity should have had no bearing on the story. Your article should have been confined to the appropriateness of an office-bearer making extra-judicial remarks whilst in office. The point you initially raised, regarding whether the Chief Justice should be making such statements, was valid. That could have been the crux of your article. You could have elaborated on why he should not have done what he did. That would have made for good reading. I know I certainly would have enjoyed it. But instead, we were given a prissy, tangential attack on the Christian faith. You characterise the sacredness of prayer as an empty ritual, insinuating that it is nothing more than a facade. It is as if your article was written because you have a personal vendetta against Christianity. The title of your article includes the word “dangerous”, but the truth of the matter is that your attack on Christianity is what is dangerous.

A few years ago, when civic journalism (or, the potential for any Joe Soap to pull out their phone, record an unfolding event, and upload it to social media with a caption) started to grow, many thought that this would lead to the redundancy of the formal media institution as we knew it. While the formal media is threatened by civic journalism, this only strengthens the need for formal journalism to be rigorous and considered. As we tread deeper into the unknown waters of fake news, the formal media conglomerates have a heightened duty to report accurately and provide clarity for the masses, who are in desperate need of trustworthy content. It is hard to fathom how, by any measurable standard, your articles adds constructively to public discourse. Your article is simply crude and divisive.

It is worth repeating that your article is an opinion piece. Of course, this means that the writer is not restricted to the dictates of formal news reporting, such as complete impartiality. However, one needs to remember that writing an article, in your professional capacity as a journalist, on a reputable news website, must still adhere to some standard. Your writing should still be responsible – which yours is not. Just because it is an opinion piece, that does not equip the writer with the right to decide that Christianity is a "myth". Infusing the sphere of “news” with this sort of immature and simplistic sniping will only drag journalism into the mess that is seen in the hate-filled comments sections of social media.

I suppose your article did what it must have, at least in part, intended to do—gain traction and engagement, no matter the cost. So, well done in that regard. You have successfully joined the ranks of clickbait content creators.

Let me remind you of something Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said about South Africa being a secular state: just because this country describes itself as a secular state, it does not mean that our state is against the notion of religion. Rather, it is against the idea that the state can impose any particular religious beliefs on its citizens. So, if you are so against the notion of God, then perhaps you should file a suit to have both our Constitution and National Anthem amended, so as not to reflect most South Africans’ heartfelt desire for God to protect our beautiful country.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Lagardien.