A little under a week ago, I wrote a response post to an article published by the Huffington Post, in which the author, a self described feminist, called for the “temporary” disenfranchisement of white males , supposedly in the name of “equality” and “progress”.
The article attracted a massive backlash online, to the point were the Huffington Post deleted the original article (archived here), and used the original link to the article to re-direct to this response.
Huffington Post SA has removed the blog “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?” published on our Voices section on April 13, 2017.
We have done this because the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.
We have immediately bolstered and strengthened our blogging procedures that, until now, have operated on the basis of open communication and good faith. From now on, bloggers will have to verify themselves.
We will hold discussions on putting in place even better quality controls.
In addition, we note the commentary on the content of the blog post and will submit it to the South African Press Ombudsman Joe Thloloe for his analysis of the opinion we carried.
Huffington Post SA stands aligned to the Constitutional values of South Africa, particularly the Preamble of our Constitution which states that: “We the people of South Africa believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”
We further understand that universal enfranchisement followed a long struggle and we fully support this.
In addition, Huffington Post South Africa is a signatory to and supporter of the South Africa Press Code. We support free expression as limited by the following value as set out in that code.
5. Discrimination and Hate Speech
5.1. Except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported and it is in the public interest to do so, the media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, nor shall it refer to people’s status in a prejudicial or pejorative context.
5.2. The media has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
We apologise for the oversight. We welcome further discussion. Please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
The thing is, I don’t think they were actually sorry at all. This was purely done as a matter of self-preservation. At one point in my response to the article, I made this comment about it.
The more I read on, and see how ridiculous it is, the more I start to think it’s a satirical article, just to annoy people like me. Then again, the Huffington Post really has been terrible in the past, so it probably is real. At the very best, the article might have been submitted by a troll, and isn’t intended seriously, but the Huffington Post still published it, so at the very least, they approve of its message, serious or not.
And it turns out, the article really was satirical in nature. It was actually written by a South African, White man, with the express purpose of proving a point. The idiots at the Huffington Post, so blinded by their hatred of white men, were happy to publish an article that fit their narrative, without any regard for fact checking, discrimination laws, or even if the article was written by a real person. The details behind his motivation for doing what he did can be read here.
Some relevant extracts:
“I just thought you can say almost anything you want . . . not necessarily attacking white men. I think there is a lack of fact-checking in South African journalism. I thought, would it work?
Roodt explained he didn’t target HuffPost specifically and that his main motivation was “the lack of fact-checking in journalism”. He also identified a few stories published by South African media which he believes are inaccurate and which served as his motivation.
He says his blog – which promoted the idea that white men are the cause of a lot of societal malaise and should therefore be denied voting rights – might have been too aggressive or angry. Roodt, however, argues both white and black South Africans tend to generalise about other groups and that these generalisations often go unchecked.
Roodt says he believes the resultant furore might lead to a debate in society about race relations and journalistic ethics. This, he added, was a good thing.
So there you have it. A white South African man creates a fake profile, submits a satirical article to it that is highly discriminatory in its message towards white men, and the Huffington Post happily publishes it, without any regard for the accuracy of the information contained, or the highly offensive nature of it. To think, that there are actually people out there who think this a real news source. It’s nothing more than Buzzfeed tier, garbage of the highest degree.
Anyone who thinks this organisation is trustworthy needs help.