Twitterati have broken story ... can u fix it?

At the Sunday Times we expect a certain amount of stick. The Sunday Times is the highest circulation newspaper in South Africa, so we understand that we will come under intense scrutiny, and be held to a higher standard than many of our peers.

We also know that we, the editorial staff who breathe life into the product, are merely custodians of a great South African institution.

When we get things wrong, we're mature enough to take it on the chin. But, of late, the sour-grapes journalism of some of our peers has meant we're slammed when we get things wrong AND when we get things right. The recent furore created by some over our front page lead story of August 28, "Wanted: Facebook racist", reminded me of the outrage that greeted our story about Bono's thoughts on Julius Malema and the Shoot the Boer song - and that was a secondary story on page three (Sjoe! Imagine if it had been on the front page?)

Steve Hofmeyr tweets about throwing his U2 tickets into the Jukskei and suddenly the media luvvies and twitterati assume the Sunday Times got it wrong. Because Bono's comments were unpalatable to them. Surely he would not break the ranks of assumed racial solidarity?

As soon as we published Buddy Naidu's story (on February 13 under the headline "Struggle songs have a place - U2") the "music journos", who were also at the table with U2, slammed him and the Sunday Times. We were crucified on Twitter, Facebook and on "news" sites that don't break any news of their own. Sites that are, to be frank, tarted-up news aggregators tottering around on the 10-inch heels of opinion - the proverbial lipstick on a pig. We were bashed on radio as the same two "music journos" present at the U2 dinner told how Bono was misquoted and we were being sensationalist.

It lasted a week. Until the only other real journalist there, Janet Smith from the Saturday Star, wrote a piece that vindicated Naidu's reportage and gave him credit for asking a really good question. Naidu himself wrote a classic piece on the furore; it appeared in our Review section the day after Smith's.

Not surprisingly, no one responded to the follow-up piece in the Sunday Times on the interview with Bono, nor the recorded audio of Bono's comments that was put up on our website.

Gill Moodie, a media analyst who we don't always agree with, got it right in a sober and well-considered piece that said: "The paper got it right and played it straight: Bono said struggle songs were kosher when used appropriately and his comment was indeed in the context of his knowing about the Shoot the Boer Constitutional Court case and of Malema." She noted also that "the comments thread on the Daily Maverick article is so interesting because it shows how shrill voices feed off each other and up the tempo even more". (See www.bizcommunity.com)

Hmm, shrill voices indeed. No apology from the "news" sites. And what of the talking heads on certain radio stations? Did they correct their poor reporting? Zip, zero, zilch. They got the story wrong. But that's okay, right?

Are the two "music journos" hanging their heads in shame because they were completely outclassed? No. Such has been the case again over our story on the Facebook racist.

There's a class of asset-stalkers of South African journalism who hijack the hard work of others to make themselves relevant.

Similarly those who would set themselves up as knowing analysts never bother to question the quality of their sources - before putting fingertip to keypad/board.

"I heard that ..." qualifies as good enough sourcing to report about the Sunday Times. An unnamed single source mixed with the writers' own opinion. Such as a former government spin doctor's piece this week on the Facebook story. A spin doctor whose take on his job seems to be to alienate those who he should be trying to influence. Free advice: you can't influence people if they won't take your call.

Then there are the twitterati. Hmm. When the twitterati break a story, well, it's almost impossible for anyone to fix it.

The storm this week over our story on the Facebook racist once again had the "shrill voices" feeding off each other on Twitter - and totally missing the point of the story. I suggest they go back and read it dispassionately.

That this picture was live on Facebook NOW. That there has been NO proper investigation into not only the picture but those responsible for putting it up and the welfare of the child (whose face we blurred but which was visible on Facebook). Fact is, because of our story the authorities will be conducting a full and proper investigation - and they have thanked us for bringing it to their attention. That's a result, in my book.

Ever wondered why the journalists who break the really BIG stories aren't spending 24/7 on Twitter? Well, it's because they're busy working on those stories.

Such as: Roux Shabangu, Bheki Cele and the police lease deals saga; Sheryl Cwele, the wife of a spy boss, being involved in drug trafficking; they're tracking George Louca/Smith, the man wanted for Lolly Jackson's murder, and having a face-to-face with him in Cyprus while the police continue their manhunt; they're travelling to India and London and going inside the compound in Saxonwold to do the definitive take on the Gupta family; and they're lifting the lid on the profligacy of the one and only Sicelo Shiceka ... just to name a few.

But even then the sour-grapes journalists, having to do a follow-up on a story we've splashed with, attribute them to "a Sunday newspaper" or "recent reports". Tall-poppy syndrome.

At the Sunday Times we prefer not to publicly knock the work of our colleagues at other titles.

They get away with thinly-veiled personal attacks on the Public Protector or single-source "investigations" without documentation. We know we are held to a higher standard by our readers and we have to do it properly.

So we can splash with a story that names names, shows transactions between accounts, the amounts involved and the motives (for example, the R1.2-million for Juju, placed in his architect's account by tenderpreneur Steve Bosch).

We accept the challenge to break significant stories week in and week out. Which is more than can be said of many of those who, because they have access to an internet platform, consider themselves experts. But then, it's easy to be an expert on the web. It's quite another thing to prove yourself in a real newsroom.

If you are a journalist in this country, the Sunday Times offers one of the best platforms to display your talents ... but it will test your mettle. You may get an ulcer, turn prematurely grey, suffer chronic back pain and the sniping of your peers.

But nothing beats the satisfaction of breaking the big ones.

Bottom line on the Facebook racist: firstly, we recognised that it was a big story (the picture itself had never been thoroughly interrogated - let alone shown to the broader public); secondly, we took the story forward and did it properly; and, as a result of our efforts, there will be ramifications for those responsible and succour for those who need it. Which is more than anyone had done previously.

To have first bite at a great story and not realise its potential is one of the things any good journalist should lash themselves over.

But in the age of social media they're no longer kicking themselves for missing the point; they'd rather kick you. The other thing our Bono and Facebook racist stories have in common: they ask you to confront race relations in present-day South Africa. This makes people uncomfortable.

But there are no pretty pictures of racism. You either confront it or you don't.