Letters+for+Gleason,+Business+Day,+05-06-22

Business Day, Johannesburg, Letters, 22 June 2005
=No-one is fooled=

I am shocked that David Gleason’s column has been axed by the editor. I used to look forward to the Monday paper like no other because of this unique column.

I am equally disappointed by Peter Bruce’s miserable attempt to explain away his action as if it is all part of a liberal policy towards Business Day’s columnists. I doubt if anyone is fooled, and I fully expect that Bruce will live to regret his spurious and self-serving distinction between politics and business.

Gleason has done a service to South African democracy. How can we be called a proper democracy if the next president is going to be selected by stealth?

Only Gleason has asked the main question in the Jacob Zuma case, and answered it with names. That question is: who is after the presidency? Gleason’s answers would be better tested if there were more journalists with the guts to publish what they know.

//Lombardy East//**
 * //Dominic Tweedie//

Your axing of David Gleason's Torque column because you were “getting too much politics” does not wash with me! Your alternative, Rob Rose, appears to be something of an apologist for those paragons of business ethics, DRDGOLD and Corpcapital, which had regularly been at the receiving end of Gleason’s criticism. I would hope that Business Day’s policy would be to be just as critical of poor business practice as it is of political malpractice

However, your move on Gleason suggests otherwise.

//Johannesburg//**
 * //Mike Ward//

Top columnists like David Gleason are controversial and opinionated — it comes with the territory. In this country politics and business are intertwined and Torque had to straddle both. One is not obliged to agree with him. The reasons given by Peter Bruce for showing Gleason the door are flimsy and self-serving, and amount to a somewhat cavalier treatment of Business Day readers.

Mr Editor, you owe us a better explanation for reducing the quality of your newspaper.

//Johannesburg//**
 * //Anthony Still//

So David Gleason has been given the chop for giving a business column too much of a political slant. This is understandable and, as a reader, I appreciate your candour in informing us as to the basis for his removal.

However, could you please enlighten us then how Christine Qunta has avoided a similar fate when her (supposedly) political commentary is usually little more than an African National Congress Youth League-style rant that adds no value whatsoever?

//Henley on Klip//**
 * //Don Lindsay//

The editor's justification for the removal of David Gleason’s column, that he exceeded his brief by writing too much politics and little business, is as good as KwaZuluNatal premier S’bu Ndebele’s assertion that the storm created by Jacob Zuma’s removal from office is due to the matter being technical, and once technicalities are explained, the masses will understand and calm down.

Whether or not you agreed with Gleason’s take on the Zuma affair, for instance, his views had some validity and could not be dismissed easily. It is a really sad day for South African journalism and democracy when a respected newspaper like Business Day gags one of its columnists for consistently expressing a view that is out of sync with mainstream media and business.

//Johannesburg//**
 * //Themba Mathaba//