E-mail jokes, sage sayings, security warnings, unsigned letters soliciting assistance for a seven-year-old cancer patient, even the love and friendship letters that are so prevalent on the Internet all just tend to irritate me. I usually delete them and move on to the next task without even considering whether they are true or not.
However, I couldn`t ignore the e-mail that claimed Johannesburg water was contaminated with typhoid. Although I dismissed the claim as another hoax, my daughter`s aftercare teacher issued a warning to the kids in her care. As a result, I spent an evening boiling water because my daughter would not drink any otherwise. The names that I wanted to call "that woman" for scaring my child are too indelicate to mention here.
I assured my daughter that her teacher read an e-mail hoax that no one in his or her right mind would take seriously. I explained the difference between reports from reputable media and e-mail forwarded from unknown persons. The following morning I was relieved to find an announcement on the Joburg city Web site that the water was safe to drink.
Six days later, new facts have emerged. According to The Star, nine cases of typhoid have been reported in Gauteng. The report says government urged the public not to panic because "measures have been stepped up" to deal with the epidemic. I`m not panicking; I`m angry!
I`m not na"ive enough to believe government does not hide certain facts from the public. I know that sometimes we have to sort through a lot of political-speak to find a concealed truth. But when people`s lives are at risk, surely it would be more prudent to tell the truth and urge people not to panic because measures are being taken to contain the situation, rather than refuting the claims altogether?
I now find myself in an interesting position where I have to acknowledge that an unknown person I dismissed as a hoaxer was telling the truth and that government officials did not tell the whole truth. I don`t want to panic my little girl unnecessarily, but what do I tell her when she asks me why I now boil all our drinking water?
I now find myself in an interesting position where I have to acknowledge that an unknown person I dismissed as a hoaxer was telling the truth and that government officials did not tell the whole truth.
Damaria Senne, senior journalist, ITWeb
We live in a society where it`s very easy for people to forward information to others. The beauty of it is that there are fewer barriers to communication.
Someone did warn us that we should be more cautious of the water. I didn`t believe the person long before I saw the government lie. Over time, I have learnt to sort through the messages that come through my inbox, ignoring unsubstantiated warnings and requests for support.
I think we should be more careful about what we send to people. That way when we do raise an issue of concern, people will be inclined to listen. Where possible, individuals who have critical information to impart should approach reputable media, rather than sending e-mails claiming conspiracy.
Forwarding bogus e-mails also weakens advocacy organisations soliciting community support. It reinforces the notion that we should distrust e-mails from unknown sources.
After reading hundreds of e-mails about cancer patients who need financial assistance, and genetically modified chickens that don`t have feathers (reputedly raised to allow a certain fast food chain to reduce preparation time), how do you get people to care when the cause is legitimate and their contribution would make a difference?
Share