Cape Town - In December 2015, I enraged the followers of Banting advocate Tim Noakes by writing a column in which I said disparaging things about the cult of personality that I felt had sprung up around the "high priest" professor.
I was attacked over the course of a week on Twitter - some of it personal and some of it accusing me of bad journalism because I had not asked Professor Noakes for comment, or investigated the matter fully.
I did not engage in debate about any of this because Twitter is simply not conducive to rationality (though I did publically offer Noakes the space to write a response, which he refused).
I did change something though: up until that point my weekly column (for that is what my "high priest" article was) had not clearly indicated that it was an opinion - and it now carries a footnote to that effect every week. The Banters's comments about journalism indicated to me that I had erred in not making the context of my column clear.
If I had had my say at the time, I would have said that opinion columns do not generally ask for comment from their subjects (imagine if every opinion written about President Zuma had to get comment from the man himself). And an opinion column is not investigative journalism - it is what is says it is: the expression of ideas.
My opinion was not plucked out of the blue. IOL has always viewed stories about the Banting diet as falling under our health umbrella, and I have been reading and editing health stories since 2011, when we first created the Lifestyle site. Over that time, I have of course had thoughts about what I read about Banting. My 2015 column was an expression of the mounting disquiet I felt about the hype around the diet, the misinformed way in which people I know are using it and the irrational regard in which I felt Noakes's followers held him. (I also had - and still have - scepticism about public health pronouncements and how they intersect with private lives.)
To my mind, the vitriol in the responses to my column proved that irrationality of Noakes's followers in spades.
And now I have spent a week and more sitting in the disciplinary hearing which Noakes faces, surrounded by Banting devotees.
I was apprehensive when assigned to cover the hearing, fearing that the Banters would figure out who I was and pelt me with biltong - but of course people are much more polite in person than they are on social media, and it was all civility personified.
Over the course of the seven days, I took extensive notes and wrote two to three stories a day. It was a complete overload of information and I am still processing my thoughts about the rights and wrongs of the matter - particularly around the actual science on which the low-carb, high-fat diet is based.
Talking to friends after it was over, who asked me whose "side" I was on now, I had at least one clear thought though: I don't think anyone is covering themselves in glory here.
The Health Professions Council of SA does not seem to me to have a good case against Noakes, not least because it is common cause that there are no guidelines governing how medical practitioners should conduct themselves on social media.
Noakes on the other hand spent five very long days justifying his plea of not guilty - and blatantly using the hearing as a platform to advertise what he sees as the truth of his position. That he thinks of himself as a crusader in the mould of Galileo was absolutely clear.
The original tweet which caused all the trouble was misguided in my view (whatever Noakes says about the grand role of Twitter in spreading science) because ANY personal advice to a stranger on Twitter must surely be injudicious - but I don't think it was wrong enough to justify the massive expenditure of this hearing.
So Noakes devotees, have a go on me on Twitter now if you like. Bear in mind that Professor Noakes himself now thinks I am a good journalist:
Great appreciation, respect for @reneemoodie for objective reporting at hearing. Forgiven for "high priest" comment https://t.co/aiIMRCFq2n
— Tim Noakes (@ProfTimNoakes) February 18, 2016
In return I respect the Prof for the open-heartedness and fairness of that tweet.
The thing though about journalists - good or bad - is that they will have contrary opinions. It is their job to be sceptical, without fear or favour. If I am objective (and if that is even possible) that goes for everything and everybody I look at. And caring what people think of me is death to my professional life - just as cake is death to Banters.
IOL
@reneemoodie
* This is a weekly opinion column.
** Want to talk to IOL Lifestyle? Please email us on [email protected], or use our Facebook pages to comment on our stories - or talk to us on Twitter. The links are attached to the bottom of our stories.