WE were squirreling through the news, here at the Mahogany Ridge, looking for some of that Mexican journalism President Jacob Zuma is so fond of, when a pull quote leapt at us from the front page of Thursday's The Times: "Probably you will find a lot of happiness among blacks . . . a funeral is a feast all day."

"Caramba!" as any Mexican worth his salt would say. "Quien dijo que?" The answer, of course, is statistician-general Pali Lehohla, when he was reporting to parliament's portfolio committee this week on recent national mortality and general household surveys.

Although what Lehohla had to say was probably not very Mexican, its emphasis on racial differences did seem uniquely South African, and perhaps we could draw some comfort from that. At least we know where we are when it comes to the colour of the next man. In a nutshell, or the way it was reported, was simply this: hypertension-related illnesses like strokes and heart attacks kill far more white people than black people because, according to Lehohla, many white people are unhappy. 

He attributed this to the diet of white people, which was high in fats, their lack of exercise and - ominously - their cultural habits. "[It is] consumption patterns," he said. "[White people's] eating habits are quite different from the eating habits of other populations groups, particularly the blacks."

It's a pity that Lehohla did not elaborate further. Heritage Day will soon be upon us, and the supermarkets are urging the general population to get out there and burn meat in a display of national unity. Will the health minister, Aaron Motsoaledi, now launch a campaign about the risks of breathing in passive fat from second-hand braai smoke?

More interestingly, Lehohla did suggest that black people - who die in great numbers from infectious diseases such as Aids and tuberculosis - were not as susceptible to hypertension because, as The Times put it, "of the closer cultural relationships and equality between black South Africans". Ah, ubuntu. So warm and caring.

But back to Mexican journalism. Zuma told a group of students on Tuesday that he visited Mexico when he was deputy president and he and his delegation were warned not to go to certain areas because of rampant crime. He had responded, "Why don't I read about this in the media, because in my country, you read about everything."

The Mexicans told him they don't write about crime because they're patriots who wanted their country to succeed. "We market Mexico," they said, "and we cannot market Mexico negatively. We can't wash our dirty linen in public. Otherwise, if we said there was huge crime, people wouldn't come to invest in this country."

My first thought was, Wow, amazing, the president reads Spanish newspapers? The next was not so charitable.

Mexico, as anyone with half a brain should know, is one of world's most dangerous countries for journalists, and has one of the highest levels of unsolved crimes against the press. Reporters, particularly those who report about crime and drug-related gangsterism, are routinely the targets of assassination squads, and almost 100 have been killed or disappeared since 2000.

It is true that, back in the 1930s, the country had the sort of press that the ANC considered "patriotic". Those days, the government practically owned the local media and was able to order up all the "Mexican" news fit to print. 

But that all changed in the 1980s, when government sold off its media enterprises and ushered in an era of vigorously independent newspapers. In fact, it could be argued that a Mexican style of journalism is exactly what any government afraid of an open society doesn't want.

Perhaps someone should explain this to the president. And while they're at it, fill him on certain other aspects about the media. His comments to the students that the South African media were not voted into the office of public watchdog, for example, suggests that he has some way to go before getting the picture in this regard. "I've argued with them that they were never elected," he said. "We were elected and we can claim that we represent the people. They do say they represent the people. [But] does the population or public determine what is reported? They don't."

Here's an idea. The next time your doctor warns you about hypertension and suggests cutting back on some of those white people cultural habits, tell him, no, you won't - because he's unpatriotic, and that he wasn't elected and as such does not represent the people.

The quack may just suggest that your family starts saving up for that all-day feast.

This article first appeared in the Weekend Argus.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter