If you do not know about the brouhaha surrounding President Jacob G Zuma and the English newspapers - mainly of the tabloid shape and mindset (for want of a better word) - you must either be poor (for which I'm sorry) or perhaps living in some bizarre, cut-off place such as Hogsback or Cape Town. Yet even in those outlandish places, I understand, the Internet exists.

It's been great fun, hasn't it, watching the souties (or rooinekke, if you prefer) having a go at the President. The President has, by the way (this info is for those residing in Hogsback) gone to London, with one of his three wives, Thobeka Madiba-Zuma, to see Queen Elizabeth II and a few other handlangers, such as Prince Phillip and Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

There is, after all, something deeply satisfying about a good set of insults being thrown at someone in power - especially as we don't do enough of that sort of thing in this country. It's similar to having someone following a monarch around - it's said that Alexander the Great had such a someone - whispering in the monarch's ear that he is, after all, mortal.

And also, if the insults are well done, the whole exercise can be funny - and in these days of credit crunch, stormy weather and Julius Malema, we all need a bit of "funny".

There are, however, a number of problems - I can think, without trying too hard, of at least four - with the main attack fired at Zuma, by one Stephen Robinson of The Daily Mail.

First is what I call The Problem of the Ukrainian Woman. If you are going to criticise someone satirically, bitterly and nastily, you have to pretend that you care; that on some level you are serious. In Robinson's piece of March 2, however, he tells us that Zuma in fact has 35 children, including a set of twins with a woman from Ukraine.

Problem here is that, once you have picked yourself up from the floor and stopped laughing, it is a bit difficult to take Robbo seriously.

Second, Robinson indeed pretends to be serious. He reportedly told John Perlman on KayaFM that he had written the piece because Zuma's behaviour has been "grotesque". But what has he written? "Jacob Zuma is a sex-obsessed bigot with four wives and 35 children." After that rubbish (sex-obsessed, maybe; four wives, yes, if you include the divorced shortie; bigot, no - quite open really; 35 children, no), why would anyone take Robinson seriously?

Small test, by the way: how many male people can you think of who are not in fact sex-obsessed bigots? Sad truth is that most men are (do the test); so why the song and dance about Zuma?

Third, as the reader will have gathered by now, Robinson's piece is plain rubbish. The 35 children and the Ukrainian doll or the claim that Zuma's election ditty, Mashini wami, was a "grotesque disavowal of (Nelson) Mandela's (previous) exhortation to his supporters to throw their weapons into the sea", are simply codswallop.

Most seriously, however, this sort of piece - and The Daily Mail has pulled the same stunt at least twice before; it's obviously good for circulation - is deeply racist. It bespeaks a racism and contempt that the English specialise in.

Basically, such a piece is saying that the man with the black skin, who hails from Africa, and who subscribes to a polygamous marital system, is a lesser breed; he's a sex-crazed buffoon. It's the sort of blimpish humour - or parody - at which Private Eye magazine used to be so adept, except that it made fun in the first place of the English themselves, and it was funny.

There's not much funny about what Robinson has written and of course its success lies in its appeal to the basic racism of the English about the laughable black men in Africa who sit under a tree, have many wives to till the fields for them, and never require Viagra.

It also dangerously misses the point. If you want to criticise Zuma, point out that the tri-partite alliance is showing severe strain, parts of the ANC seem to be at opposite poles economically, Malema and his ilk are running riot, and Bafana Bafana are likely to get whipped by some team from a place like Ukraine.

Postscript

On Thursday 4 March I wrote a 700-word article about President JG Zuma and English newspapers for East London's Daily Dispatch newspaper, which is reproduced above. Unfortunately, I did not see until Sunday morning an article on Politicsweb titled "Zuma and the British media" (see here).

Dated 5 March, it was written by Lucy Holborn, "a British expat working as a researcher at the South African Institute of Race Relations".

Holborn wrote that, when it came to being mean towards Zuma, the main offender, the Daily Mail, would certainly be - if personified - a right-wing and vile buffoon. Nonetheless, other newspapers were also, as Holborn puts it, "critical" and "somewhat mocking" of Zuma. (If that was "somewhat", I'd hate to see them at full throttle.) But this, she explained, was not racism for four reasons.

First, Holborn explained, "political satire and criticism of politicians is an important part of free speech and a free Media in any democracy, and Britain prides itself on having a Media unafraid of criticising and poking fun at political and public figures both at home and abroad". 

Leaving aside the fact that JZ was not "a politician" in Britain (he was a visiting foreign president), thank you, Lucy, for explaining so simply the basic tenets of a "free Media". I think it is important that you did so because we lesser breeds, especially here at the tip of Africa, have no idea about free speech. Just ask the fellows who put our constitution together - or maybe ask Nelson Mandela, Raymond Louw, or Max du Preez.

As for poking fun at politicians, well, thanks for explaining that part too. I'm sure Zapiro and a host of others (not to mention Richard Smith, who was doing that stuff before Zapiro was born) have a lot to learn from you Engelse - whom, as we all know, know everything there is to know about everything, especially journalism.

Thanks also for pointing out that what is needed in a "healthy democracy" is "to hold leaders to account". That'll give Mondli Makhanya and Justice "the end of the world has come" Malala something to chew on; they had no idea.

And of course none of what anyone wrote in the British newspapers had anything to do with Zuma's colour or provenance. Goodness me, if the chap had gone to Eton and then served in the Guards, why, they'd have written the same - right?

Second, Holborn explained, the British media was not racist - because the SA press had said many similar things about Zuma! I might have this wrong - and the lawyers can correct me if I do - but, as best as I recall Newspaper Law 101, repeating a defamation, initially committed by someone else, is not a defence upon which the courts look kindly. Besides, what makes Lucy think that the South African media is not racist? Or is worthwhile emulating? Don't let the presence of non-Caucasian people (or Irish owners, or anything) fool you into believing that there is any sort of cogency, or an abundance of functioning brain waves, in the local media.

Holborn's third reason why the British media should not be viewed as racist is the most interesting. If - according to Holborn - the Brit media uncritically accepted Zuma and all his controversies, this would be demeaning to Africa and Africans.

Listen to Holborn: "It would be as if to say, ‘This is Africa. This is all we expect of African leadership: corruption, nepotism, polygamy and affairs.' The fact is that the British know South Africa deserves better than Zuma, and that he and many in his government are failing to live up to the example set by Nelson Mandela of selfless and humble leadership."

I see. So, to "accept" Zuma is to accept corruption, nepotism, polygamy and affairs. But I thought that the charges of corruption had been dropped against Zuma by the National Prosecuting Authority. As for nepotism ("favouritism shown to a relatives or close friends"), who are we supposed to be talking about here? Zuma's cousin, Pravin Gordhan? Zuma's uncle, Moe Shaik?

Then there's "polygamy and affairs". First of all, I don't think they're comparable in anyway; secondly, you and I might not like the former but it is accepted by the constitution; thirdly, since when was having an affair "illegal"? What is this? The Mormon Tabernacle Choir?

Then there's the matter of Saint Mandela. What exactly about his leadership was more "humble" than Zuma's? More directed, more effective, more dictatorial in cabinet, perhaps - but what exactly was humble? Or more to the point: what exactly about Zuma's leadership has not been humble?

Or "selfless"? You mean Mandela gave up his life, almost literally, to the struggle? Indeed. But so has Zuma. No, Zuma didn't do 27 years; he did ten. Are we going to find a way of putting the two prison terms into a set of scales and judging which was more painful?

Enough. The real point is that I don't think it's for Lucy Holborn, "British expat working as a researcher at the South African Institute of Race Relations," to decide what is better or not better for South Africans.

But what about the racism? Of course it was racist: look at the funny black man and all his wives coming here to take tea with the queen, etcetera. But I've already said all this - in the piece above.

Jeremy Gordin is a veteran journalist and author of Zuma: A Biography. This first appeared in the Daily Dispatch.

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