By Glenda Daniels
Guess what? The ANC has not shown up for any of the Press Council review public hearings held so far this month. And yet, it is the ANC, more than any other organisation in the country, which is unhappy about the independent and critical South African press.
Last year there was heated debate between the media and supporters of a press free from political interference and those within the ANC and the SACP who proposed a Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) to curb the excesses of the media.
Then a resolution was passed in September last year at the ANC national general council in Durban to pursue the Polokwane December 2007 resolution that Parliament investigates the possibility of a MAT.
Locally and internationally the furore received masses of attention in media. Editors under the leadership of the South African National Editors’ Forum persuaded the government to meet with them and thrash out the issues. A two-day summit took place with government representatives at a Magaliesberg retreat — the Mount Grace — in October. Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe announced after this summit that the media would be given the chance to review the self-regulatory mechanism, and reform itself before any decision about a MAT would be made. Of course one is aware that Motlanthe is not the ANC and the ANC is not Motlanthe.
The media was taken aback when less than a month after this summit, which seemed to have ended on an optimistic note, President Jacob Zuma told an ANC Youth League rally that he was as committed as ever to a MAT. Nevertheless, in good faith, the media proceeded with its review process.
The main issues for proponents of the MAT, such as ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu and the SACP’s Blade Nzimande were the following: the media does not respect its leaders dignity; when the media makes mistakes, the apologies are not big enough and out of proportion to the mistakes made; the self-regulation system in terms of the Press Council, Ombudsman and Appeals Panel was not working. In support of a MAT, Mthembu went so far as to say that if the journalists had to be jailed then so be it, while Nzimande in his Red Alert newsletter called the media “capitalist bastards”.
So the self-review process began. Newspapers placed advertisements inviting readers or members of the public to comment on how the self-regulation system should work, who should be on the Ombudsman panel, and who should be on the Appeals panel? The system of self-regulation is practised everywhere in democratic countries. There are very few countries in the world with state tribunals save for China and Zimbabwe. In both the latter countries you are not recognised as a journalist unless you are registered with a government appointed body. Free-thinking, independent journalists do not get accreditation.
The South African print industry did some soul and self-searching: was the Press Council and Ombudsman’s office too journalist heavy? In other words should there be more representatives from the public, together with perhaps retired judges?
How should the press apologise for mistakes made? Some newspaper people, feeling on the back foot, felt that perhaps even financial penalties should be considered. Should apologies always be placed on the front page, even if the offending story was on the inside of the paper? Should retractions be in much bigger font size — what was fair?
Over the past five months there have been many submissions made from the public: individuals, non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations, academics, members of the press themselves about the regulation of the press. Then the veteran journalist and current Press Ombudsman Joe Thloloe and his deputy, Johan Retief, began the arduous task of travelling around the country to hear people’s views. The public hearing process began in mid-February: Joburg (February 17-18), Port Elizabeth (February 21-22), Cape Town (February 24-25), Bloemfontein (February 28 – March 1) and Durban (March 3-4).
But no show from the ANC!
Makes you wonder about the organisation’s good faith, doesn’t it? It also confirms suspicions that the ANC is just hell-bent on its media tribunal, which would see state regulation of the media. So what’s the delay? Three things: it doesn’t know how to implement its own bad idea; it’s wary of the international embarrassment it knows such a move would create, and finally, not all in the ANC believe there should be state regulation of the media. It’s an ANC with no centre, split into many different ideological tentacles.
But guess what? I don’t think too many in the ANC are interested in the review process if their lack of participation thus far is anything to go by. Which then leads me to the conclusion that it just wants to control the media, full stop.
Glenda Daniels is advocacy co-ordinator at amaBhungane, M&G Centre for Investigative Journalism.
My good advice is stop posturing in wild ideas, and get on with the work at hand. The ANC has endorsed the review of the Press Council, and never promised you anything above that. If you were really invested in the integrity of the process, what difference would it make if the ANC participated or not?
The media needs to take responsibility for the corner it finds itself and stop spreading bile. All the public, including the ANC is asking for is more transformation, accountability, dignity and transperancy. Its so ironic that the media can claim to be a champion of freedom, when they can’t clean their own backyard. If you can’t stand the heat then step aside!
i think they really want to be zanu when it comes to media controls, but can’t be because of the media’s influence in the relatively war-free transition of power 20 years ago.
it really pisses them off to no end.
Your analysis of the failure of the ANC to make submission is one sided and very biased, did you enquire from them why is that? Don`t you think the ANC does not want to be seen as influencing the outcome of the said forums as that can be miscontrued as forcing their hand on the outcome and the format of those forums. Most of us knows that the media plays an important part in keeping checks and balances on corrupt public officials but as well they should not act like holy cows and angels they potray themselves to be as they have flaws that requires rectification.
It would, of course, have been useful for the ANC to send representatives to Press Council review hearings, and if they haven’t, they have behaved foolishly.
There are, however, two plausible reasons for not bothering to show up. (The claim that they want to control the media is the kind of childish nonsense which one expects from narcissistic, politically extreme-right journalists — if they wanted to control the media, they have plenty of power to attempt to do it.)
The first is that they don’t have any faith in the Press Council, which is probably true.
The second, more plausibly, is that the entire denunciation of the media is a political stunt. The press is extremely unpopular with most South Africans, because it ignores their interests while toadying to their enemies, and since Zuma also ignores their interests while toadying to the same enemies, he can cheaply distract his audiences by attacking the press. It’s a Zuma thing to do.
The ANc made it clear a week ago that it will not be participating in this self cleansing process of yours because they have already decided that Parly should explore the viability of a statutory tribunal. I for one find it of no significance as a member of the public to attend any of your public hearings. We as engineers/architects/town planners/auditors and accountants do have statutory bodies representing our professions. Why not have a South African Council of Journalists as regulatory body and within that have a tribunal? Joe Tholoe appears as a man only worried about who butters his bread. The media can’t have its cake and eat it. Being player and referee at the same time is not an option.
I for one am in full support of a Media Appeals Tribunal, whether or not the Press Council achieves anything from this cleansing process.
@The Creator
It seemed that you were starting to talk some sense until your got to the bit about “the press is extremely unpopular with most South Africans”.
What planet are you on? The press earn their income by selling a product that consumers are prepared to pay for.
No business person in their right mind would design a product that alienates and excludes the majority of the population – and does not sell.
By the way, what is your evidence for making your assertions? Where is the research, where are the facts?
I suppose anyone with a monikor like “The Creator” must have a high opinion of their opinions.
And that is what they are – opinions.
@Kwame,Creator, in a free society the press should have the right to print the news as they see fit and not how the ruling party likes it. In a free society, there is nothing stopping one from starting a newspaper to print the news the way one see it. What you are trying to say is the ruling party be given veto power to stop the printing of news that they considered unfavorable toward them. Base on what both of you are saying, you two don’t believe in democracy and an open society. Germany had the Brown Shirts that were cheer leaders for Hitler and both of you sound like cheer leaders for the ruling party in SA.
Sometimes I really have to wonder who edits and authorises these pieces. This is too ranty to be taken seriously. There are some really important issues inside this ‘article’, but its buried under a vast amount of hostility.
I don’t agree with the idea of a MAT. I wipe my feet on a mat, I don’t need to have the media, who I rely on to tell me what’s going on to be swept under a MAT… I know… I know
But seriously. Tell me something I don’t know about the situation. Tell me about calm, objective interviews and information gathered by these wonderful award winning journos that adds to the dialogue. If you can’t, then don’t put this stuff up. It only serves to prove that the media is polar against anything that might come out of this national issue unless it protects THEIR freedoms.
Share something to learn about, think about and talk about. Be fair, objective and honest. The media has, and will, publish less than true stories… how that is controlled and remedied is more important than how the ANC or whatever group wants control of it.
@Glenda Daniels
Although I do not agree that MAT is the way to go – and that the ANC was absense during these Press Council Presentations – but I think you guys in the media industry are to blame too as there have been report of Mr. Joe Tlholoe saying such presentations that “where are the editors?”
Although I wasn’t there myself as a Media Matters Commentator – I read that from Raymond Joseph (@rayjoe) who had been, to date, attending these presetations. Too, I am not sure if @NicDawes was tehre himself one Rapulane, as his assistance was present or not.
Again, I wouldn’t know if other newspapers’ editors were present or not. But assuming that indeed editors were not visible, and or present – who is to defend them at Press Council Presentations if they are not there themself? Of course, obviously, the ANC wouldn’t do that and it should not be expected to do that, not especially when we know its positions of the Press Freedom and Media Freedom to date. Never.
So, while we blame the ANC’s absence at Press Council – something we should have expected – we, people in the media, are to blame for our lack presence there too.
Does this article even deserve comment?
The ANC’s position on this review is clear…it wil not participate because it wants to allow the media time to reform itself, before continuing its pursuit of a media appeals tribunal (via parliament).
So, this is an opportunity for the media / press to reform itself without out ‘interference’ from the ANC.
Go on and review yourselves…
Have the ANC ever appologised for their many broken promises?? They simply renew the promises, enlarge them and then forget it, until the next election. A promise they make is a promise that they know they will break. 10,000,000 Jobs? Give me a break!!!.
The state of the nation address for 2010 Zuma congratulated himslef for creating 480,000 jobs out of the 500,000 promised. When asked, where, how, who, the implied answer was “because I said so?” In fact about a million jobs were lost in that year.
Tend to agree with Kwame although not quite as forcefully. Definitely agree with Glenda’s final sentence. Watch your backs, Chaps! But I was not aware the ANC was expected to join the fray until the media had bored itself silly. I’m far more concerned about the PIB; should that come to nothing the media remains what it is, responsible unto itself and definitely needing to pull its socks up on occasions. Frankly, point size and position are the least of the problem. Keeping journalists under control, sub-editing and proofreading properly are more important. Do those things.
Can Ms Daniel plz tell us how the media instead restoring the dinity of the doctors whose image were tarnished for supposely being bogus drs when infact they were true doctors? Also can she tell us how come when white people molest kids the media doesnt they afrikaners or english but when they foreign,their nationality is mentioned?
I’m going to wait for anyone to answer “praise the lords” questions. Im very interested in seeing how the media will handle the “Bogus Doctors” story going forward.
@ James and Kwame. You sound like two turkeys voting for Christmas!
@Praise the Lord, the newspapers didn’t take away the dignity of the Nigerian doctors, it was the Hawks that took away their dignity. The Hawks said after a long investigation, they found this doctor to be bogus. You should be calling for an investigation of the Hawks that is run by the SA government. The newspapers were only writing what the Hawks told them. In the US if the FBI would have issued a statement like this the newspapers across the country would have printed this story.
@PtL and @Gogo2 – perhaps this will help – http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Six-arrested-doctors-not-bogus-Hawks-20110220
The media simply reported what the Hawks told them. I guess it’s the Hawks who should be restoring dignity. Not sure what this has to do with the media. Perhaps your thoughts are for a PAT – Police Appeals Tribunal
@DR Own, you hit the nail on the head the media in any free country would have carried that story that the Hawks released to the public about the Nigerian doctors. A lot of these people commenting on this page don’t have a clue of the meaning of the world freedom.
I quote you Glenda “….and those within the ANC and the SACP who proposed a Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) to curb the excesses of the media.” Should that not have read “alleged excesses”? For that is the crux of the matter is it not? What constitutes ‘excesses’? But this is but the beginning ,my lady. How about this….There is a rumour going round that there is yet another law being drafted that is being kept under wraps, one that makes the Media tribunal Act look like a Sunday school picnic. The leak of course could get someone into deep trouble. For if this ‘mpimpi’ is identified, this very law thats being drafted will enable the powers that be to punish the ‘perpetrator’ long after the ‘dastardly’ act had been committed. When will the draft be ready? What’s taking them so long? It’s actually a question of hours…24, 36,or 48 hours to be exact. The Minister of Justice, I’ve been reliably told, is firm on the principle that the law will never be as draconian and hideous as that of the previous regime and that they will never, never, never again allow the sins of the past to be repeated. So! It’s a question of whether it should be 88 or 89 days detention without trial. Never that horribly cruel 90 day clause. They could NEVER, NEVER, never EVER again allow such a law to be enacted. Some even suggested 180 days, but others advised “
I’m surprised that so many of the readers do not no why the anc where not at the conferences,
They are out there bullshitting the literate ? poor voter that more houses will be build and they won’t have to chew the water they drink.
Schools will have enough desks for the students who have been sitting on the floor for the past 10 years and when you are sick you will not sit waiting for the doctor for 10 hours,only 4hours as you bleed to death ,Dont worry about a job we will give you a grant with water and electricity Free.We know you have a house in Umtata we will give you another RDP house in Paarl.
and remember Zuma got a message from god if you vote for the anc you go to heaven.The world laughs at us .
@ fergie & dr own are you saying the media just write what they are told just like their reports on israel “hitting hamas” target. What happened to words like alleged or claim? If the media present allegations as facts then methink they know for a fact that what they are reporting is the truth. Can someone plz tell me why we not told if a child molestor is english or afrikaner but its ok to mention others nationality?
@Glenda. The ANC’s problems with the current self-regulatory system are known to you and others. SANEF was fully briefed. That was good faith briefing. The fact that the ANC is not participating in the current process does not change their stand on the matter. At the same time, the information given to SANEF does not become obsolete.
Dear Praise the Lord. When a black person molests a child, we are also not told if he’s Zulu, Xhosa, Venda, Tswana etc. As a matter of fact, if you read Afrikaans newspapers, they normally don’t even say the accused is black, they just say eg that a man was arrested. Now, when a foreigner molests a child, the newspapers will say he’s Zimbabwean (mostly meaning black) or British (mostly meaning white). Maybe it is because they feel we should know that it is a foreigner and not a South African that is accused. Now, when the accused is a white South African, it does now matter if he’s Afrikaans or English, neither does it matter when the accused is a black South African if he’s Zulu, Xhosa etc. I stand corrected, but I believe MOST newspapers don’t mention if the accused is black or white, one normally figure it out when the name is announced, or the face seen on TV. The distinction here is made between South African and foreigner, not black and white. If most foreign perpetrators happen to be black, the media can hardly be blamed for it.
@chantelle i never mentioned black or white. there are different types of whites. English are viewed as liberals, afrikaners as racists. stereotype? mayb. the same way coloureds rejects the notion that they are afrikaners just cuz both speak the same language. and since when does being nigerian = black and british = white. Im sure you complained when that guy said ‘not everyone is African, Black people’ are. Is Demani or whateva his name is not British now. My beef with that headline is if its wrong to tag a certain crime with other ethnic group why do that to an entire nation? Will you go to ANY nigerian dr after that headline? Im sure you dont like it when people say whites (when u english) are racist. And what make a foreign criminal different from a SAfrican? Xeno?
@Praise the Lord, you are trying to switch what we said around, I said that if the Hawks releases a report accusing this doctor as being bogus, it is the Haws fault and not the press. The press did the right thing to print this story because it was a governmental agency releasing this story. when the FBI releases a report to the public the press will carry the story because it is a governmental agency that released the report. Take for example, if the FBI releases a report that five armed people in western Utah have attacked and murdered two people, it’s the duty of the press to carry this story. If the this story isn’t true it’s not the fault of the press the blame should be placed with the FBI.
Okay Praise the Lord, I see your point. You did not say black or white. Fact remains, English, Afrikaner, Xhosa, Zulu, Tswana etc, born in SA, with SA citizenship is SOUTH AFRICAN, and the distinction is made between SOUTH AFRICAN and foreigner. It is thus not the ethnic group that is mentioned but the NATIONALITY. I am an Afrikaner, and I have a lorry load full of coloured friends and they ALL view themselves as Afrikaners. My best friend (sister)is Zulu, and her family are my family, so even as an Afrikaner I feel sorry for people who call me racist without even knowing me. They are so blinded by colour, or the lack thereof that it is actually sad. And no, not myself, any of my coloured friends, or my black sister have EVER, even before that article,nor will we ever, go to Nigerian doctors. Call us racist for that if you want, but staying in and around Rosettenville, JHB, have made us very careful of any dealing with any Nigerian. Unless it’s of course to fix a cell phone. Now that those guys are really good at.
You media people, you are like ANC because you take the BRIBES, Their LOT of things you don’t publish because of bribes. You blame the ANC every time you write and you are also taking the sides because you still involved in politics, you support a certain party so your judgement will always took a side. You Guys, you are worst than the ANC