Media freedom is one of those topics that its easy to raise a consensus around. For those of us that remember that bad days of apartheid, the consequences of a media held back by a government threatened by the truth needs no exposition.
It is thus not surprising that there has been a loud and consistent condemnation of the proposed media tribunal from most quarters. Editors, bloggers, twitterers and many members of the liberal public are united in their concerns. And various websites have adopted little badges proclaiming “Media Freedom” and the like.
That’s all easy enough. I read the predictable tweets with little enthusiasm, peppered as they are with circle jerking and false camaraderie. The arrest of Mzilikazi wa Afrika last week was pounced on as indicative of the problem. And the reliably misguided Julius Malema added his voice to the debate, in effect (and as usual) strengthening only the points made by his critics.
Watching from the sidelines, the first thought that came into my head is: does the ANC have a point? Has the media behaved recklessly or unfairly to such an extent that reining them in would seem to be in the national interest?
I have long watched as the so-called “liberal white press” (a misnomer by anyone’s standard, especially now) has both lit and fanned the flames of anti-government stories. This may seem to be a rash statement, and in fact one of the major arguments against this tribunal has been that there is no evidence that the media has, in fact, taken an anti-government position. My friend William Bird, an executive director of the MMA, argues that the government has failed precisely in this respect. It has presented nothing but unsubstantiated accusations against the print media.
Ultimately, this should be settled on the evidence, so let’s leave that aside for the moment. For the sake of argument let’s assume that at an evidentiary hearing both sides would be able to present some evidence in support of their case.
However, to try and see this from the ruling party’s point of view, and as a relatively unenthusiastic consumer of mainstream media, I see the following clear messages in the style and tone of media coverage of anything related to government:
1. Government is corrupt.
2. Government is failing to deliver on promises.
3. Government manipulates state institutions to its own (nefarious) ends.
4. Even where it is not corrupt or manipulative, government is incompetent.
5. The ANC is riddled with cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power.
Broaden the scope beyond the media itself, and into the “user-generated” content that the media invites and you can re-state the messages as:
1. The ANC is dangerous and dragging the country toward being “another Zimbabwe”.
2. Black people are lazy, corrupt and looking for a “free ride” now that the ANC has power.
3. Government is populated with stupid, selfish and ruthless power mongers.
4. We are in imminent danger of having the mines nationalised, farms stolen and the free press forcibly shut down.
5. The ANC supports crime, or at the very least, does nothing to stop it.
Now, I can’t present conclusive evidence for any of this stuff, and I’m happy to be proven wrong on any or all points. However I would be deeply shocked to see the evidence come out against my position because anecdotally, as a media consumer, these are the messages I am constantly encountering. Take a general look at how the Zuma trial was covered, how the news covers Julius Malema (and how much prominence it gives his every utterance), the messages of woe about South Africa’s preparation for the World Cup in the two year run-up to the event, the predictions of failure on the Gautrain project. And so forth.
Anyone who argues that the media has painted a generally hopeful view of the SA government over the past 10 years is reading very different newspapers and listening to very different radio stations than I have.
Now, there are two obvious reasons why this might be the case. One, the media has painted a fair and accurate picture of a government that is hopeless, failing and corrupt. The other is that the media has taken a particular view of the government which it relishes the chance to confirm.
And why, you may ask, would it do that?
Simple, really. Sales. No-one wants to read a good news story, with rare exception (maybe the soccer World Cup). Good news, any journalist will tell you, is classified by newsrooms as “soft news”. Hard news is, typically, something that has gone sour. “Boy grows up with parents that love him and succeeds at school” is not a story. “Boy is tortured by parents and now lives on the street sniffing glue”, is much better. If the government supplied the glue, then you’ve got a front-page headline.
I’m not trying to condense media studies into one paragraph. But it is worth stopping and noticing the general tendency among the media — supported by a frankly disturbing lingering racism and afro-pessimism in its readership — to emphasise the failures.
The net effect of this is serious. The two most important negatives are:
1. Slow down the country’s progress due to constant refocusing on failures; and
2. Feed the fires of malcontent and mistrust, weakening our national pride and spirit
The World Cup was a stark contrast to both of these points. A common refrain from most South Africans was how nice it was to be in a positive spirit, and see the country pulling together for a change. Was this shift in consciousness a group hallucination? Or, more likely, a recognition that the media took its foot off the pedal of pessimism for a brief time, giving us all a welcome respite.
It didn’t last, of course. We’re now back where we started.
I’m not advocating censorship. Nor am I even arguing that a media tribunal or arresting journalists makes any real sense.
But I am saying that everyone is far too quick to dismiss the role that the media plays in setting the tone of public discourse. In a new democracy with a wildly divergent set of interests, and a lot of problems, the media can play a constructive or destructive role. Unfortunately trying to enforce a constructive one leads us inexorably down a dark alleyway. And so, the argument goes, we must allow the good with the bad.
But what do you do as a ruling party when the bad spirals out of control, when every radio talk show is filled with negative sentiment; when online comments forums (just wait till this article gets some) degrade into racism and vitriol; when the media wields its power not to strengthen but to weaken the institutions of the state?
The simple, liberal reply is: don’t screw up. Keep your noses clean, deliver on your promises and all will be well. But of course, no government can do that. The result is a paralysed state like we see in the US, where no good deed goes unpunished. And where stars like Obama fall before they even have a chance to rise.
Conservative interests like this kind of state, because it is impervious to real change. But is that what we need here?
This is a puzzling problem to solve. The interests of truth are not always aligned with the interests of nation-building. And truth, anyway, is a blunt instrument, because omission is allowed in a free press. Making Malema’s madness front-page headlines day after day is not a transgression, even although you are reporting on few (if any) of the successes in government. Because it’s “hard news”. Because that’s what people want to buy.
The best we can hope for is a media that is aligned with trying to make a great, proud, passionate country. But there really are no incentives toward this goal. The economics of the press pull in a different direction. One of the reasons China is an emerging superpower and South Africa is not is that they can efficiently manufacture consent, and put their efforts behind building rather than tearing down.
I’m not sure which is a better society: one that is “open” or one that is “successful”. To the extent we can have both, we should strive for that. But where there is a choice, which do you pick? And what do you do if you have a strong suspicion that powerful interests in the society are playing a destructive role?
“The interests of truth are not always aligned with the interests of nation-building.” Aah – spoken like a true fascist. Here lies the path to totalitarianism — ever read 1984 by George Orwell? The truth is the only thing we have – sacrifice it, and that’s the end of the party.
look T-man, just because people are not aware that they could take newspapers to court etc does not automatically qualify to put in a tribunal. why not educate these people about these courts?
Am not saying that the press is completely blameless if the govt/ANC feels that the Press Ombudsman is not doing his job then they should take it up with him and the courts,while we are at it why not work towards a tender tribunal?
The media houses are very powerful more than the politicians.
The first serious assumptions made by the supporters of the tribunal idea is that people cannot think. The second is that the majority of the citizens use media in decision-making. Third, is that government is interested in people knowing the truth. Fourth, the media is not business, and thus consumers buy it regardless of in/accuracy of its reporting. Fifth, that the media has no business in government affairs (perhaps, it does not pay tax), and therefore is out to destroy a country it pays tax to.
But the most fundamental assumption made is that human beings are unable to deduct, from reflection on the frailty and corruption of human nature, that no one can safely be trusted with unlimited authority, be on information, or government actions. Most of these assumptions reflect a patronising attitude people have towards their fellow citizens.
The whole history of humanity is peppered with attempts to dominate one another (a generality which differentiates humans from other animals). This comes in various forms; wars, fights, church, kingdoms, bureacracy, story-telling, teaching, etc,all point to this insatiable human desire.
Suppression is a natural partner of domination.
“Does the ANC have a point about the media?”
No.
“We all abhor the restrictions on our free speech rights but the recent media-circus and abuse of our free speech rights by a few rogue journalists, have forced the government’s hand towards additional legislation to improve journalists code of conduct and accountability.”
Care to describe these heineous abuses that are so very heineous that the existing channels cannot be used to redress them, Harris? Or is doing anything more than regurgitating the party line above your pay grade?
This garbage is a classic “shoot the messenger rant”.
It reminds of Helen Suzman’s rejoinder to a pre-’94 national socialist totalitarian who accused her of sabotaging the national interest (“the more things change…”) and of asking embarrassing questions: “It is not my questions that are embarrassing – it is your answers”.
ANCinman ignores that there IS not positive way to present, say, the quashing of Zuma’s 783 charges of fraud and corruption, the springing of Shaik or the sentencing of Selebi. How would he have the media report the gerrymandering of ANCYL conferences or defiance of moral norms by Malema? Should the media self-censor when a provincial premier is found with over R14 million cash on a farm or another premier uses counterfeit emails to embarrass her opponent?
He has conveniently forgotten that when government does do something positive , e.g. host the world cup, the media did respond positively.
He also ignores that the supporters of all parties accuse the press of being partisan against their party.
If the ANC doesn’t like the shoddy image the media project, they could simply stop infighting and set out to rebut the perceptions listed in the article. Most Saffers of every group would prefer to be able to look up to and respect the government of the day.
great article that definetly does not require racists comments from all the loosers….you know yourselves.
i am against the tribunal, but no one should be seen to be above the law, when last did anyone of you read about journalist exposing other or better yet exposing/investigating the alleged corruption in the media houses?!
“The freedom of peoples depends fundamentally on the rule of law, a fair legal system. The place to have trials or accusations is a court of law, the Common Law that has come right up from Magna Carta, which has come right up through the British courts—a court of law is the place where you deal with these matters. If you ever get trial by television or guilt by accusation, that day freedom dies because you have not had it done with all of the careful rules that have developed in a court of law. Press and television rely on freedom. Those who rely on freedom must uphold the rule of law and have a duty and a responsibility to do so and not try to substitute their own system for it.” – Margaret Thatcher
But this author once recommended that politicians who want to get rich need a “malleable conscience”, stating that this “will steer us safely through the course of the coming years”
What a conscience for a human being>
I must agree that the media tribunal is going to cause too many problems and will probably not solve any. But the media in this country (and the world) is predominantly negative – the government was asked for R7 000 to fix a school in Khayelitsha in an extensive civil sector campaign. They donated R700 000 and the school is fixed. But these things are never spoken of in the media. Corruption must be exposed at every turn. But the media must show that good things do happen in this country. And let me say that the comments I see on the mail and guardian are, a lot of the time, filthy and racist – a story of two corrupt politicians does not give you the right to call all black people baboons (as I have seen done in these pages).
I think you’re right about the poor quality of SA media, and about the destructiveness of much reporting, but I still think freedom of the press is the lesser of two (or more) evils.
I’m so glad I stumbled across this article! I agree with you. Thanks for raising these points
I like how Tokyo Sexwale put it:
“A perception has slowly emerged within our society that there is some war between the government — or perhaps the ruling party — and the media in general.”
Such perceptions tended to become reality if not countered, explained or dealt with, the minister said.”
from this article:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article596884.ece/Some-ANC-bigwigs-defend-media-freedom
Foom said it! i quote “The press SHOULD have an antagonistic relationship with the government. That is part of its function”! many will attest tht if u hav someone watching over ur mistakes, u will b pressured to b spotless, perform! y else wud corrupt people call for a tribunal? nd i think u r very pessimistic in ur 5 broadened points! Seriously negetive things done by government, and ther r many, cannot b left unreported by a sober journalist for the sake of positivity! NO! appreciate and realize that these so called ‘negetive’ reports deter the very negetivity they report. would you have Malema’s past foolish statements to have gone unnoticed? huh? next thing u know I vote for him not knowing his crude comments nd thots. We need Media Freedom! Let them say whatever, then i as an individual will decide if they are being overly negetive or giving a necessary report.
Great read.
I loved this piece. The ruling party has a point. We perhaps need to wait and see how they plan to implement this act. The truth is…when Debra Patta and all of her ilk question politicians perhaps there should be some one questioning her…
If ever an insult was dished out to a writer then this is it: “Right on the money Jarred! Astute observations….I’m proud of you” – Dave Harris. What a condesending remark.
As for the article, this is an excellent example of someone writing about a subject that they are ill equiped to comment on. This argument goes well beyond the media, it will eventually lead to a citizen tribunal where people who “slander” the ANC will be reported on by their fellow citizens. This is not a slippery slope, no rather it is a glaring cliff and people like the author is like lemming happily jumping down this cliff so that they can get acceptance from Dave Harris.
All progress in the world is made through the identification of problems, or needs and figuring out how to fix the problems, or satisfy the needs. If the problems and needs are covered up or denied, there cannot be and will not be any solutions found.
We have to expose the corruption the crime and the needs of the people or, as with our previous great exponent on the subject of denails, stick our heads in the ground and let what sticks up in the air make the decisions. Cover-ups and denials will only exasperate the problems.
If we don’t know what to fix, it won’t get fixed. The last people to expose problems in their own party, is the ruling party.
@T-man: yes the World Cup was a success, but how does that translate for the poor? I saw quite a lot of defence from our local media of the country’s ability to pull off the Cup – it was overseas media who made the biggest fuss about SA not being able to do it. And I saw lots of our media hyping the Cup. But I still haven’t seen any evidence that the poor benefited. Or will ever benefit.
Agreed, to that poster who said it’s not the media’s job to congratulate government when it gets things right. Honestly! Does your boss come in every day and say, “Wow! You made it to work! You swithced on your laptop! You met the deadline!” You only get praise when you do something BEYOND the call of duty.
I do not agree with everything you write, but the ANC has a point. We have to admit: SA journalists are just not that good. Compared to for instance US newspapers, SA papers make too many unchallenged mistakes and tend to campaign (against the ruling party now). A dedicated media tribunal would in my view not be the solution, but more pressure on newspapers (sue them if they misbehave!) would be a very good thing for the SA society as a whole. Facts, facts, facts. Please. By the way: I am a journalist myself.
A K – if the government is concerned that the news of its good deeds is not getting out, then government needs to kick the arse of its media spokespeople, not attempt to gag the media.
I’ll grant you that the M&G comments section could do with being turned into a proper forum, complete with mandatory registration, full-time moderators, and – oh please, oh please – the ability to ignore certain users who rarely have anything worthwhile to say.
That the “mass media’ are not diversified enough is undeniable and therefore it seems to chorus and play catch up and follow my leader… THE LACK OF DIVERSITY IS AN OUTCOME OF PREVIOUS REPRESSION and the present government’s efforts to widen media access have foundered either on ineptitude[e.g.: SABC/public broadcasting/lack of support for community radio], or possible collusion by economic interests. Most assuredly though by the general public’s lack of appetite for thoughtful, provocative “news”and unwillingness to think.
New repression will not improve the situation it will simply make us more ignorant, and subordinate to the views opinions and attitudes of even fewer relatively incompetent mediocrities…
Ironically many media sources that are to be subject to this tribunal are newspapers that were inherently sympathetic to the Government.
For instance: The Independent Group were ANC backers during the struggle. The M&G published editorials prior to earlier elections supporting the ANC. Likewise the Sowetan has always been inherently pro-Government. If anything these papers tell us too little already about too much.
This barrage of criticism is inherently based on disillusionment, disappointment and rage at the willful arrogance to which the citizen is being subjected by a seemingly disinterested government that can barely muster the enthusiasm to negotiate reasonably with its own workforce…
At the same time there is a sense among many that this noise is a smokescreen behind which lie many untold truths, like for instance the real state of the economy.
I admire your sentiments, however, where there is smoke, there is fire. We have libel laws and a raft of other laws that protect the individual against predjudice, unfair or unsubstantiated claims, abuse etc.
Shabir Shaik was convicted for having a corrupt relationship with Jacob Zuma. Jackie Selebi was convicted for a corrupt relationship with Glenn Aglioti, Brett Kebbel et al. Jacob Zuma is the father of a baby he sired, out of any form of wedlock, with Irvin Khoza’s daughter (whilst president). Cabinet Ministers have, on the whole, purchased luxury vehicles costing in excess of 1 million Rand, and live in extreme oppulence, whilst the average civil servant earns less than R8000 pm. According to opinion polls, Julius Malema has fanned the flames of racial hatred in South Africa. Numerous BEE deals and government conracts are being investigated for nepotism and corruption.
These are facts, depressing facts, disturbing facts, but facts none-the-less. Would we rather not know about them? Would we rather wake up one day to find that the police, the prosecuting authority, and eventually the Constitutional Court, have been so manipulated and loaded by the ruling party that we don’t stand a snowball’s hope in hell of getting fair treatment or a fair trial before the law? And realising, belatedly, that the Fourth Estate has been muzzled and emasculated and that there is no voice remaining to speak out for those of us outside of the elite in an authoritarian state?
I think someone is looking to get some government contracts!
Whether some newspapers are accurate or not, it is the MARKET which should decide not a political arm of the ANC – which is all parliament is with their two thirds majority. And yes, if the ANC stay in power South-Africa will be less successful.
This tribunal has it’s genesis in the same place as the disbanding of the scorpions. The ANC are corrupt, the media are telling the world of this fact. So you stifle the media. African logic.
In its solipsist trade-mark the ANC has invented numerous terms to justify the unjustifiable. Characteristically, it is completely oblivious of citizens but only concerned about protecting its politicians reputation, which, if one takes the view that a political party’s role is to achieve power and keep it.
Put simply, it must protect itself from public scrutiny so that it can do its job of staying in power.
Unlike with the ancients, where participating in the public life completed an individual’s humanness, party political representation has the result that the ruling party always represents the tiniest portion of the population.And, as the political campaign ticket is decided at its congresses, which incidentally elects its leadership, its accountability lies primarily with its party membership.
This has serious implications to a country if one considers how decisions are taken at these congresses. Few individuals agree on an issue they want to be passed, mostly based on whims, rather than scientific research. Depending on how influential and rowdy this group can be at congress, the resolution will be adopted. Most of these resolutions are never about the benefit of the population, but about what will drive people to vote for the party. These resolutions are rarely opposed, unless an opponent wishes to go into political wilderness. And, as politics is the only means of living for the majority, consensus depends on how many are prepared to take this risk.
The same system of political patronage applies to the law-making process-
Cont;
Patronage thrives on reciprocation, meaning that one, or a few individual’s interest can end being a law to the society. This implies that totalitarianism is our version of democracy, and we have already tasted it in the ousting of a sitting president, the elimination of an effective crime-fighting unit, the ripping off of the taxpayer by Escom for the benefit of the ruling party, etc.
Patronage thrives on reciprocation. When voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the tax payers’money, the majority will always vote for those they believe will benefit them the most of the public treasury. Revelation to the general public of abuse of power and the taxpayers’ money is the main concern of any politician, as his job is to retain the power for his party.
Where does this leave the taxpayer, who is not a member of the ruling party, or is, but does not belong to the cabal of the few influential hacks.
Information about abuse of his money can only be revealed by an independent entity. The media’s business is making money from selling information. The taxpayer’s concern is how his hard-earned money is spent, and a non-member of the ruling party, he can only rely on the institution that benefits from revealing the truth – the media.
When the media is unabl to provide accurate information it is imprudent for him to continue to use it.
Cont,
To control how the media should not report on the use/abuse of the taxpayer’s money, is tantamount to a thief dictating the rules of engagement not only to the police, but also to influence the outcome of the trial.
connect the very first two paragraphs in the beginning.
The government and ANC make the news – the papers report on it. There’s plenty of positive stuff if you look but commentary on the governments performance is generaly not because, simply put, they suck ass in so many areas there’s precious little to crow about. Home Affiars works well and there’s lots of positive press and radio about it and the same for SARS. Doesnt that tell you something about the rest?
Sadly our government and ruling party is in the main as corrupt, immoral and dishonest as the papers say and they don’t like us reading about it.
Simple really.
Yeah. Let’s let’s treat this government differently because they’re mostly black and the mostly (really?) white media feel guilty for apartheid.
This government has appallingly betrayed their democratic promise of 1994. The arms deal tipped us off. Now they’re working to *legislate* a free ride from the press.
This is not a nuanced issue. The government is trying to role back a crucial element of democracy. Racists may criticise the ANC because most memebers are black, but democrats hate the organisation because it has no loyalty whatever to the progress of democracy – just as they hated the white National Party for the same reason.
Quit trying to muddy the waters of the simplest democratic issue there could be.
Would you be complaining about insensitive white judges routinely sentencing black people if the ANC suddenly decreed that all judges had to be ANC members? Would you be complaining about the artificially strong influence of white negotiators in drafting the constitution if the ANC was trying to abolish it?
This is a simple matter. Are you for democracy, or are you against it? The ANC has made their position increasingly clear. The time to discuss press ethics is when their freedom is assured.
But what do you do as a ruling party when the bad spirals out of control?
You make reforms. Gather evidence that can be scrutinised in advancing the claims you are making about the media (Research). Engage with the Press Council and advance new measures and reforms that address critical defiencies in the media. Make use of a reformed yet tried and tested institution of the ombud and grant it more pervasive powers. Institute an inquiry into the media industry and raise the question of competition regulation. Promote a partisan newspaper.
There are a number of interventions available within the bounds of liberal democracy before resorting to authoritarian measures. The Protection of Public Information and Media Tribunal must ultimately be considered in terms of the Constitution. Lots of space exists for reform in democracy (kinda the idea) before we reach China. In failing to act through a variety of democratic channels the government is cedeing legetimacy. Sadly to the press! Simply your article is guilty of raising a false dichotomy. In not seeking democratic means first, the ruling party is undermining itself and the democracy it fought for. In playing the game according to the rules of the press’s watchdog relationship, it is also highlighting its ineffectuality and ability to freely express its complaints. Government should give up the constraints of a fight where it plays villain and engage in proper discussion within channels democracy protects.
No better time to do this than when the press was gripped by patriotism.
But S.G., the media doesnt write about the good things that the government do but they alway portray the white opposition party as angels. How do you explain that one?
Jarred, can you explain that one about the media being the mouth piece of the white political parties?
And calling government calling tax revenues tax payers money is like calling pick n pays profit costumers’ money. If it was really taxpayers money they would be forced to pay it.
Lesego, if the taxpayers hadn’t paid the money, there wouldn’t be revenues would there? O_o
That’s a pretty stunning failure of logic you made right there.
Also, thanks to efforts by SARS, a higher proportion of tax owed is paid than ever before.
With Pick ‘n Pay, you pay money and receive goods in return. With taxes, taxpayers pay taxes and expect a democratically elected government to use the money legally and responsibly for the benefit of all… you following so far?
So it only becomes like Pick ‘n Pay’s money, once the government renders services to the nation as stipulated. See?
When tax money is misappropriated, it’s like a customer at Pick ‘n Pay complaining because he or she paid their money and was given defective goods that were not as advertised.
Wouldn’t you complain under those circumstances?
“One of the reasons China is an emerging superpower and South Africa is not is that they can efficiently manufacture consent, and put their efforts behind building rather than tearing down.” I would say Jarred is mad, but I don’t want to sound rude. You can’t compare China (a country that was never colonised and subjected to apartheid) to SA. Unlike SA, i wonder if China comprises tenderprenuers in their government.
I read your article and wanted to read it again, but couldn’t bare your terrible writing style. I am sure you are trying to make a point of some sort but you have completely missed it. There is a core issue here. I have read the Protection of information Bill and SANEF’s reply to it. You have missed the target by such a wide margin that it seems you are completely uninformed of the actual situation. Does the ANC have a point? Maybe. The media can do damage that’s hard to undo. The protection of information bill is not about that. It is about jailing people who uncover the truth. The media tribunal has such an obvious conflict of interest I cannot understand how you could even write this essay(if you could call it that). Openness and success are not mutually exclusive. A lot of smart people are opposing these laws, if this was not the case they might have had some credibility. Peppering an uninformed opinion with fancy words does not make it better. Do better research next time, because if you don’t are you not being an uninformed member of the media(although not an official member) writing an article with no basis in reality just as you are accusing the media of doing?