Why oh why does this happen? Why is it that as a people and a country we have such difficulties in dealing with dissent? You would swear that if someone disagreed with your ideas it could result in you losing a limb.
I remember in the not-so-long past that the media could not report on township activities. They could not report on the detention of 10, 13 and 16 year olds until the Detainee Parents’ Support Committee came along. I remember when the same people who are now proposing to silence the media could not get their ideas and views out to the general public. How to circumvent this, we had to print pamphlets inside the country using stolen keys from high school print shops. I remember how now these same self-serving, political hacks, thugs could give speeches for hours and hours on the importance of free speech and freedom of the press.
Why would you today in this day and age of the internet, SMS and MMS assume you could achieve this objective? You would assume this because you know no better. You would assume this if you had skeletons to hide. You would assume this if you thought the media exposes your activities, misspending of funds, that everyone requires a German state-of-the-art sedan (as if you do not remember riding in taxis), you spend the taxpayers’ money on imported wines and spirits, you want to enrich your friends, family and fellow cronies at the expense of the taxpayers. If you think along these lines, then yes, the media tribunal makes sense to you.
So, let us take a different approach shall we? If we take this approach, I believe that we will be able to say there is no need for the “proposed” media tribunal. This is not a “proposal”, this is a threat, to the media, the population and anyone with a few brain cells to rub together and challenge ideas and behaviour.
I have just 10 very simple requirements for those who have now “proposed” this idiotic idea. We will not need a media tribunal if:
1. You understand that you are a serving minister doing your job as delegated by the people and not doing us a favour.
2. You recognise freedom of speech and the press. You have obviously forgotten the Freedom Charter. First this, “The people shall govern” and “All bodies of minority rule, advisory boards, councils and authorities shall be replaced by democratic organs of self-government”. Remember this? This means you cannot impose a “tribunal” to ensure that your ill-deeds cannot be exposed.
3. You have no need to spend millions of rands on tricked-up foreign cars.
4. You do not spend the taxpayers’ hard-earned money on way-over-the-top accommodation.
5. You care to answer truthfully and honestly all questions posed to you.
6. You are willing as a public servant to be accountable
7. You deliver on what the populace needs, service, education, health, running water, housing, employment and yes, freedom of speech.
8. You are willing to criticise and be criticised.
9. You are willing to step aside when time comes so those willing to do their duties can do it successfully.
10. You respect the sanctity of the office you hold.
Lest we forget we have a responsibility as the populace to vote these “political hacks” out of office. If we do not exercise this power then we are equally culpable.
This is a stupid idea. It benefits nobody but those hiding something. Just do your job.
Yes, I agree. Where do i sign?
Me too! Spot on and well said
Every freedom has a responsibility. Today’s Business Day had an apology to a minister because of report on his “corruption” that was of “poor journalism”; qoute from the said newspaper. The Sunday Times expose also seemingly had mis-represented facts around the Bheki Cele saga. The only sunction is an apology that not everyone has access to. The image of the said individual is tarnished forever. Even if the said person seeks redress from the courts, because this is done to sell newspapers (even though there seems to be enough evidence that there is campaign (or sinically paid for journalism). The said person is just collateral damage. It is obviously that this is exercising a freedom without worrying about the responsibility that comes with it. How ddo we deal with this?
I agree – what are they thinking? This not the ANC I know.
Very well expressed, Lucky Ntuli. Eloquent and at the same time fundamental. I can’t believe that the ANC will really get this archaic legislation up and running. But if they do, then it’s straight to the Constitutional Court to challenge it. I vividly remember the mid-80s, the state of emergency, the suppression, suspension of law, censorship, etc. And the principled struggle by the United Democratic Front against that regime. You’re so right – principles seem to have flown out of the window.
Actually, a press tribunal could be useful in challenging the stranglehold which dishonest journalists and political zealots have over the press, and if it were set up democratically, it would not be in any way inconsistent with either the Freedom Charter or the Constitution.
The obvious problem is that it would be liable to abuse by the governing party, and therefore structures would have to be set up to discourage this. Now, under the present government, it is not credible that this would happen. Therefore, a press tribunal under Zuma and his fellow criminals is a bad idea.
But to dismiss the whole concept of a press tribunal in the way you are doing, Cde Ntuli, is to pretend that we have a free and unbiassed press in this country, and that doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
Short and to the point. Nuff said!
Quite eminent points indeed…….It’s just plain idiotic,tedious, not to mention utterly DOM!!!!!
Just acknowledge the responsibility that comes with those lavish toys you spoil yourselves with and do your work………
You know, I’m thinking, perhaps we should organise a petition against the proposed tribunal and new act. What say you guys? Would it be useful?
@Thamie
I fully agree with you.
Not forgetting the Times “mis-take” two days ago
People who oppose to this tribunal , please educate us on how the media needs to deal with irresponsible reporting. Peoples profile have been damaged and they can’t get a job anywhere , but I’m at pains to name just one journalist who lost their job or suspended after being found guilty.
@The Creator:
“if it were set up democratically, it would not be in any way inconsistent…”
If it is able to impose restrictions, then it is inconsistent with free speech. There are already recourses available for anything else needed, e.g. defamation of character, knowingly publishing false information, etc.
“The obvious problem is that it would be liable to abuse by the governing party, and therefore structures would have to be set up to discourage this.”
No, it would need to be set up to make it impossible to abuse, since the current government does not care whether something is “discouraged” and neither will any corrupt government of the future.
The only way to make it impossible to abuse would be to make it entirely independent of government, and to refuse it any ability to compromise freedom of the press. I.e., refuse it all powers which it is intended to have.
We cannot trust that all future governments will not be equally (or more) corrupt.
“But to dismiss the whole concept of a press tribunal in the way you are doing, Cde Ntuli, is to pretend that we have a free and unbiassed press in this country, and that doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
No country has an unbiased press. This will only restrict freedom of the press, not enhance it.
What the ANC wants to do is no different to what the apartheid government did.
I wish to alert those who believe in the “democracy” that SA has never tasted about the what has been said about it;
The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later, in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting – Charles Bukowski
Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter – Winston Churchill
Please note also the following about the truth and the state:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and military consequences of the lie. If there becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension the truth is the greatest enemy of the state – Joseph Goebells.
Now let us see which one would you rather believe between the state and a journalist, even if both were telling the truth.
Thamie, Bongz – somehow, other nations all over the world manage to deal with the odd bit of bad journalism *without* the need for press censorship. For example, anyone libelled by the press through publication of an inaccurate piece has the option of suing for damages, which – since the media is run for profit – serves as an incentive for editors to have stories checked.
“I’m at pains to name just one journalist who lost their job or suspended after being found guilty.”
Does Dan Rather of CBS News ring a bell? He fell for a fake document, did a story based on inaccurate information, and lost his job as a result. Lo and behold, the system works as is.
Lucky wake up and smell the coffee. Most media reports are not about informing me and you, they’re about shaping opinions.The print media is full of opinion pieces disguised at news. There are stories you’ll never hear about in our heroic mainstream media. You only hear about shenanigans in business when a company goes under. The are people you’ll never hear about in the mainstream media until you chance upon NOSEWEEK. I elected politicians to serve me but I don’t remember electing the media. So how come they claim to serve me, if at all.
@Paul Barrett
Thank you for your feedback.
No media is unbiased. They all have agendas and driven by the need to make a profit. This is a given and not questioned.
The question for me is, knowing this fact, is the “proposed” tribunal the best/right way? Who gets to select its membership? Do these members now by default owe allegiance to those who selected them?
This to me would be step backward and quite a dangerous one as you will be setting a precedence that will be hard to undo. Why is it that those who have made this “proposal” think the current measures are not working or sufficient?
@Lucky Ntuli – Well and concisely said. I vote for you because you know what is expected of ministers, the current bunch of sinisters seemed to have missed that class. Seriously though, is this not a serious enough matter to call for a public vote?