The biggest achievement of the recent Human Rights Commission hearing on the Forum of Black Journalists and racism in South African newsrooms has not only plunged the profession into its deepest crisis but got it to hang its dirty linen in the public.
The heated debates and personal attacks among some of the players have ripped off what Franz Fanon aptly called “black skins, white masks” from the faces of those, especially blacks, in leadership and management positions in the commercial media, both print and broadcasting.
Of course, over the decades, if not centuries, editors and their columnists have put themselves on to a pedestal that has portrayed them as not only “know-it-alls”, but as people who are above society and its rules. But the below-the-belt exchanges have shown that they are only human beings who grapple — just like politicians — with issues of power, succession and desire to be “more equal than others”.
It would not be helpful to delve into the reasons why editors, senior journalists or other players in the media are ordinary folks who deal with the Common Man’s daily issues of power play, status and money, jockeying for positions, influential networks and pursuing a purge against those they do not like.
Instead, the concern should be the palpable signs of leadership crisis in the media which will, inevitably, see the Fourth Estate fail in its historical responsibility to mirror society in a way that points us to “the light at the end of the tunnel”.
So, what are some of the skeletons that came tumbling out of the media closets of South African newsrooms?
- There are blatant examples of power cabals involving influential networks that determine who makes it to the top and who does not.
- There is unspeakable abuse of power due to positions which not only make editors unaccountable but encourage them to behave like they are gods.
- Women and the aged are continually marginalised and thus forced to give up on chosen profession.
- The non-existence of “investigative journalism” simply means that corporations are not willing to put in financial resources to improve the quality of journalism. The result is smugness, laziness and poorly researched stories that, increasingly, see more reporters rely on press releases.
- There is unbridled ambition and rivalry that sees colleagues divide into camps that are battling for the same positions.
- There is a rampant culture of parasitism where journalists are entitled to free food, drinks and transport to events and functions simply because many newspapers are battling with resources.
- There is a perceived hostile attitude to a black government (sic) — which has seen threats of withdrawal of advertising from the Sunday Times, for instance — and the targeting of black super-achievers who always get negative reporting.
- In a nutshell, the South African newsrooms, in the words of HRC chair Jody Kollapen, are plagued by “blackness and whiteness [which] still shape who were are, how we think and how we organise ourselves”.
Of course, this emphasises the need for rigorous interrogation of issues, including transformation and where the media is failing society, if at all.
In short, the guardians of society have put themselves under the spotlight and, apparently, they have ended up putting dirty linen in the public as a spectacle to behold. These are some of the issues that have come forth following the FBJ public hearings.
As against this gloomy picture, the signs of positive developments, however slow and insignificant, have faded into the background and were hardly a feature in the heated exchanges and debates.
The fact that younger black journalists, especially those under 30 years of age, are beginning to assert themselves with a less heavy apartheid baggage of a deep-seated inferiority complex and work with their non-black colleagues as equals was not taken note of.
Also, there are a number of young, talented and black women like Ferial Haffajee at M&G, Phylicia Oppelt at Daily Dispatch, Zingisa Mkhuma at Pretoria News and Lizeka Mda at City Press, to name a few, who have broken the sexist ceiling to take their rightful place in editorial leadership.
Of course, this female achievement follows in the steps of relatively young men like Mondli Makhanya at Sunday Times, Moegsien Williams at Star, Jovial Rantao at Sunday Independent, Barney Mthombothi at Financial Mail, Tyrone August at Cape Times, to cite a few example.
Yet these remarkable achievements were completely out of the picture, except when mentioned as “part of the problem and not the solution”.
There is no doubt that remarkable progress that has been made in terms of opportunities for advancement for black journalists in the media. But we cannot escape the fact that many of the problems that were brought into the spotlight are the apartheid baggage of over 40-year-old black editors and senior journalists who are haunted by the legacy of growing up believing they are second-class citizens.
Many of these greying men of yesterday who are now editors and other decision-makers in newsrooms have emerged out of virtual slavery and illiteracy to occupy, with great distinction, top jobs in some of the leading publications. It is a good thing that some university drop-outs and others who do not even have a matric have “made it.” And yet this cannot wash or wish away that South African newsrooms are in a crisis.
It is obviously a crisis of poor leadership, one that derives from the willingness to collaborate with the commercial agenda that makes the media into lap-dogs of Big Business, especially the shareholders who want profits at the expense of a stable society. This derives from historical and economic facts. It is compounded by the lack of moral courage and integrity on the part of media leadership.
In the 1970s, some of the figures that attracted young stars to journalism were not only the movie All The President’s Men — which depicted how journalists could topple an American president — but the emergence of courageous men like Steve Bantu Biko and Percy Qoboza, who revealed that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Together with some of the white liberal counterparts like Anthony Heard, Alister Sparks and Donald Woods, they defined the historical responsibility of the media to not only articulate the vision for a better society but to be on the side of the poor and marginalised.
With this inspiration in mind, many young black victims of Bantu education and apartheid took to journalism to be agents that would articulate the vision of men like Nelson Mandela, Steve Biko and Robert Sobukwe.
The 1980s was a politically charged period that revealed the profound political commitment of journalists, especially from the black community, who defined themselves as “members of their black communities first”. This meant that the historical responsibility of black journalists was to play a political role that would significantly contribute to the transformation of society.
Now that the public hearings have come and gone, we have to ask ourselves: What has gone wrong with so-called journalism in South Africa today? This is an issue that need not be evaded because of personal attacks and heated exchanges that have left some naïve poseurs exposed.
In fact, I want to put forward a somewhat controversial but factual and accurate proposition that will reveal how the media, especially editorial leadership and management of commercial media, have lost the plot in the post-1994 period. I dare anyone who is willing to think carefully and engage in robust debate to take me on.
To begin with, the opening of the floodgates of opportunities for black editors through “fast-tracking,” the demise of “Extra Editions” of white newspapers, the retreat of white voice in discourse and the dismantling of apartheid has NOT resulted in the kind of journalism or media, especially from blacks, that would help make our society moral, just and equal.
The leadership and management of our newsrooms have failed to give us a vision of a society that gives us a chance to re-imagine what the struggle was about: non-racist, non-sexist and democratic society and self-determination for the African majority.
Instead, what we have witnessed with the collapse of the apartheid state and the end of the racial war between blacks and whites is the emergence of more black faces and names in the leadership of mainstream commercial media. Some of them — especially in the Sowetan and City Press, for instance — are people who have used guerrilla tactics to advance the aspirations and hopes of the black African majority in the struggle for a new society.
But now, for very complex reasons, they have been swallowed by the commercialisation of the media and now serve as money-makers for shareholders than insist on NO transformation agenda that will result in a better quality life for all.
In essence, what has happened is that, increasingly, black editorial leadership have seized opportunities in the mainstream media to do things exactly the same way as their white predecessors. It would seem that they know their limit: to change things, you must do things the same way as before.
This is what has created so much anger and resentment in South African newsroom. It has split the profession not only along racial but class lines! The prerequisite for success and achievement is that you must be on the side of those who wield economic power.
Instead of the fiery breed young black journalists who founded the FBJ in the mid-1990s, in less than 10 years, black editors have just smoothly and swiftly moved into white chairs without bringing any new décor or furniture with them.
Thus there is NO paradigm shift, no revolution in how the “bad news” South African story is covered. At best, when it comes to editorial leadership in newsrooms, it is a question of moving the furniture around or just painting it black, whatever that means.
The “regime change” in South African newsroom leadership and management has seen white editors who were, largely, subservient to apartheid-era capitalist bosses have been succeeded by black editors who comply with the demands of the same post-apartheid capitalist bosses. This stubborn fact alone is enough to condemn the journalism fraternity to perpetual conflict and division along racial and class lines.
It will not serve any purpose to debate whether black editors, especially, have any option. What needs to be acknowledged is the equally stubborn fact that black editors who have assumed leadership of mainstream newspapers do NOT have the powers to change or transform their own newsrooms.
Thus newsrooms are plagued by unreformed racial hierarchy, unreconstructed top-down management style, obsession with profit-making and practice of micro-wave journalism by youngsters who lack skills and training. To make matters worse, black editors, just like their white counterparts, are forced to continue the incestuous relationship between Big Business and the Fourth Estate. After all, advertising is the lifeblood of the media, we are told.
What has happened in the post-1994 era is the self-transmogrification of the black editor for self-advancement and material interest. Far from fiery young men and women who come from the 1976 generation that changed the course of history, they have become “like them”, become part of the history and racist problem they fought against. They now emulate not the comradely ethos of identifying with the African poor and exploited but self-serving individualistic thrust of pushing to be Number One by any means necessary.
It is for this reason that the essence of news content in the mainstream media is to encourage society to “get rich quickly” like Cyril Ramaphosa, Tokyo Sexwale, Saki Macozoma or Patrice Motsepe. In fact, black society is encouraged to pursue this self-destructive capitalist dream without being ashamed or feeling guilty. It is now the era of every man for himself and Mandela for nobody.
But now we are being misled to believe that skin colour is enough to determine whether an editor is black or not. Within the confines of a capitalist press, those who grow in the ranks to assume power and influence are those who know which side of the bread is buttered.
Everybody, both black and white editors, is invited to make use of all the wonderful new “opportunities” to “cut it” and thus be an example of super-achievement and success. To show that you are among the “best of them,” you tell an HRC audience, like Sowetan editor Thabo Leshilo, that when it rains your worry is “how much it will cost me to clean my pool” rather the plight of the homeless in Diepsloot.
What utter nonsense! Yet this is the profound truth that would come from someone who espouses the “soul truth”. It is this sort of public utterance and abuse of freedom of the media and expression that has come to epitomise so much of what is wrong with journalism, especially under black editorial leadership of the commercial media:
Let’s face it, the rise of the new black editor has not produced anything more positive than coverage that informs this nation and the world that nothing good can come from a black government (sic). Of course, being afraid of being accused of racism, the white editors have somewhat beaten a retreat and their clarion call has been taken up by their clones.
If anything good has come out of black editors rising to the upper echelons of mainstream media, this is largely because they are keeping to the unchanged script of false “objectivity” that is based on the Western model of reporting. This has created a prism that confuses divisions along race and class to collapse them into one heap where you cannot distinguish between the disadvantaged and the beneficiaries.
Of course, the media — both black and white editors — are caught in the pincer grasp of racism and class. Unfortunately, for the former, they cannot escape now because they are now part of the black bourgeoisie that makes up the buffer between the poor and exploited and those who wield economic power.
Nobody should trivialise the social progress and achievement of black editors in the last 20 years. It is something that many of them may have worked hard to accrue. Black editors now enjoy the same luxury and splendour as their white counterparts in similar positions.
It is a well-known fact that if you want to commit suicide in journalism, you must espouse an ideological orientation or political attitude that is an antithesis of racial capitalism. So it is a lie that there is any substantive difference between a black editor and a white one.
But those who push an FBJ agenda that excludes white journalists on the basis of skin colour not only distort Biko’s Black Consciousness but are fraudulent political hotheads who cannot adapt to the new times of non-racism.
Much as freedom of association and assembly is a right, it militates against the constitution to bar people on the basis of morphological factors they have no control over.
Of course, in the process, the profile of the FBJ has not only suffered a terrible dent to its integrity but lost the moral high ground and political relevance, even the credibility that they seemed to get from association with Biko’s name.
But how are we to transform the newsroom and make journalism relevant? Can editors recover the moral high ground? Can we rely on the commercial media to chart a new path to a society characterised by non-racism, non-sexism and democracy?
Personally — in my capacity as a former founding member of the FBJ and committed citizen of this democracy — I would not have bothered to attend the hearings if I did not believe it to be possible.
The worst thing that can happen is for self-aggrandising black editors to deny the problem of being caught in the pincer grasp of racism and capitalism. They can deny that their own newsrooms need radical transformation as they reflect apartheid Bantustans. They can deny that those who have “made it” are, largely, “white clones” who have introduced no fundamental change or new vision and ideological perspectives.
In fact, newsrooms are carrying on with the usual business that is condemned to leave everything unchanged!
Yes! The biggest achievement of the HRC hearing was to, finally, force the journalism profession to face its twin problems of racism and capitalism head-on. Editors and journalists must be accountable. The public, including government, has a right to tell them how they are letting a great nation down.
It is simply untrue that because you have a so-called black skin colour you are automatically an agent of the change and transformation that we want to see and are a lesser evil compared to someone else who is white.
Once editors and journalists themselves understand the basic truth about the economic fundamentals, especially advertising as the life-blood of the media, they can seriously look up to the challenge of working together, irrespective of skin colour, class or political background, to rebuild newsroom into the nucleus of hope and optimism.
In fact, Uhuru or freedom of the media and expression is a mirage that is intended to blind citizens and media consumers from seeing that the commercial media has no significant role or contribution to make towards nation-building. It is all about profits, profit and profit!!!
If the FBJ must be resuscitated, it must mobilise professional media workers on the basis of a new spirit of nation-building that nurtures social cohesion. The prerequisite for membership must be the cooperative value of Ubuntu or African humanism, which as is instinctively connected to the continent and expresses unconditional love and care for its people.
The editorial leadership, especially black, in commercial institutions must learn that super-success and achievement means that too much is expected from those who have been given too much in a short period of time. To be excellent media, they must provide an insightful, courageous and informative news content that inspires pride in being South African, highlights and celebrates the 1994 “miracle” without pandering either to Big Business or the political powers-that-be.
Editors must climb out of BMW and mansions in white suburbs to walk and work among the poor so that we can ALL see that rain does not affect a swimming pool the same that it does a ramshackle tin shack. Somehow, we have to shift the paradigm from obsession with the culture of material success by any means necessary to the restoration of the ethos of African Humanism.
It is this new attitude that can forge new links and partnership between Big Business and government, black and white, the media and civic society.
In the short term, the HRC should escalate open debate on the impact and legacy of racism in the media. In fact, it must hold the media accountable for the failure of exposing the problem of racism.
The political reality of what Alan Paton called a “beautiful country that no man can enjoy” has rapidly changed in the last 13 years. If we do not use the media to embark on “Business Unusual” strategies and plans, we may be heading for a meltdown Zimbabwe style.
Yes, another world is possible. In fact, another world has been created as reflected in our world-class Constitution. Is it too much to ask that our commercial powers, especially from the black community, take their historical responsibility seriously?
Well, the catfights at the highest editorial ranks and preoccupation with being Number One is hardly the way. There is room for all of us at the rendezvous of victory.
Author
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
