I had the rather dubious pleasure of attending a discussion on the matter of the proposed media appeals tribunal and protection of information at the University of Johannesburg last night. Let me warn you from the outset: if you want intelligent, honest and frank discussion, do not go to these events. Just don’t. “Honest” discussion you’ll find alright, but it isn’t of the frank and intelligent sort.
This particular panel discussion was pitched to the public as a matter of media freedom. “Is media freedom really under risk?” the bumf read. Professor Adam Habib, the referee at this discussion, admonished the gathered parties to speak “with” each other, rather than “past” each other. The professor wanted a meeting of minds.
It’s precisely what he didn’t get.
The panellists were Mondli Makhanya, editor-in-chief of Avusa Media (newspapers); Baleka Mbete, national chairperson of the ANC, and Richard Louw of the Freedom of Expression Institute. Things got a bit personal between Mbete and Makhanya. But, more on that later.
Each panellist was given 15 minutes to make opening remarks (fashionable disregard for time limits deferred to). Makhanya and Louw made the expected pro-media and pro-transparency noises, Mbete made the obligatory pro-media appeals tribunal and pro-Protection of Information Bill noises. The battle lines were set. Everyone knew who was for whom, and who to clap for.
As any person who frequents this sort of gathering knows, the sparks only really fly when the floor is opened up for audience members to make remarks. The panel chairperson always says “questions”, but almost everyone interprets this as “remarks”.
Mbete immediately set the tone by accusing Makhanya of having a personal hand in her own negative experience with the press. She said his paper had erroneously reported that she had fudged up her travel expenses, and when she had requested her assistants to submit records to the journalist who erroneously reported on her, the journalist in question had refused the proof that she was “clean” so that he could continue writing false allegations against her. Mbete said that she had approached the Press Ombudsman in order to settle the matter, and the eventual apology that had issued forth from the newspaper in question, as a result of a ruling by the Ombudsman, was far from satisfactory.
Clearly then, according to Mbete, something was wrong with the current system of redress against false media allegations. Or more to the point, Mbete and the media are not exactly the best of friends. The former deputy president didn’t seem to keen to engage with Makhanya and Louw on matters concerning the media appeals tribunal, but focused on nitpicking examples raised to illustrate broader issues, rather than tackling with the issues themselves.
The discussion was quite poorly attended, the politically-interested chattering classes perhaps convened in their numbers at the Wits media debate, but a group of student hecklers made it out nonetheless. They sat right in front of the auditorium, a few metres away from Makhanya, and interrupted the Avusa editor quite a few times, forcing Professor Habib to intervene.
Despite the overall poor impression that the talks made, several key issues could be extracted from the exchanges:
- The government has at least conceded that parts of the Protection of Information Bill are over-reaching and draconian. The key issue is the “national interest” clause, which is so vague and broad that it is encompasses anything. A suggestion is that the government should frame the Protection of Information Bill as a “national security” issue, rather than a “national interest” issue.
- There is no such budging on the issue of the media appeals tribunal. The ANC seem quite adamant on this one. For their part, the media are just as adamant that the tribunal is about muzzling critical reporting, rather than protecting those victimised by the press.
- There is consensus from the ANC and members of the public that the Press Ombudsman is toothless. There is agreement that an apology from a newspaper for inaccurate reporting is not enough. The media say that an apology is quite hurtful and is the best and most accepted system of redress, and the governing party would like to see harsher penalties. However, the media and Press Council concede that the complaints procedure may need redress, but not of the statutory kind.
Knives are out for newspapers. The most concerning thing is that the public seems to be for the media appeals tribunal, either because they genuinely believe the ANC’s contention that people have lost jobs, family and careers because of untruthful journalism, or because they cannot yet stomach “Western-style” reporting that does not revere “elders” and leaders.
It’s going to be a long fight, and could get quite nasty.
Stephen Grootes was at the same event — read his assessment in the Daily Maverick.
This seems like a selective update. I would have loved to know more about the disruptions of Mondli by students. What was it all about. Are you concealing the support the masses have for the tribunal. It seems to me that the students were not contend with points advanced by Mondli.
I recall Mbete infamously remarking in the run-up to the 2009 elections that SA needs only one political party. Does this sound like someone who understands the principles of democratic governance?
Mbete’s view is that the press should serve the ‘interests’ of the country by refraining from printing reports about corrupt government leaders and shady deals involving political ‘deployees’ and the private sector. In other words, the job of the press should be to create the impression of a unified and single-minded SA under the banner of the ANC.
What Mbete and most of the leaders of the ANC don’t seem to get is that they are merely the majority party who happen to be in government right now. In a democracy, power is never given: it is won by facing Opposition Parties who have the right to contest the policies and actions enacted in the name of the people of the country. If the ANC have–as they claim– nothing to hide why do they perceive the press as a threat?
The press have a DUTY to report on government, business, and all institutions and individuals that have the power to help or harm the country. That includes both reportage and opinion and the Constitution protects both.
The ability of the current leaders of the ANC to read much less interpret the Constitution is very much in doubt. That only a handful have read it, is painfully clear. Tyranny prevails where ignorant fools rule the country.
Gosh I am glad the lighter side of the voice of reason is back!
The point everyone seem to miss in this whole afair is that creating yet more laws on top of the immense and sometimes overlapping and sometimes contradictory ones we have is pointless when only “The Party” and the criminal class can expect any policing of their rights and therefore justice from these laws. Us normal oakes simply get less and less justice and freedom for all, as usual. What makes this tribunal even more frightning is its Bush or Botha style coercion of the public to counter the terror/rooi gevaar, which in this case is free speech. What really should be debated is the mystery of a toothless Press Ombudsmen in what amounts to a basically lawless country in reality. It is very much like my other favorite legal gripe: environmental laws? Whahahaha, what environmental laws! Writing them down in the law books does not make them real except for those with the means or the contacts.
“The most concerning thing is that
the public seems to be for the
media appeals tribunal”- which public are you talking about?
Half of me wants MAT, because where the proponents expect silence, there will be a global gasp a chorus of corruption and a community cocophony.. All drowned by the sound of Wailing! ..but this would be a shared fate for those who oppose MAT too, sadly.
So I don’t want MAT.
The general public are largely unaware of the gravity of this watershed moment. It occurs in the history of many a failed state, with associated accelerated and unspeakable decline thereafter which defies both Logic and Justice.
A GREAT MOMENT IN HISTORY for President Jacob Zuma to have a public “GRAND AFRICAN CATHARSIS” and heal this continent by example in full view of the world, proudly South African!
LEGACY, Mr. President! It is a historic opportunity to be the Father of Modern Africa! Look history and our situation in the eye! Exciting or what!! You have the charisma so let it all out and the whole world will be behind you!!You’ll find forgiveness, peace, statesmanship and a respected place in history.
Ah..
“or because they cannot yet stomach “Western-style” reporting that does not revere “elders” and leaders.”
This is a very important point. Often in African culture how you say something is more important then what you say. Our countries media is now in trouble because they neglected this part of our culture. Is the media tribunal a answer, I don’t think so. But I think that the media disregard prevailing cultural norms of the majority of the people while doing thier job. This is something that the whole of society should come up with a solution to. Remember if you insult someone’s cultural norms long enough, they will just remember the insult and not wether it was the truth or not.
“The most concerning thing is that
the public seems to be for the
media appeals tribunal” most concerning to who?
The press is like a bunch of thugs who can do what they want. Apology on page 18 is simply not good enough.They have failed to regulate themselves give over let someone regulate you
Ladies and gentlemen if we are to protect every citizen in our broad soceity to have a voice through the media, then we have to invest in media diversity were every community has access to all mediums such as the internet, community radio etc. Its very clear that in south africa we have a print media that has adopted a ‘one size fits all’ approach. This consolidation of journalistm has clearly backfired becoz it would seem they are caught up in a ‘bubble’ of their own views and intepretations that are slowly alienating them from expressing the values of soceity. The media has also clearly adopted a strategy to ‘influence’ as opposed to ‘informing’ the public.
Personally, I’m glad that a public discourse about the media has begun. For the media to suggest that when people express their views on the media then it amounts to it being unconstitutional and ‘media gagging’ is laughable. Somebody needs to remind the media that south africa is a democracy, and public debate and accountability to the public is the norm.
sadly, the debate has been reduced to the ‘media tribunal’ which does not begin to look into issues of media diversity, black owneship, affirmative action etc. But I trust that the face of print media will change with time to express the true values of our soceity.
Talking rubbish and then issuing an apology that is “far from satisfactory” is a trick that was created by politicians. Remember Zuma saying that no gay man should stand in front of him? Remember Sexwale saying that COPE members are witches? Remember the apology for either of these remarks? We need a Politicians Appeal Tribunal as much as we need a Media Appeals Tribunal.
Nice writing, dude. Thanks for keeping us updated.
@Kwame – valid point, the media, like most other market sectors in SA is a monopoly owned by a few players only. I have said it so often that I am getting tired of saying it, once we break up the monopolies in this country, many of the problems will be solved. The race issue is not as worrying as the issue that a very small % of the country (black/brown/white/yellow) is sitting with most of its assets in the form of land and market share. The media tribunal would not be necessary if we had an operative Competition Commisioner.
@Shiobhan – Well said! Please consider putting together the course material for a Democracy Literacy booklet. I will print and distribute the these(and probably get myself arrested – Deja Vu anyone? – which will hopefully get me struggle credentials and allow me to finish my degree).
To me the issue of press and media freedom is quite simple, is it a necessity for maintaining a free society? As somebody who lived and struggled against Apartheid the answer for me is quite simply, yes.
Under Apartheid the policies being pursued by government were so socially dysfunctional that government efforts to curtail the media ‘s freedom to disseminate information were inevitable.
In my view governments only become enthusiastic about curtailing media freedom when they, the government and its agents, have things that they wish to hide from public view. Government and its agents are public servants and thus the public have every right to be kept fully informed about what its servants are doing, a free media is the best means of achieving this.
Thus any move by government to curtail media freedom needs to be thoroughly interrogated by every organ of civil society and the likelihood is that, within a well ordered and freedom valuing society, each of such moves will rightly be rejected as totally unnecessary from the public’s point of view.
@ Bluewater Paul
And we could add Zuma’s famous “I’ve done some stupid things in my time” to the likes of “we will fight them on the beaches” and “I have a dream” What a speech that would make. Sadly, we are more likely to get something like “I have in my hand a piece of paper” or “I believe that we are today crossing the Rubicon. There can be no turning back”
Legacy over power. Not many would do that.
Kwame & X Cepting – Raymond Louw actually dealt with the matter of media ownership in South Africa. To understand why most newspapers are owned by a few organisations, you have to understand that most of these smaller papers were bought when they were at the brink of bankruptcy.
The simple fact is that if these “evil conglomerates” didn’t buy up these small papers, they simply wouldn’t exist today.
But that’s not to say you don’t have a point. However, cannibalising current media conglomerates is not the answer.
Your point is well put on the seeming total lack of intelligence at these debates. They all seem to be simple identity politics. If you are pro-party, you would cheer the party and heckle the rest if the party said the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, and anyone who says otherwise must be stoned, flayed and burned in oil (cheer, clap!!!) . Really – this is no exaggeration. People should be allowed entry based on IQ.
Press and media freedom are absolutely vital, particularly in a country where the ruling party gets such a large majority of the votes.
I wonder why anyone in their right minds would be against press and media freedom? I’d wonder what they themselves have to hide!
“The press is like a bunch of thugs who can do what they want”
@haiwe tiger. Oh right, it’s the PRESS putting government officials into the backs of vans and concealing them from the public, NOT the other way around.
To those who support this bill: why do you hate your country, your fellow citizens and your children so much?
When the ‘liberal’ media unleashed their fury/focus on the Nats no one worried about ‘African culture’ of respecting ones elders etc so why is it so important now?
My solution is a Media/Political Council/Tribunal that censers/penalises the media and politicians exactly the same for what they say/do wrong. Politicians accusing the media and the media the politicians with a panel of diverse ordinary people (sort of like a jury) siting in judgement.
Brent
@Sipho – I would not call them “evil conglomerates” since this is emotionalising the issue but, logically, a product with little competition or competition owned by the same people (same thing really) simply will never be a quality product. The same gripe I have with nationalisation as well. There is no incentive to be better than and deliver quality news.
Then, perhaps the reason the small newspapers were on the brink of bankruptcy had precisely to do with an already existing monopoly that nothing was done about until it was too late and the smaller players were forced to sell.
There is simply no justification for allowing monopolies to exist, it is counter productive in building a free market and a strong economy, the backbone of any democracy.
Any attempt to follow the tribunal debate/dialogue/discussion, whichever is the case, is like searching for a cricket in your bedroom at night. You can’t sleep due to its noise, yet you can’t find it.
Where it came from, how it got wherever it is, and why are fruitless questions to ask, yet these can be crucial if any future repeat is to be avoided.
One thing that is certain is that a decision has been made by a political party about the necessity of a tribunal. Then the conceptualisation thereof, to whose senses, and what imagination it carried, what processing took place to reach this (vision) become all blurred thereafter.
Now an imagination has solidified into a belief, which rests outside of the will, and cannot be commanded at anyone’s pleasure. It is then presented to those to whom it will apply, for them to “discuss/debate it. The latter is where it becomes more confusing, hence the impossibility of reflecting and reasoning by the media.
It gets even more interesting when one considers that its is the consumer, who does not feature in the whole issue, but will be the final arbiter.
Ubhala kamnandi Sipho.
I keep asking:
Give me some examples of what the Government would have liked to hide from the public!
Could it be:
The Arms Deal?
Zuma’s sexual escapades and those of his wives (and the death by natual causes of the bodyguard involved?)
The ongoing corruption with Chancellor House’s involvement?
Or What?
Can someone please help?