It’s a peaceful and sunny Sunday morning, but the morning news is once again troubling. The president’s men are, reportedly, hoping to buy Johnnic Communications, publisher of the Sunday Times. All of it. That paper’s Buddy Naidu and Simpiwe Piliso have more on the story.
I was but a child when the Rand Daily Mail broke the news in November 1978 that the Citizen, founded two years earlier by publisher Louis Luyt, Cabinet minister Connie Mulder and secretary of information Eschel Rhoodie, had been established and secretly funded by the National Party government under state president BJ Vorster. Previously, Luyt had tried to acquire shares in South African Amalgamated Newspapers.
Now, it appears Ronnie Mamoepa, the spokesperson in the Department of Foreign Affairs — a similar role to that played by Rhoodie in the 1970s — with Titus Mafolo, a political adviser to Thabo Mbeki, and Billy Modise, former chief of state protocol, who together with delightfully named businessman Groovin Nchabeleng own a company named Koni Media Holdings, are attempting to take over Johnnic Communications.
Johncom is the publisher of several major media titles that have been vocal critics of the government and has in turn been singled out for tongue-lashings by Mbeki, assorted state officials and the public broadcaster. The titles include the Sunday Times, the Sowetan, and half of the Financial Mail and Business Day. Mamoepa and company have applied for funding from, among others, the state-owned Public Investment Corporation.
Thabo Mbeki on Friday laid into the media, saying that the government was not attempting to stifle press freedom.
“A few of these have even attempted to make comparisons with the repugnant apartheid government, which in 1977 banned a number of publications, including the World and the Weekend World,” Mbeki reportedly said.
How hollow his denial rings today. What the repugnant apartheid government also did in 1977 was publish the Citizen, denying all the while that it was funded by government money, that it exercised editorial control or that it was engaged in a National Party propaganda and misinformation campaign. The affair led to the resignation of the state president, BJ Vorster.
One ANC MP has already spoken out against the deal. Kader Asmal is quoted as saying it is “astonishing that civil servants are able to develop time and energy for what is really a takeover bid”. He argues that at issue is the danger of control of newspapers by politically active people. Perhaps he should consider tabling a Bill in Parliament preventing civil servants or “politically active people” from owning interests in media companies. That goes for the stake Tokyo “Berlusconi” Sexwale’s company, Mvelaphanda, is acquiring in Johncom, too.
I’ve written before about the worrying similarities between the socio-economic policies of this government and the apartheid regime — both practising a form of national socialism or state corporatism. In this essentially political affair, the parallels with the first Info Scandal are even more uncanny. They are frightening. Who, for example, will be playing the role of PW Botha, who stepped into the power vacuum left after Vorster’s resignation?
(This is an edited version of a post first published here.)
Criticize the people in power and they buy out your newspapers. What greater incentive can anyone offer the media owners?
I pity the editor and journalist involved. If they are lucky, they may get away with the standard character assassination and then get fired. I would expect more vindictive and violent sanction though…
Transforming the Times!
The times shows such disrespect to the presidency, it is no surprise that the role of the media had to be transformed into a mechanism to assist nation building, inform, and liberate the people. The leadership of the times needed to embrace what Africans are strivng for, not rally calls to protect and preserve our colonial heritage. The times played trivial politics by drawing attention UNEVENLY to the petty issues instead of the economic strides we are making. The times poor journalism robs our people of good information to give them belief and inspire action. Instead the times plays a devious game of mis-information to cause irresponsible doubt about the leadership. What remains a mystery is how ridiculously aparent this has been to many of us, yet to some this was great journalism. I know of several people who have ditched the times. Is the times such a closed place that no influence is drawn from the gazes of the rest of the world? Our president rings the closing bell of the New York stock exchange. Our president integrates the socio-economic ideals of India, Brazil and South Africa; and the times draws no meaningfull attention to this. I welcome new leadership, if this does happen. At least there is hope there will be change. I have become frustrated by the poor quality of journalism and uneven reporting. We have a long way to go in improving the lives of the masses and honest reporting on the macro changes will lead to optimism, which inspires action.
Kosheek Sewchurran on November 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
The media and Vegter is spreading unnecessary alarmist vitriol at a legitimate business bid to buy Johncom. The fact that some of the partners in Koni are government employees and one a former head of protocol does not preclude the company from engaging in business. Unless there is a defacto ban on government officials from engaging in business.
I am amazed at the riduculous presumption that this transaction is nothing more than a bid by government to silence so-called voices of dissent. Some even go as far as suggesting the involvement of President Mbeki. What a load of rubbish!
The media has proven to be its worse enemy when it comes to the deliberate abuse of the very freedom of speech that they claim to are under threat. They have destroyed many lives in search of the ultimate or juicy story they say are in the public interest. By no means do I suggest that the media should be curtailed. There must be certain code of ethics that govern how the media should operate in a democracy. I have no doubt in my mind that there are good journalists out there who try to live up to the very code of ethics to which they swear to uphold.
The deal should be be allowed to go ahead, and if they fail, than so be it.
Wow, how does one respond to such an enlightened spin (as bowled by KS)?
People who place institutions and individuals on glass pedestals (sorry), out of reach of public criticism and condemnation, deserve the hell they are building for their future.
“The times shows such disrespect to the presidency, it is no surprise that the role of the media had to be transformed into a mechanism to assist nation building, inform, and liberate the people.”
In other words, reporting about our macro economic vagaries and lunacy will be better served by the president’s men having a controlling stake in all the media in the country? *lol* See how you can control the internet and blogosphere, china!
Anyway, as I understood it, the article was simply about vested interests and state control over the media. Not about The Times’ inane and quite harmless gossip. Besides… there is no real disrespect evidenced that was not completely well deserved. In fact, The Times’ reporting appears pretty much like the beaten cur nuzzling the hand of his master… too afraid to bite.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence- it is a force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” ~ George Washington
Business is business I suppose. The time and energy are of concern - no one in such a high position in government should be able to afford the time or energy for such a major deal. I wonder, will we see another R7m ‘bonus’ for striking the deal? Dangerous yes, to those who still believe what is published in the media.
I believe there’s a fundamental conflict of interest in civil servants or active politicians being in business for themselves. That goes for the general case, but it holds especially when it’s a media business, since the media’s primary purpose in a constitutional democracy is to protect the people from their government. So the even more conflict of interest.
Dick Cheney is being accused of all sorts of evil because he once used to be in business. Even though he resigned before be became vice president, and ensured that no action he took could affect in any way any deferred income he was still owed. He declared all the shares he still owned, and went as far as insuring his losses, and pledging his profits to charity, so that there would be no conflict of interest. Even that wasn’t enough for his critics.
Yet when our own politicians try to buy media companies it’s dismissed as “just business”? Astonishing.
If Ivo’s fears are correct in terms of possible interference in the content of a particular medium by whomever owns it, than why not raise the issue in its proper context?
The media today is owned by major conglomorates, some of whom has clear links with the coutry’s major oppostion parties, and yet this is accepted as normal. South Africa is probably the only country where media is viewed as free and fear, as long they lambast the government of the day, and leave the opposition to do as they please.
If your assertion that “the media’s primary purpose in a constitutional democracy is to protect the people from the government”, than whose role is it to protect the people from the media?
In closing, this piece, allow me to quote what the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sydney H. Schanberg once wrote in a Washington Post editorial:
“No newspaper is eager to acknowledge its own deficiencies - or expose those of its peers (who might return the favor). Everyone has dirty linen.”
Well-put, Donovan, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree on almost all counts
First, let me re-iterate: I don’t believe any active politician should have media interests.
Second, the media does not have the powers a government has over the people. It does not have powers of subpoena, a monopoly on the use of force, the power to legislate, or the power of taxation. Therefore, the media is by definition a different, and less dangerous, animal than the government.
Third, I am by no means claiming that all media are angels. In fact, I’m often a fierce critic of how the media covers certain issues. However, in a robust free market, competing media titles keep their peers honest. If the Wall Street Journal gets it wrong, the New York Times is all over it, and vice versa. I’ll grant that this may not happen in SA as much as it should, but that’s a media quality issue, rather than an issue of principle or power. Besides for risking the censure of its peers, a media title also has to maintain the support of its readers, in order to have something to sell to advertisers. When readers defect, because they feel their interests aren’t well served, the title hurts. Again, this is a free market incentive to do better. The government is not thus regulated by the market, and its rule is not limited only to citizens who voted for it.
And finally, while it is true, for example, that limited broadcast licences exist (a failing of government, rather than the market), there are major media titles (including the proprietor of this website) that aren’t owned by “major conglomerates”. Besides, even those that are owned by big companies are subject to the very same market forces as smaller, independent titles.
Donovan - There have been many Governments that have effectively controlled the media, all of them undesirable. Allow me to quote Wikipedia one of the more successful of these regimes.
NAZI GERMANY
Nazi propaganda was used to glorify Adolf Hitler and stifle dissenting viewpoints.
The dictatorship of Adolf Hitler largely suppressed freedom of the press through Joseph Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry. As the Ministry’s name implies, propaganda did not carry the negative connotations that it does today (or did in the Allied countries); how-to manuals were openly distributed by that same ministry explaining the craft of effective propaganda. The Ministry also acted as a central control-point for all media, issuing orders as to what stories could be run and what stories would be suppressed. Anyone involved in the film industry — from directors to the lowliest assistant — had to sign an oath of loyalty to the Nazi Party, due to opinion-changing power Goebbels perceived movies to have. (Goebbels himself maintained some personal control over every single film made in Nazi Europe.) Journalists who crossed the Propaganda Ministry were routinely imprisoned or shot as traitors.
An imperfect media is far far better than Government control of the media.
Quite so, John. Reminds me of this Albert Camus quotation on the subject: “A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad. Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better, whereas enslavement is a certainty of the worse.”
Come now, John. You don’t want us to believe that crap. I agree with everything said about a “free press”.
In my opinion, it is absurd that any attempt to challenge the media, are in all cases, labeled as a threat to press freedom. The media, as any public or private institution, must be called to account for its actions. It is a powerful tool and can also be abused to spread lies, either about government, particular individuals or political parties.
The ruling party, in all its pronouncements, has put press freedom as a necessary prerequisite of a democratic society. Let me quote below, the press statement released by the organisation in celebration of Press Freedom Day last year:
“The African National Congress joins all South Africans in celebrating the country’s Media Freedom Day on Thursday 19 October, and pays tribute to those who sacrificed so much and fought so hard for the achievement of the right to freedom of expression.
Media Freedom Day, which commemorates the banning in 1977 of The World and Weekend World by the apartheid government, provides an opportunity for all South Africans to declare that never again shall the right of our people to free expression be silenced by censorship or intimidation.
Thanks to the struggles of the many journalists and media workers who stood up to the apartheid government, and to those many South Africans who understood a free media to be an integral part of a new democratic society, the country’s media has the political and social space to publish and broadcast without fear or favour.
The constitution guarantees the right of every South African to freedom of expression, which explicitly includes the freedom of the press and other media. As democratic institutions have been built and democratic practice deepened, this principle has informed the legal position of the media. The dark days of state censorship, bannings, harassment and imprisonment have been emphatically and unequivocally consigned to the past.
As we celebrate Media Freedom Day in a democratic South Africa we are still faced with the challenge of building a robust, free and diverse media. We are still faced with the challenge of building a media that is fully capable of giving voice to the views and interests of all our people, especially the poor and the marginalised.
The ANC calls on all South Africans to vigorously defend the freedoms we have achieved and to deepen efforts to build a media which properly reflects the diversity of our society.”
And of course, former President Nelson Mandela, in addressing a dinner with the Foreign Correspondents Assocation, said the following:
“…Media freedom is not, has not been, and will never be under threat in our country as long as the ANC is the majority “party” in government. This is not merely because of the provisions of the constitution and Bill of Rights.
It is in the selfish interest of the ANC that we should have probing, robust and critical media. We cannot change society in a fundamental way; we cannot change the state in a fundamental way, if we do not have a questioning media that seeks to expose the weaknesses of our inherited bureaucracy, security forces, judiciary and indeed the new politicians themselves who can easily be corrupted by power or co-opted into day-to-day practices of the past.
…Freedom of speech is enshrined in our basic law of the land, as elsewhere in the world, not as an exclusive right belonging to this or the other sector or individual in society.”
When can a press that is constrained by rules, laws and even the threat of banning ever be considered free. The ‘Honourable Comrade’ president’s blog seemed to be discussing government intervention (laws) to control these journalist jerks who don’t write to the party line (or don’t I read his newsletter right).
Or is this “1984″ (a book that discussed government double speak). In that case, a government controlled press would be called a free press.
Either a press is free, or it isn’t.
Hey, you may also want to watch your so easily quoted ANC credentials too. Some fools automatically credit gains to the ruling party. I’m not sure that was the case. The bulk of the fight for press freedom was carried by both journalists and editors inside South Africa, almost all of whom didn’t carry ANC membership cards. (I know, I had distant family arrested on the press freedom question)
Surprisingly (or maybe not), It was the Afrikaner in the multi-party negotiations who demanded a free press. The ANC must now regret conceding on that issue. The Stalinist/Communist system requires a controlled press and, as many of our so called “struggle comrades” got their education at Moscow University and other red institutions, they understand the ability of the press to shape perceptions. This may be why they so fear press freedom. We need to be even more vigilant lest they see this as a way to silence the dissenting voices.
Remember Donovan, This is your country, and this is my country. We BOTH have the right to be PROTECTED from a malevolent government.
I regard this discussion closed. I won’t be responding any further.
I, for one, would qualify John’s last statement. I don’t believe this government is malevolent. On some issues I think it’s wrong, sure. Sometimes very badly wrong. But I am fairly optimistic that its intentions are good.
However, citizens do need protection from government, even if it isn’t clearly malevolent. Power does corrupt. The power to tax, in particular, is dangerous. Misguided policy and incompetent action are risks even under the best-run, most benevolent governments on earth.
No country’s citizens are well-served when politicians or civil servants own and run influential media organisations. That’s a clear and dangerous conflict of interests.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Ivo Vegter writes and argues for fun and profit. He is a columnist, magazine journalist and apprentice model shipwright. In his spare time, he helps run a research company. He specialises in the tech and telecoms industries, but keeps a blog on politics, economics and other curiosities on the spike
It's almost time for the 2008 Olympics, and the Chinese authorities are making sure their coming out party is as green as possible. And what does envi...
Elsewhere on ThoughtLeader, Bert Olivier, an academic of the philosophical persuasion, rails against those who defend "the unforgiveable practices of ...
Free market advocates often hear the charge that they don't care about the poor. That their belief in the power of markets driven by self-interest and...
Last week, the Financial Mail led with a lengthy cover story on the oil price and its implications for the South African economy. It contains some ver...
The last fortnight has seen a disgusting display of inhumanity, targeted against foreigners living in South Africa. Whether or not they're illegal, wh...
Loading ...
What a delicious bit of scandal…
Criticize the people in power and they buy out your newspapers. What greater incentive can anyone offer the media owners?
I pity the editor and journalist involved. If they are lucky, they may get away with the standard character assassination and then get fired. I would expect more vindictive and violent sanction though…
(Report abuse)