It is an affliction that arrives seasonally. To those of its victims inclined towards drama it always seems far worse than it really is. However, it is rarely fatal and mostly passes without permanent damage.
No, no, not the flu. I mean the annually resuscitated enthusiasm of the African National Congress for media restrictions, or as they would phrase it, regulations to encourage “responsible” journalism.
Paradoxically, it is the fractious tripartite alliance’s enthusiasm for Byzantine plots, cabals and character assassination that helps ensure the flow of supposedly confidential information to the media. The ANC is a government which, like any in the world, has a vested interest in keeping things secret. Simultaneously, however, within the alliance are various oppositional groupings vying for control of that selfsame government, all of which have a vested interest in exposing at least some of the dirty secrets to gain advantage over their rivals. No matter how they grouse, politicians in a democracy need a free media.
It is also ironic that the government is again calling for a tribunal to can bring the press to heel, when it is the ANC itself that demonstrably most often acts to subvert the principles of a free and fair media.
It is an ANC faction that allegedly paid a journalist to boost former Western Cape premier, Ebrahim Rassool, and undermine his party rivals. It is the state broadcaster that allegedly instructed journalists not to interview former President Thabo Mbeki because it “undermined” his successor, President Jacob Zuma.
And it is the contending Mbeki and Zuma factions that happily smear one another with leaks to the media of sensitive snippets that have been garnered by the intelligence services. Some of the biggest political exposures of the past half dozen years have not come from journalistic hard work but from ANC internecine warfare.
So for ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe to bemoan the “dearth of media ethics” is a canard. The proposed media regulations have as much to do with ethics as the “Secrecy Bill” has to do with the “protection of information” that is its official title. That is to say, nothing.
Mantashe gives it away when he explained at a recent business breakfast on the topic “How solid is our democracy?” that the “underlying subtext” of such questions was premised on the belief that the ANC under Zuma was not “up to the task” and would send SA into a downward spiral. This perception was “devoid of any truth” and was cultivated by a media that constantly focused on “negativity” and “resented national success”.
Given the media’s enthusiastic and sometimes uncritical celebration of SA’s World Cup success, Mantashe’s comment seems peculiarly ill-timed. Fact is, it has nothing to do with patriotism.
The ANC cannot abide the inherently sceptical and irreverent nature of the media, something politicians in the other democracies have had to reconcile themselves to, because it believes that the media should be in-spanned to achieve a nation’s goals, which it defines as synonymous with those of the ruling party. The media, in the tripartite alliance’s agenda, is a tool to help achieve the ANC’s so-called national democratic revolution.
Predictably, the media is reacting to these recent ANC threats like a scalded cat instead of with the yawn that all this deserves. For whatever the control fetish of the ANC, government actually has little room for manoeuvre, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, it is constrained by the Constitution and a judiciary that increasingly has ruled in favour of disclosure, against control and secrecy. Yes, the bench can be packed but that is a creeping threat, rather than an immediate problem.
Secondly, in a wired world censorship is almost impossible. Publication on a website combined with emails and Twitter can reach vastly bigger audiences than a print publication and, best of all in terms of bolting stable doors, it happens almost instantaneously.
In the light of these realities, the ANC’s regular claims of media “conspiracies” and threats of tribunals should be seen for what they are. A bullying bluster, as predictable and dangerous as seasonal sniffles.
Great post.
“The media, in the tripartite alliance’s agenda, is a tool to help achieve the ANC’s so-called national democratic revolution.”
More people should read the ANC NDR document, its Polokwane Strategy & Tactics document and others.
Not that the ANC will achieve all facets of the NDR (or other goals) but it gives you a very good idea of the ideology inherent in ANC rhetoric and policies.
Perhaps the media should also report more on the content of these documents, instead of giving us the normal gossip that passes as serious political reporting in this country.
The polished version:
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/conf/conference52/strategy_tactics.html
See especially on the “Battle of Ideas” and ANC views on local media.
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/policy/2007/conference/communications.html
The less polished and more revealing version:
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/discussion/building.html
Nice points, of course, but a little too reassuring. The press, like the ANC, has its political agendas, which can be (and invariably are) manipulated by powerful forces. What’s more, this present bill mostly refers, not to the trivial personalised stuff which the press prefers, but to the actual factual information which the press largely ignores anyway. In other words, if the bill passes, we will get more titillation and less information, and the press will be perfectly happy.
Incidentally, although the ANC is in government and is therefore the chief offender in suppressing information, you might have noticed that the DA is very loud in condemning the press on the rare occasions when the press prints damaging factual information about it. Media suppression is not the property of one party. It’s the favourite sport of politicians everywhere.
I think we are dealing with two separate ideas here. Each South African must ultimately ask him/herself: Patriotism to whom? Patriotism to the ANC and support them in what appears to be a quest for self-enrichment and agrandisement, or patriotism to the country, which, to be a healthy democracy must of neccessity cater for all who live in it and call it home. The more diverse, the more party representation is needed. A one party state is a nationalist concept, not democratic. The previous government was nationalist, get it?
So if the media sounds negative, then there is a lot to be negative about. Instead of griping about negative reporting, Mr Mantashe would do well to take these issues up with the NEC and start finding ways to fix them, that is, if they wish to stay on the gravy train.
On the other hand, a journalist occupies a position of trust. If that trust is found to be misplaced, i.e. he/she can be bribed to spread falsehood, it is up to the brotherhood of journalists to be seen to remove him/her from that position of trust, least we lose trust in them to tell us what is going on and they lose their place on the gravy train.
Socrates put it so well: “patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be.”
Well said.
Agreed. Maybe all politicians should be forced to have a twitter and facebook account so that their understanding of world media is improved.
The media has power of influence over the citizenry and the world audience; not everyone has the critical eye to analyse issues in the media in spite of what it says. A too negative media will do all it can to put a government in a bad light, the same is true for a too positive media presenting that same government as doing well even it is not. The media must favour the country and not the government/governing party/opposition. It can contribute positively by influencing the citizens to act right, e.g. they must report crime, refrain from xenophobia, or must even go to church on Sundays for that matter, etc. The only way the government can counter negative media reportage is by doing the right things and not hiding bad things (mistakes?).
@X Cepting
Fully agree.
@ The Creator
Agree. But in general the DA tends blame it on “bad journalism” rather than viewing the media as some sort of enemy or as parts of a conspiracy against them…
I fully agree that generally there is very little real analysis in the SA press but our press is very good in reporting political gossip and providing political commentary (different from deeper factual analysis).
“Given the media’s enthusiastic and sometimes uncritical celebration of SA’s World Cup success”
Excuse me? Which planet have you been living on in the pat year when OUR OWN media was whipping up hysteria about crime during the World Cup with the intent towards scaring tourists away?
“and a judiciary that increasingly has ruled in favour of disclosure, against control and secrecy.”
Yeah, a “judiciary” that stacked with incompetent judges – relics of white Affirmative Action – courtesy of the apartheid regime.
It was the ANC that crafted the Constitution and brought us free speech rights for the first time in our history not the judiciary!
“the ANC’s regular claims of media “conspiracies”
Lets see if you’re brave enough to tell us who really controls the media in SA!!!
Although this bill could be considered heavy-handed its a necessary attempt at curtailing the increasing instances of abuse of our free speech rights by an irresponsible media.