When Tony Blair became leader of the British Labour Party he set out to befriend media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns The Sun, the biggest tabloid newspaper in Britain, as well as Sky News. In previous elections The Sun had supported the Conservatives and Blair understood that he needed the support of The Sun (topless page three girls included) to win the next election. He soon got that support and in 1997 won the general election in a landslide.
The Sun remained a supporter of the Labour Party in election after election but switched sides before the general election earlier this year. Labour, of course, lost this election to a coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. (The fact that Sky News was obviously rooting for the Conservatives might also have helped a bit.)
Clearly the African National Congress (ANC) does not share Tony Blair’s Machiavellian view of how to influence the media. In recent days several ANC leaders and spokespeople have revived the idea of a Media Appeals Tribunal. It is unclear what this Tribunal would do or to what extent it would impose the ideological world view of the ANC on the media.
For Gwede Mantashe, it seems, a Media Appeals Tribunal will help to “correct” the anti-ANC bias in the media. He argues that the media is driven by a dark conspiracy to discredit the National Democratic Revolution (conveniently forgetting that the vast majority of South Africans receive their news from the SABC, a state broadcaster masquerading as a public broadcaster).
Blade Nzimande would like to see the Tribunal used to stop the alleged corruption in the media. He points out, correctly, that the Ashley Smith affair asks some serious questions not only about the integrity of Ebrahim Rasool, but also of Smith and other members of the media and calls for a re-evaluation of the role the media plays in South Africa.
(Is it not ironic that a cabinet Minister has taken the allegations made by former Cape Argus reporter Ashley Smith at face value and has used it to argue for the institution of a Media Appeals Tribunal, while the President has appointed the very person who has allegedly bribed Smith as our ambassador to Washington? Will Nzimande demand that the appointment be rescinded or will he show himself to be a rank hypocrite?)
ANC spokesperson, Jackson Mthembu, so it seems, want to use the Media Appeals Tribunal to censor the media and to stop them publishing things that might be upsetting or distasteful. Lambasting the Mail & Guardian for publishing a picture of the highly controversial Mandela autopsy painting, Mthembu stated:
This unbridled freedom of the media, as evidenced by projection of this so called art in the Mail and Guardian, confirms that the self-regulated print media environment is a recipe for disaster and negates the core values we hold dear as the society as contained in our constitution.
All these statements have at least two very scary things in common. First, it shares an utter lack of understanding of freedom of expression and the media in a well-functioning constitutional democracy. Second it endorses a view that ideas, facts, practices or opinions that the ruling party opposes or thinks is dangerous or harmful (to itself, to the state?) should not be published in the media and that a Tribunal should regulate the media to stop them printing such things.
In an open and democratic society, the media is an important and powerful player. It would be naive to think that members of the media do not have political views and that such views are not reflected in the choices of stories they carry and the way these stories are told. What is excluded is often just as important as what is included.
That is why one does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that the SABC is close to a mouthpiece of the ANC, while ETV and the print media are more critical of the ANC. No wonder the ANC wins every election with more than 60% of the vote, as the SABC is the main source of information and news for almost 80% of South Africans.
A free media is important because it protects and enhances our human dignity. It does this by providing us with different views so that we can make up our own minds about who we are, what we think and how we want to live. A free media helps us to have some agency and thus to become people whose inherent human dignity is respected.
The diversity of views seem all important, which means that as a rule, the majority or the majority political party should not be able to tell the media what it can and cannot publish as this would infringe on the human dignity of every South African. If we know nothing except that which we are allowed to know by our leaders, we do not live lives of dignity. Instead we live lives as people who are only half human, cut off from a sense of self, part of a collective, yes, but not able to change our minds or decide for ourselves what is good or bad in our world and how we want to deal with this reality.
Of course, in a democracy, political parties try to woo the media to get them to write nice things about them. If they make mistakes, they try and manage the media to limit the negative effects of their mistakes. Helen Zille, as a former journalist, is quite good at this kind of media management when she keeps her paranoid anti-ANC rhetoric in check. ANC leaders are seldom good at it and if they are (like Tokyo Sexwale) they are viewed with suspicion.
People who work in the real media (as opposed to those who work for the bureaucratic pro-state SABC) like to think of themselves as cool, intelligent and hip. When the ANC talks about the National Democratic Revolution, deploy fake revolutionary phrases that went out of fashion around the time that the USSR invaded Hungary, and talk about dark conspiracies by the enemies of the new order (by which they usually mean critics of the ANC and the government of the day), they alienate ordinary, decent, journalists who might otherwise have been ideologically rather close to the ANC.
What the ANC and the government it leads actually needs is not a Media Appeals Tribunal, but a media strategy to woo the non-state media to its side by talking the language of ordinary people and citizens. Instead of talking that fuax revolutionary drivel and blaming the Dark Lord Sauron, anti-transformation forces, the CIA or the Devil himself for their bad record on service delivery and for the bad publicity on corruption and the like, the ANC needs to face up to the facts and take quick and decisive action to correct mistakes to try and convince the real media that it really, really cares and is doing its best to stamp out corruption and to improve service delivery.
The ANC has been spoilt by its praise singers at the SABC, so it does not understand or respect real media freedom. Thus it cannot see the difference between disagreeing with something the media did (publishing the Mandela painting, for example) and demanding that the media be stopped from doing it. In a real democracy there are laws of defamation that protects the dignity of everyone and the media must operate within those laws but otherwise freedom of the media means exactly that: freedom to publish even things that the majority party does not like or finds despicable.
When the media does something that one really finds upsetting, one is of course entitled to criticise them. One can call the Mail and Guardian callous for publishing the painting of Mandela’s autopsy, or one can argue that the painting is just a really bad piece of art and that the Mail & Guardian has been sensationalistic and has shown a shocking lack of taste in publishing a “work of art” that is no more than a cheap and pathetic attempt to garner publicity for the artist.
That is all fair comment. But to suggest that the Mail & Guardian should not be allowed to publish the painting is to endorse a kind of censorship that cannot be squared with a constitutional democracy. I for one want to know what the fuss is about and want to make up my own mind on whether the painting is a cheap and pathetic publicity stunt or a meaningful and thought-provoking meditation on wisdom and learning.
The problem is that the ANC has not yet embraced the notion that its own views about what is right and wrong, what is acceptable or not, about what is an affront to the dignity of one of its leaders or not, is just that: its own view and one of many. It has not yet accepted that it does not speak on behalf of the nation (what a paternalistic notion!) and can thus not tell everyone what it is allowed to publish or to think. Its views – no matter how widely shared, cogent or laudable - is just one set of views.
There are many other views and if we want to live in a real democracy (and not the kind of fake democracy found in Hungary after 1956) we have to allow the many different views as long as the expression of these views stays within the bounds of the law of defamation.
This does not mean we cannot get upset or that we have no right to express our contempt and anger at the media. It just means that we cannot impose our own view – which is one of many different views that must be allowed to flourish in a society based on human dignity – on all.
A pretty excellent article, Pierre. In fact it would be fairly difficult to fault at all. The points you make are very important and underpin our rights to freedom of expression and association.
It is nice to see your brain clicking into the right gear so soon after the football party.
The ANC is not the first governing party to find uncomfortable opposition in a free media. Blair did the smart thing: Labour already had the Mirror so to get the Sun, which is Britain’s largest circulation daily, was good politics. ANC should try it with some of the tabloids.
A small point: You make two references to Checkoslovakia – the Russian invasion and the state of its democracy after 1956. Sure you did not mean Hungary which was invaded by Russia in 1956? The Prague Spring was in 1968.
Citizens must have absolute freedom.
Freedom of expression should be up there with the right to life – inalienable and not possible of legislative curtailment. If a State secret is exposed then tough.
If you get bruised and unfairly so – the law of damages will be your remedy.
There is no justification for any limitation on the freedom of expression.
That piece of art was actually pretty provocative and says some uncomfortable things – good work by the artist.
Lets for a moment forget the proponents of the Tribunal. In principle what’s wrong with the idea?
The media feel that they have all the tools to self-regulate. In fact, it would be an anomaly to find a paper that supports regulation by an independent party (e.g. a former judge).
The argument of defamation laws is moot. Anyway, what’s the threshold of an acceptable defamation case and costs for the party that feels defamed- rightly/wrongly?
I am yet to see an analysis of judgements/ responses of the work of the Ombudsman. I am not only talking about someone laying complaints where some are upheld etc, but a true analyses.
How long does it take resolve complaints (Remember then President Montlanthes’ case- still to hear the result)?
If a paper publishes an article found to be lacking, why is it only that paper that apologises and others that carried the story not required to do the same?
Is a publication of an apology sufficient?
Have there been repeat offenders? Mondli Sir.
As a body weighted with individuals from the media sector (Thloloe, Mda etc), isn’t the instinctive response to preserve the image of the sector?
Wouldn’t a judge lend more credibility? After all the media do approach courts in many instances.
I don’t see a judge implementing or protecting interest which are outside constitutional or democratic norms. This would surely negate concerns about the ANC. In fact Zille could complaint about the SABC being biased towards the ANC
Considering that the findings are binding, wouldn’t the test for journalist and their standards be improved? Just look at the recent judgement in the mail & guardian. One wonders why the complainant took the path (for a hollow victory).
The only monetary compensation was for City Press against I think Sbu Ndebele and Lekota/ Shilowa. Has there ever been such a decision? Why?
Remember the series of front page drivel in the Sunday Times (VA waterfront sold etc) written as expose. The limp response- we will improve our standards etc!!!
“ANC needs to face up to the facts and take quick and decisive action to correct mistakes to try and convince the real media that it really”
Just as the SABC is the mouthpiece of the ANC, so is the so-called “real media” a mouthpiece of big business and the DA is particular. It is thus amazing that the ANC is required to pander to a “real media” that has shown itself to be an incompetent (and likely corrupt) fellow-traveler of corrupt capitalists and the so-called opposition! I personally think the situation corrects itself well, the ANC controls the SABC which in turn broadcasts to the ANC’s constituency and the “real media” is controlled by big business and the DA and it in turn camouflages news to suit the agenda of both big business and the DA. It is the rats and mice parties that have cause for concern.
@ Prof
Are you suggesting that ANC & others should employ Blair’s tactics and shower us with party aligned media houses?
I thought we were aspiring for independent & balanced journalism.
Since when it is an issue to set up a regulator for a particular sector?
Dumisani says: July 13, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more. I particularly like: “Lets for a moment forget the proponents of the Tribunal. In principle what’s wrong with the idea?”.
Why do we always have to look at the person raising the issue and less on the issue being raised?
The reason why the Tribunal is a bad idea is simple (and it has nothing to do with who raised the issue but everything to do with the principle involved): it will have a potentially chilling effect on freedom of the media and will allow the dignity and privacy of powerful people to trump the reporting of the truth. Let’s use a little thought experiment: like the members of the media, some politicians sometimes say some things which are factually questionable and that are insulting or demeaning to some people or can be viewed as dangerous to our democracy. What would happen if I proposed a Politicians Appeals Tribunal in which politicians could be brought before a judge appointed by newspaper editors, where the politicians could then be punished for saying things we do not agree with or that, according to our interpretation, affects the dignity or privacy of others? Imagine how many times those who supported Zuma against Mbeki would have been found guilty by this tribunal and how often Julius would have found himself before this tribunal. Politicians would never stand for it for themselves, so why do they want it for the media?
In a sophisticated media market, the media self-regulates to retain credibility amongst readers. They publish meticulous corrections of factual mistakes and are not defensive about making mistakes (because we all do). Publications who do not follow this rout (say the National Enquirer in the US) is far less credible than publications which do (say the New York Times). In SA even serious newspapers have a tabloid aspect and readers – including politicians – cannot always distinguish between reporting on a fact and interpreting the facts. Politicians often complain about media reporting not because the underlying facts are wrong, but because they claim the facts were interpreted wrongly (“there is no division in the ANC”; “the DA does not have a policy of providing black South Africans with open toilets” etc etc). A Media Tribunal would find it difficult to make this distinction as well and depending on who is appointed to it, they might come to different conclusions, and this would narrow the diverse range of opinions available to the public which would infringe on our human dignity and diminish our democracy.
What to do? Well, the media could help if they were less defensive. Those who are aggrieved could assist by insisting on corrections where it is clear that factual errors were made and accepting that where facts are interpreted there will always be different opinions. This is what we live with and what a democracy thrives on. It is impossible to have a completely neutral media. What we can strive for (as impossible as it might be) is a fair media. But we will never agree on what is fair as our own ideological commitments, cultural assumptions and biases will colour our view. That is why a diversity of opinion and media is important and why I am very happy the Guptas are starting a new pro-ANC newspaper.
So in your view Prof something like this will suffice:
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=186508&sn=Detail
Pierre, your analogy can’t be sustained. Politicians can be voted out, whilst journalists are a law unto themselves. They account to a small band of shareholders and will manufacture news in the interests of positive returns for the shareholders. It is positive financial returns that motivate them, not honesty or any other good principle. Since these shareholders are most often businessman (by definition crooks), there is no way that the media can be held to account, but through an independently constituted tribunal.
Mzo, another example of press negligence:
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=186746&sn=Detail
@Vuyo “Businessman(by definition crooks)”
What a sweeping generalisation! So Tokyo Sekwale , J Malema and other ANC members with business interests are crooks according to your definition! Or is it only non ANC businessmen? Doesn’t big busineess like Anglo American donate generously to the ANC? Journalists are not a law unto themselves, they can be sued like anybody else if they print something defamatory. Or would you rather we be like North Korea where the Dear leader has to be worshipped as a deity? Go and research North Korea and come back to me. What utter garbage!
I feel sometimes the media is malicious and incites hatred of others. I don’t care what the Media’s agendas are. What is scary is that the South African media last week went on and on about xenophobic attacks after the World Cup without any proof what so ever. Their Source they say were rumours and Miss Zille. Miss Zille is said to have last month wrote to President Jacob Zuma, raising concerns over a fresh outbreak of unrest after the World Cup. The media has now swarmed on Western Cape townships convincing people that the attacks are imminent. If as a foreigner in a country a journalist stops me in the street and asked me if I heard about the threats against my life, why would I not believe these to be true especially coming from people who tell the news? A day later an influx of journalists descends on the township, what should I believe? Will I try and leave the area: I think I would. Why would these guys be wrong: They must know something, I don’t. As soon as I leave my shop is looted (because I have no security to protect my property) and this to me now verifies the stories from journalists.
This to me is an irresponsible media. I don’t think a tribunal is needed but self monitoring seems not to be working.
Remember it’s the same media that caused the Ruanda genocide.
Jeffman,
“Journalists are not a law unto themselves, they can be sued like anybody else if they print something defamatory. Or would you rather we be like North Korea where the Dear leader has to be worshipped as a deity?”
The fact that they can be sued cannot, with respect, be used to argue against introduction of a Tribunal.
Unless I did not follow Vuyo’s arguments correctly, he is by no means advocating for a North Korea situation as you’ve described it. A Tribunal headed by a (retired) jugge can hardly be compared to the situation you’ve described for North Korea nor would such a tribunal in my view take away any of the freedom enjoined by the media in terms of our Constitution
Vuyo, you are not correct: journalists are accountable to the public who buy their product (much like politicians who are accountable to the public who vote for them or not). If newspaper readers stop buying a paper because they top believing what the newspaper prints, that is the end of the newspaper. If voters stop voting for a political party because they think it has become corrupt and useless (Hallo National Party! Hallo Zanu-PF!) they are voted out of office or disappear. It’s the same thing really. Now, some members of the public are often misguided, so they vote for politicians who are corrupt and useless; or they continue buying newspapers or watch TV broadcasts that produce news that is not always accurate. In a well-functioning democracy it all comes out in the wash in the end. It’s not an exact science.
There are laws that stop the media from writing defamatory things about people and prohibits journalists from being corrupt. If these are applied, that should be the end of the matter. Those who complain about the media more often than not complain because they do not like the fact that the media reports on something in a way that is not in the interest of the person or the group complaining. Few people who complain about media shenanigans for example mention Vusi Mona (who was employed in the Presidency after being fired as City Press editor because of his scandalous lack of ethics) because Mona was viewed as pro-Zuma. This whole debate is thus not about principle: it is about naked politics.
Thomas says: July 13, 2010 at 15:55 pm
…and then you see a group of South Africans discussing whatever they are discussing (could even be the WC final for all you know) and you immediately conclude that htey are plotting to attack the foreigners….but hey, who cares, it gets the newspapers off the shelf and someone’s bank account gets fatter, so who cares!!
Prof, I think you are making a mistake of thinking that in SA we have men and women who all have the financial means to institute action against a big media company because of a defamatory statement written against them or a mistake of thinking that every wrong/incorrect thing written by the media is actionable by way of a defamtory claim or, even if so actionable, that it would be worthwhile for the aggrieved person to take such action.
Thomas, I am not sure you want to make that argument with a straight face. See here:http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20100713143911558C287176 and here:http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20100713125446376C513539
The media is often accused of making things up when they are reporting facts. Its called denialism. But luckily such counter-revolutionaries as the South African Council of Churches are not denialists and have been organizing to try and prevent the real and concrete threats made from being put in practice. Even ANC Youth League members in the Western Cape have been active to try and prevent what they feared would happen. Now, alas, it has happened. So lets blame the media. Maybe we can blame them for President Zuma’s love child, global warming and poverty as well seeing that they have reported on all these things.
This guy with this profile is rumoured to be the next Tswane Mayor.
http://www.joburgmarket.co.za/aboutus_ceo.php
Now read what M&G wrote, as if there is some nepotism
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-09-tshwane-mayor-all-in-the-family
@ Pierre,
“No wonder the ANC wins every election with more than 60% of the vote, as the SABC is the main source of information and news for almost 80% of South Africans.”
The SABC are gonna love you for crediting it solely with the massive support for the ANC (especially since it’s not true).
The media’s in such a dismal state, it has become amateur, a joke. Understaffed, stories written and compiled by people who can’t even write. Sheltered employment for mediocrities.
For the first time in my life I support something like this, even though it might be construed as censorship. The media cannot look after itself any more, it is simply too ignorant and even worse, hubris-ridden.
Bring it on.
Mzo, I am not claiming any mistake made by the media is actionable or that everyone can sue the media. One can only sue if you have money (which the ANC has) and if you can show that the media printed something untrue, that this was defamatory and that the media was negligent in publishing it. But the threat of a law suit is quite ominous: Vrye Weekblad was closed down after (wrongly) losing a defamation case. And so it should stay. One can go to the press ombudsman to force a paper to retract a factually incorrect story if they are too defensive to do so on own accord. And so it should stay too.
I think we should all grow up and develop thicker skins. Really, why are we all so defensive? It’s childish and displays a rather fragile sense of self. It is also a good excuse for never having to look yourself in the mirror, for never having to question your own beliefs and actions, for not being self-critical and reflexive, for not learning from your mistakes. Down that rout lies denialism and a lack of wisdom. When some contributors to this Blog call me a pervert or a racist, this is obviously defamatory but I wold not dream of censoring it or suing them. Some times I read criticism and re-think my views and beliefs. Sometimes I just laugh. I do not censor criticism as I think its healthy that people say what they think – even if I do not like what they say, as it teaches me something about fellow citizens and sometimes even about myself. People who know me and most people who know my work, will judge the contributor correctly and will reject the scurrilous defamatory statements made. If some people think less of me, well, that says more about them and their lack of critical and analytical skills than about my personality and my ethical commitments – which I think are mostly pretty sound (although I am always open to revisit my views and change them if somebody can convince me that I have been wrong or that I have taken an unethical position not in line with the values of the Constitution). No one is perfect, moi included, but many politicians have a hard time to accept that and take criticism and complaints far too personally and become so defensive and aggressive that one immediately assumes they do have something to hide.
Like the ridiculous deputy headmaster who sued two schoolboys for producing a picture of two men in a sexual situation with the heads of the headmaster and deputy headmaster superimposed, many people have too much insecurity masquerading as pride and dignity and just make fools of themselves by not letting things go. (If somebody sent around doctored picture of me in a sexual situation with a woman, I will just laugh, print it out and stick it on my wall next to the postcard that reads: “Question authority”) Lighten up and stop seeing a conspiracy under every bush, I say. I always thought only the old Nationalists were good at finding a communist/terrorist/atheist/blah blah blah under every bush.
Jislaaik Pierre, I’m really starting to like your views a lot. especially your last disarmingly honest reply to Mzo. I wonder if I’m losing it? But more seriously, I do on occasion give you a rev and maybe get a bit offensive; so thank you for not censoring me or other contributors. Even if my input has not caused you to change your views, I do hope that sometimes it has encouraged you to revisit your opinion. I am starting to suspect that we could, under duress, even become gabbas.
Prof, I agree with you that we need not take ourselves too seriously. However, you still haven’t convinced me how will having a Tribunal actually interfere with the need for us not to take ourselves too seriously. On second thought I think perhaps the answer lies in your statement that sometimes we “immediately assume(s) (that) they (those calling for a Tribunal) do have something to hide.”. As it sometimes happen, what we ASSUME can be very wrong..they even have a saying about assumptions being a mother of all…..
Vuyo, Mzo, Thomas, do you honestly think we do not look at this ‘Media Appeals Tribunal’ and the Protection of Information Bill and connect the dots?
As usual, there are holes in Vuyo’s argument one can drive a bus through most glaringly that he can buy a share in his favourite media-conglomerate and stand up at the AGM and ask some hard questions. The second-most-glaring hole is this alleged pact between the big-business-owned media and the DA. When last I checked the ANC made sure first thing it focussed the old protection-rackets on was media ownership. Which is now largely in black hands.
Pierre, I agree with everything you stated in this blog, which is a super read btw. There is an inconsistency here, though, a double standard at work. The ANC has tried to get its hegemonic grip on every way those nasty mhlungus can possibly exercise their freedom of expression. That is the motive behind trying to control the internet and the invasive simcard-registration drive which our network providers happily go along with. It is the reason for the massive bureaucracy and control over the broadcast media with the biased Broadcasting Complaints Commission and a regulator which decides who gets to set up shop with a radio station or a TV channel with TV news – which tried to shut down Radio Pretoria – basically, the ANC controls everything that goes out over the airways. Simply put, it can and will not allow a counterfoil to its racial mobilisation.
Why should the print media be exempt? WHy should the print media be treated differently? Why should your little hand-roleo’d weekly publication called Zamizdat be regulated any differently from Radio Pretoria?
If you believe that everybody is equal before the law and should be equally protected by the law especially the Supreme Law how can one possibly justifu not regulating print and broadcast media the same way?
Do you see the inconsistency here?
Our editors are archhypocrites!
Very good.
I am of the opinion that they best way to regulate the media is to hope that user behaviour will be fully effective.
An example……I stopped watching SABC News many years ago and started relying on eNews News Channel for local exposure. I am again changing my viewing habits because I believe that race relations have to be handled with extreme caution and sensitivity. The current xenophobia situation is a case in point. Last night they worked vey hard to create a story out of very little. At one point an interviewee was asked ….”is it possible to tone down the rhetoric”. eNews should take note of their own injunction and in the meantime I will spend more time with the web, Al Jazeera and BBC World.
This is all personal bias and opinion at work. I like media that reports the news and does not try to create it.
Prof I also hope you are making your argument with astraight face.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/405/media-propaganda-and-rwanda
http://www.idrc.ca/rwandagenocide/
http://www.usip.org/files/resources/PB%2016%20Preventing%20Media%20Incitement.pdf
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1056/how-some-israeli-and-american-jewish-media-incite-violence
Please read the following, it is exactly what is happening in South Africa at the moment.
VIEW: The media mafia —Andleeb Abbas
The popular anchorpersons’ power to make or break opinion creates an arrogance in them that is displayed through condescending sneers and mocking jeers, inciting their guests to lose their cool and be reduced to a laughing stock
Extremism in every form and of every nature is equally dangerous. In a society that seems to have lost its balance, most things seem to lose control too easily and too soon. Whether it is religious beliefs, political ideologies or social norms, there is a bipolar tendency in such unbalanced societies to be either aggressive or passive, either fanatically expressive or indifferently silent, causing volatility of behaviour, manifesting itself in destructive conflicts and uncontrolled aggression.
The media in Pakistan is just like the genie out of the bottle. While it has played a powerful role in exposing the flaws of our society, its obsession to scandalise everything and anything has more often than not made it cross all ethical and professional limits. Although we all commend the media for taking nearly every big shot to task, we also must condemn the media for causing immense damage to many innocent people due to their inability to verify and portray the truth. The reason behind this irresponsible behaviour is twofold: first of all, it is the desire for many of the investors in this industry to act as media moguls and, second, it is the relative immaturity of the media industry itself.
The electronic media has seen a mushroom growth in the last few years. From ATV to PTV, you now have almost all alphabets being covered by a regular introduction of more and more new channels. The investors in this industry are of two varieties: one party of investors belongs to the group of businesses that are already in the print media and wanted to expand into the electronic media and thereby accumulate commercial and political clout; others are investors who have no idea of the media industry but are looking for opportunities in growing industries to invest and add to their revenue kitty. Industry growth is always skewed in Pakistan, as most businesses just spot a growing industry and jump in without analysing their own strategic capability to match the core competence required for running that particular business. The result is a mad ‘me too’ race, where anybody with money and connections enters, overcrowding the industry and leading to its premature decline. We have already seen the textile industry suffering from an overdose of ‘me too’ investment and we are now witnessing the same phenomenon in the electronic media industry. Most of these investments are not well thought out or carefully planned. The only focus in the mind of these investors is to be able to set up and start a channel with scant attention to how to make it sustainable.
With little vision and strategic planning, all the channels are simply cloning each other in ideas and programming. Most of them are providing ‘talktainment’. The race in these channels is to prize away a popular talk show host at an exorbitant rate and steal his/her viewership from its competitors. Since they cannot provide anything different to their audience, the only strategy to compete is by being the first to give breaking news that is dramatised to the extent of ‘breaking’ the nerves of its viewers. It is this lack of variety and strategy that has led to their desperation in giving news that is not authentic, in creating a scandal out of nothing, of inciting people into unnecessary agitation and negativity and in twisting a lie to make it look like the truth.
The pursuit of viewership at all costs has recently been exhibited in the spate of allegations against hospitals and the alleged negligence of doctors. While we all know the pathetic state of affairs in our hospitals, it is insane to assume that all deaths taking place in hospitals are due to the negligence of doctors. The recent incident at Jinnah Hospital is an eminent example of a desperate attempt of the media to make news out of no news, consequently endangering the lives of many others. A patient was brought to Jinnah Hospital in the last stage of cancer. As she was hardly gasping for life, the treatment provided by any hospital at this stage would have been insufficient to save her. She did not survive long and her relatives, though sad but resigned, were taking her dead body away when a media journalist ‘advised’ them to make a hue and cry to get some media-worthy coverage. The minute one channel started covering it, all the channels converged and, without verifying the facts, started outdoing each other by forcibly trying to enter the emergency ward. When the doctors stopped them, a confrontation emerged where physical and verbal abuse took place between the journalists and doctors. On being ordered to stay out of the emergency ward, the journalists went out, gathered force and equipment and came in and bashed the windows and staff of the emergency ward. Thereafter, a war between the two parties took place, resulting in the journalists filing a case against the doctors and a complete boycott by doctors in hospitals for three days, resulting in agony to many patients and their families. Such incidents not only cause significant financial and physical damage but also erode the credibility of the media, making them look like opportunists who are no better than the politicians they tear apart in every talk show.
Another aspect that has become too hot to handle is the power of the few big time anchors. Some of these anchors, due to their huge viewership, consider themselves kingmakers and literally blackmail channels and their political guests into payoffs on their terms for trying to influence viewers in favour or against them. Their ability to twist facts and colour stories is not just unethical, but almost criminal. Their power to make or break opinion creates an arrogance in them that is displayed through condescending sneers and mocking jeers, inciting their guests to lose their cool and be reduced to a laughing stock.
To prevent the media from becoming a destructive mafia, it is imperative that a committee be formed comprising PEMRA, channels’ representatives, and legal and media experts who should construct a strict code of conduct specifying the norms of reporting and clearly laying down the process of verification and authentication of information. This code should also contain a code of anchoring etiquette. The code should specify the penalties associated with non-conformity of members to these stated requirements. The code needs to be signed by all members and enforced without discrimination to streamline the behaviour of those guilty of serious ethical and behavioural infringements.
Media plays a very powerful role in the development of any society and we have seen the positive impact it has had in creating the right awareness and direction in the masses. However, if it lacks the discipline to draw a line between what is fact and what is fiction, what is true and what is false, what is responsible freedom and what is reckless wildness, it needs to be harnessed through policies and regulation to prevent it from becoming another mafia which becomes a victim of its own mad pursuit of power rather than playing its true role of empowering the powerless.
The writer is a consultant and CEO of FranklinCovey and can be reached at andleeb@franklincoveysouthasia.com
Environment in SA ‘largely unchanged’
The SA Institute of Race Relations said on Tuesday there had been little change in the environment that gave rise to the attacks in 2008.
Spokesperson Catherine Schulze said the institute was not predicting an outbreak of violence, as there was not enough information to do so.
@ Vuyo
what I was saying was that a media tribunal is the first step down the slippery slope to press censorship, which ultimately can end up with a North Korea zero dissent allowed type situation. That is why it is important to nip these type of things in the bud, otherwise they are like a cancer in society, which, once they have a foothold , can grow into something more fearsome.
@ Brett
“When last I checked the ANC made sure first thing it focussed the old protection-rackets on was media ownership. Which is now largely in black hands.”
Please, please, please Brett!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vuyo and Thomas are right. Democracy is only meaningful if our people are informed of the true facts. The manipulations of the liberal media offers half-truths and evasion as often as fact.
But another independent tribunal, especially one led by an untransformed judge, is not going to help. The liberal media will in event litigate everything to the hilt, and confuse the issue by invoking the so-called right to speech — as if that right protects destructive falsehoods! (The right to free expression must be balanced by the duty to use that freedom responsibly.)
That is why I have long demanded the establishment of a Ministry of Truth. Its role would be to determine the veracity of all claims made by private media.
Thanks.
This story is getting more confusing. So there is an agenda by a certain group of people in these “xenophobic rumours”. They even have finance to print pamphlets. I thought these where poor people venting their anger about something.
Cops hands tied on xenophobic pamphlet
2010-07-14 14:11
Cape Town – Western Cape police say they can do nothing about a xenophobic pamphlet handed out in the province, rallying a community to “fight for what belongs to us” on a specified date – as its source of origin is unknown.
“It needs to be a threat from one person to another. We don’t know where it comes from,” spokesperson Colonel Billy Jones told News24.
The pamphlet reads: “Things are getting tough here in South Africa, so I appeal to every residents (sic) … to join hands together to drive foreigners out of our country.
“Truth is our government is no longer able to take care of us,” it continues before specifying the date on which “dolls will dance”.
Jones said it could be part of a rumour about xenophobia which government has blamed for the recent incidents in which the shops of mostly Somalis were looted and burned in townships around Cape Town.
He said the police and army would continue being highly visible in areas considered vulnerable in the province.
No incidents of xenophobic violence were reported on Wednesday, Jones said.
He urged people to report threats of xenophobic violence to their nearest police station.
- News24
Mzo, you are partly correct. Although I believe the tribunal is in principle wrong (as it fetischises “mistakes” by the media) and ignores existing procedures (formal and informal) to ensure that the media do not abuse its power too much, this view is augmented by knowledge of two things: (i) all over the world – from Italy to Ivory Coast – governments try and prevent the media from reporting on everything the government does or does not do (well, all the bad things, at least). If Obama thought he would get away with it, he would probably do the same. (ii) In SA, government spokespeople often talk about freedom of the media in the manner racists talk about people of the race the despise by saying: “Well we are fully supportive of freedom of the media, but…” (Like: “I am not a racist but…”). That “but” gives me very good reason to worry about the intentions of the Tribunal – even if I had not thought it was just a bad idea full stop. This does not make the ANC government evil or exceptional – it makes them just very normal and predictable.
Gwebecimele, if you have an accurate breakdown of media ownership by all means present it!
Bearing in mind the ANC has mutated Gramsci’s war on position into a racially defined position how many of the major media are not under black control?
Who controls
o SABC
o Sunday Times
o Rapport
o E-TV
o Citizen
o Bus Day
o Star
o Beeld?
These are the major purveyors of our day-to-day reality. How many independents are there?
The headlines in the media today are a good indication that we are back in SA after living in Blatter land. Tenders and deals with the elite, SAFA’s putting a foot in its mouth, DA dissolves ANC municipality, Community protests and burning a school in NW.
Isn’t that the truth? Perhaps we could outsource running the country to Blatter on a semi-permanent basis?
Or, perhaps we could deconstruct and enumerate the lessons he taught us?
DA and Zille are capable too. Why this article does not link back to the Principal? If it was ANC a Mayors name would feature all over.
Brothers allegedly defrauded city of R26m
July 15 2010 at 08:41AM Get IOL on your
mobile at m.iol.co.za
Next » 1 2 By Babalo Ndenze
Metro Writer
A businessman from Summer Greens and his brothers are facing charges of corruption for allegedly defrauding the City of Cape Town of close to R30 million.
The three have appeared in the Bellville Commercial Crimes Court with three other accused, where it was alleged that businesses linked to the accused were awarded work worth millions that never materialised.
The case against Graham Anthony, Gregory Anthony, Paul Anthony, Jo-Anne Borchjes, Daniel Borchjes and Trevor Daniels was postponed to July 23 for the appointment of a new lawyer.
The case is linked to the 2006 resignation of former director of public engagement Batembu Lugulwana, the subject of an internal disciplinary hearing on alleged irregular procurement.
Continues Below ↓
Criminal charges were also laid against Mabela Satekge, the city’s then director of supply chain management who resigned in 2006 during an internal disciplinary hearing into an incident of alleged irregular procurement.
Two other employees, Deon Mei and Malcolm Beukes, implicated and named in the charge sheet, also resigned.
Graham Anthony, the first accused, is alleged to have committed fraud via certain individuals and entities associated or controlled by him, both inside and outside the city.
“The city awarded approximately R26 147 866 worth of services. Of this amount, the city was overcharged at least R12 568 719,” according to the State.
It alleges that Anthony, a businessman, who via a range of individuals that included his extended family or various entities of which he (Anthony) is a “de facto” owner, had provided certain heavy plant-hire services to the city.
“The plant-hire service concerned relates primarily to the hire of trucks and front loaders and took place during or about the period of January 2004 onwards, after the expiry date of tenders,” according to court papers.
It is alleged Anthony unlawfully and corruptly offered gratification in the form of cash and other gifts to city employees to influence the process of getting contracts.
Certain city officials were accused of being complicit in assisting him to get tenders valued at about R26m from the city.
“The majority of this expenditure was for solid waste. Within solid waste, the majority was the area from Simon’s Town to Wynberg and includes many of the disadvantaged areas falling under the city’s jurisdiction,” according to the State.
It said city officials implicated were in the solid waste and shared services departments. The officials failed either to obtain a quotation or a “sufficient” number of quotations, or obtained quotations only after services were rendered.
This was done to provide “basis for the relevant computer entries on the city’s SAP system, essential for the payment to be heard”.
Pray tell, are these not exactly the ‘biased media’ reports this ‘Media Appeals Tribunal’ and the Protection of Information Bill are aimed at?
Godless, shameless ANC!
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=114746
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=114749
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=114743
Can everyone spell k-l-e-p-t-o-c-r-a-c-y?
“Last night Tiyani Rikhotso, spokesman for Gen Nyanda, said the minister preferred not to comment on the allegations.
“The minister does not wish to address administrative and human resource issues of the department in the media. This is in deference to the staff of the department including the director-general. Any such matters shall be dealt with internally and according to the applicable laws, regulations and public service policies,” he said.”
and
“A source close to the pair said Ms Mohlala had refused to approve tenders because they were awarded to companies linked to people close to Gen Nyanda and a private company, General Nyanda Security (GNS).”
En die, Pierre?
“Brett Nortje says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
July 15, 2010 at 10:42 am
Pray tell, are these not exactly the ‘biased media’ reports this ‘Media Appeals Tribunal’ and the Protection of Information Bill are aimed at?
Godless, shameless ANC!
VAN DIE KAAP
THE chief inspector of Cape Town’s metro police has been suspended following a Sowetan exposé about an alleged traffic fine moneymaking syndicate.
Chief Inspector Henry Swift was suspended last Friday, city spokesperson Charles Cooper confirmed yesterday.
Swift is alleged to have supervised a money-making syndicate of traffic cops who conspired with a loan shark to fleece motorists of hundreds of thousands of rand.
The scam came to light after a one-year investigation by the SA Municipal Workers Union, which handed boxes of evidence and photographs over to the Hawks in May.
A day later, Sowetan exposed the scam, known as “Operation Reclaim”. Motorists who had unpaid fines were detained in a city bus and threatened with detention unless someone came with cash to pay their fines.
When friends or relatives arrived with cash, they were told that they could only pay with bank-guaranteed cheques.
They were then taken to the back of the bus where a middle-aged white man, known as “Halfie” Foremann, issued the bank-guaranteed cheques in exchange for an extra “handling fee” of up to R1600.
The Hawks are reportedly investigating whether “Halfie” shared the handling fees with senior traffic cops.
At least two victims of the scam reported the matter to the city more than a year ago, but no action was taken until the Hawks and Sowetan became involved.
Cooper said the city will not comment further on Swift’s suspension.
Samwu branch secretary Mikhel Khumalo said the city must apologise to the motorists who were fleeced by Halfie and the traffic cops.
Rep. Michele Bachmann said that President Obama is turning America into “a nation of slaves.” And a group in Iowa proudly unveiled a billboard featuring the President’s image next to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6314988-fight-back-in-san-francisco
Enough is enough
Loading …
By Lucky Ntuli
As South Africans, it is exhausting and frustrating to have to explain time and time again the behaviour of our politicians. In this particular case having to explain the childish, nonsensical, never amusing and utterly embarrassing Julius Malema. Now, I do not know the “man” nor do I want to. I do however want to take him and the ANC leadership, from the NEC to the ANC Youth league, to task.
It is striking to me, and I am sure to many of my country men, that perhaps we are witnessing this behaviour because of a lack of understanding by this young “man” of politics and geo-economical fall-out from politician statements and tendencies. Most troubling to me is the total disregard by this nincompoop and his cohorts of the sacrifices that have been made to see the progress South Africa has achieved to date.
Before there were the Malemas, there were the Mini’s, Chief Luthuli, Dr. Xuma, Lillian Ngoyi, Joe Gqabi, Sisulu, Mphahlele, Gordimer, La Guma, First, Slovo, Hani, Gert Sibande, Duma Nokwe, Mxenge and countless others. There were the fighters who fell in Angola, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia abd at home in South Africa and there were those who had to face the hangman’s noose for a just and honorable cause. These are the people who must be turning in their graves today because the NEC has failed to take this “man” to task.
Who is this “man”? Who is he to weekly, if not daily, single-handedly manage to cause so much angst and frustration? My fellow brothers in arms did not lay their lives down and die in ambushes so their efforts could be so thwarted by Malema.
On behalf of all the heroes who paid the ultimate sacrifice, I call on the NEC and the people of this beautiful country of ours to take this “man” to task. Where is the leadership? Why is it that he cannot be taken to task like Yengeni? The ANCYL has had great cadres and leaders in the past — need I mention Mandela? Perhaps this should not be so as this “man” deserves never to be mentioned in the same breath as Madiba. Are the cadres who spent years on Robben Island happy about this? Is this what they spent those cold nights in prison for? Have the cadres who were savaged by mosquitoes in Angola forgotten what it was all about? Have the people who were bitten by police dogs, “sjamboked” by police for marching with Cosas and detained on countless occasions forgotten what it was all about?
Is it all now about lining ones pockets illegally, openly defying laws and verbal abuse of those who dare question “him”? What has happened to the members of the NEC who rode on military convoys in Angola openly defying the Unita and Koevoet thugs, with the full knowledge that the first RPG fired by the enemy could end their lives? What has happened to the spirit of Hani? Is this what Chris died for Tokyo? Is this what my 26 fellow comrades died for on that fateful summer night in Angola? On that one night, we lost fighters with whom I stood side by side and am sure this “man” would have crapped in his pants.
What has happened to our country? Why are we allowing politicians and thugs to plunder the wealth of the nation? To understand what this was, is and will always be about, I would like to quote one of those who lead for the right reason and belief in the cause before the likes of this “man” destroys this country.
“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for, and to see realised. But my Lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” Nelson Mandela, defence statement during the Rivonia Trial, 1964.
Enough is enough.