The SABC has a legal mandate to act as a public broadcaster to inform and educate South Africans. In terms of the Broadcasting Act, the public broadcaster “must provide significant news and public affairs programming which meets the highest standards of journalism, as well as fair and unbiased coverage, impartiality, balance and independence from government, commercial and other interests”.
This Act must be interpreted in the light of the values and rights enshrined in the Constitution – including the right to freedom of expression and the right to human dignity.
When political leaders are in the news, it would therefore be perfectly legitimate for the SABC to interview those leaders – even at length – to ask them the challenging questions that would allow voters to form opinions about those leaders and the events in the news. As long as this is done in a fair manner to cover all aspects of the news events and as long as individual South Africans are not denied access to all the relevant information they need to make informed decisions. The Constitution requires the public broadcaster to provide a wide array of ideas and views because where individuals are deprived of such views their human dignity is affected.
As I understand the Constitutional Courts interpretation of the right to human dignity, it would require the public broadcaster to provide individuals with sufficient, clear and comprehensive information to enable them to make decisions about their own lives, thus about who they are and how they want to live their lives. This would include information that will empower individuals to make informed decisions about how they are going to vote or which political party they wish to join (or leave). When individuals are deprived of information or provided with one-sided information, the dignity of those individuals are not respected or protected because those individuals are denied the opportunity to act according to their own conscience and beliefs. They are denied full agency.
I am therefore not sure whether the decision by the SABC to have a long interview with the President of the ANC in prime time tonight was either wise or legally and constitutionally justified. Mr Jacob Zuma is the leader of the largest political party in South Africa – albeit a party who seems to be splitting in two – so the SABC was clearly entitled to interview him at length and to grill him on the most recent developments in his party.
But that would only give listeners and viewers half the story. A broadcaster that respected the dignity of its listeners and viewers would also interview (at length) other role players in this drama to present their side of the story so that ordinary voters could then decide whether they wanted to stick with the ANC or whether they wanted to follow the Lekota faction. If the SABC only interviews Zuma and ignores Lekota, it is in effect disrespecting the human dignity of ordinary individuals, who are not treated as people with agency who have a right to make up their own minds about issues.
In such a scenario the SABC becomes a propaganda tool of the ANC, used to try and minimise the effects of the split by giving the leader of the ANC extended free coverage in an attempt to help stop the political bleeding of his party. It is difficult not to view the decision of the SABC to interview Zuma at length at this particular juncture as a move to act as the ANC’s propaganda arm. Failure to provide other important leaders in this drama (Lekota or Shilowa) equal or almost equal time would signal an utter disregard for the dignity of viewers and listeners and would not be commensurate with the legal mandate of the SABC.
Failure to treat the major role players in this developing political drama in an even-handed and fair way would suggest that the SABC is an ANC lackey and that it has about as much credibility in the news department as George Bush has in the weapons of mass destruction department.
Not that I am surprised. After all, Snuki (Phd Bulgaria) and his henchmen are in charge at Faulty Towers again.
Over the years, I’ve been following the British media very closely. National Conventions of the ruling party (Labour Party) are broadcast live. This practice obtained even when the Conservatives under Maggie Thatcher and John Major were in power.
My only complaint is that we don’t have sufficient political debates featuring all our political leaders on national television.
In principle, I don’t see anything wrong with yesterday’s broadcat of the Zuma interview. Afterall, we must accept that Lekota and his followers have been receiving a disproportionately large amount of time.
I have many thoughts on this one, but let me start with this:
*** It wasn’t widely reported, but Lekota was refused a room in the SABC for his press conference, because it would be biased (I look for the link for those who don’t believe). ***
1. This was hastily assembled, taking over a prime news spot on the day Shilowa resigns and as might have been expected announces the convention date.
2. The haste is shown in the lack of advertising, and a brief mention on the news the day before (What would have happened if this was announced earlier). I couldn’t find a single newspaper mentioning the event.
3. The assumption is that Lekota has been getting a lot of media time.
I comment that:
a. this is probably because it is news, big news, just like the ministers resigning. Nothing strange about getting news time.
b. For every one thing Lekota says, there is a response from the SACP, COSATU, Duarte, Phosa and sometimes Zuma. Disproportionate?
c. ANC rally’s get a lot of news coverage, especially when there is something “new(s)” happening, such as people protesting. Nothing strange showing a Lekota rally, it is news and people are interested in it.
d. Lekota held a press conference, which is qualitatively different from a live interview in prime time.
e. The NEC could have held a press conference after their meeting yesterday, with the same effect as Lekota’s press conference (except they might have gotten a room at the SABC)
4. Asking hard questions, as I expected they’d do, does not necessarily point to legitimacy. Think of the questions that weren’t asked, like some of the harder ones from Lekota’s open letter.
5. They chose Vuyo to do the interview. The friendly guy from morning live. And I might be wrong, but he wasn’t his usual friendly self. I did get the feeling he tried to put a nail in on the arms deal (deviating from the script?)
6. I was amused by the read from the paper question where he stated that it was widely reported that Zuma did not support Mbeki’s recall in the NEC meeting. BUT he did not ask him if it is true, which is interviewing 101. And it wasn’t that widely reported and was based on hearsay, Zuma never publicly stated that, to the best of my knowledge.
7. Timing was strategic, and more especially that it was broadcast live on ALL SABC radio stations.
8. I have to hand it to them, they did it in such a way that probably not much will come from this, but they got their message across, and shifted the focus from Shilowa’s announcement.
The real problem for me with this, is not what they have done, but the fact that there is no accountability. Like so many of parastatals, organs of state and individual politicians in this country, nobody is held accountable for their actions.
Even when there is a clear abuse of power, or overstepping of constitutional or legislative mandates, the parties are not called to task to account or even sanctioned in any way.
The SABC may have acted in a manner that infringes the rights mentioned by the Prof, but will there be any ramifications? I doubt it.
I believe that the comparison drawn by Linda with the British media and political situation is an ineffectual one in the context of our political situation. For one, the state broadcaster is not bound by a written Constitution and furthermore, the British people are far more politically “mature”. In South Africa, our democracy is still extremely young. Many South Africans have only had the opportunity to vote 3 times in their lives (I am one of those) and organs of state such as the public broadcaster should be giving people the opportunity to form an informed opinion on the future governance of this country, which they are not doing by providing a one-sided view of things.
The provision of coverage to the likes of Lekota et al, has merely been sound-bites when compared with a full hour of prime time television given to Zuma. Somewhat different, in my opinion.
People the interview was not an hour long, JZ was late for the interview. So Lekota and crew cannot ask for more than 45 minutes.
Very good piece Prof indeed. You have said it better than me…
khosi // Oct 16, 2008 at 8:21 am
…………………………………………………
It is not Lekota’s fault that Zuma subscribes to the idea of “African Time”.
Khosi
But you see since they refused Lekota even a room for a press conference (never mind live interview), they need to give him an extra 15 minutes to make up for the bias.
Actually you could argue the lost 15 minutes were still paid for by us, so maybe an hour and 15 minutes, would atone for their bias, with the extra 15 minutes coming off the board members pay.
According to SAFM, the NEC will get a press conference today as well! Don’t know where though, hopefully not at the SABC…
What you guys are failing to realize is that this interview will in the long run work against the ANC. Here are the reasons:-
The ANC wants the SABC board to be dissolved, the SABC board appoints Snuki Zikalala (a person widely regarded as an Mbeki man ) to run the news department. The board seems to be winning its battles against Mpofu, who is widely accepted to have defected after Polokwane. Now it makes no sense at all that the ANC president would be given that amount of airtime, without it being a booby trap.
Look, the one thing that Lekota and Shilowa need right now is airtime, lots of airtime. Lekota and Shilowa are holding a convention in a few weeks. Do not be surprised if that convention is carried live on SABC, as it would pass the ‘newsworthy test’ easily. Also expect more appearances of the ‘rebels’ on national TV from now on. No one can, at that stage, accuse the SABC of being biased against the new ANC leadership. The JZ interview was, to my thought, a way of balancing the airtime that Lekota and Shilowa are about to get.
This is the main reason why the SABC was so contested after Polokwane.
Khosi
But many Mbeki loyalists still don’t want to see the ANC go down. Many upset with the Zuma camp have still indicated intent on staying (though they might change their minds, but surely not all).
And the timing was bad for the Lekota camp regarding Shilowa’s announcement.
I would like to see an inquiry into the matter to see who initiated this (if it could be traced). Then we can get more clarity, but that won’t happen.
Khosi
I concede that you have a point, after all Snuki is the master of news (and reportedly anti Zuma), but there are still a few loose ends here for me. People can shift allegiances with the right incentives. The haste and bad advertising could have been for the prevention of a backlash from within, if too many knew about it.
z // Oct 16, 2008 at 9:01 am
………………………………………….
Mbeki’s silince on the recent political developments is deafening. He has not taken a decisive stand in respect of these developments despite him being mostly responsible for them; ‘mostly’ because I cannot be sure as to whether there were no other internal conflicts in the ANC which could be part of these developments. I have a feeling that Mbeki is waiting for the announcement of the new party and then for him to declare in the media that he is 100% behind that party; that would be huge blow for the ANC. But you never know with Mbeki; “silence is golden, speech is silver.”
Khosi and Lindelani
Believe you me the Mbeki supportes will heckle you however you try to justify why it was important for SABC to allocate time for Msholozi.Honourable Zuma is their nemesis and anything that will allow him to explain matters to the SA public and probably put Zuma and the ANC in a favourably light is disgusting for them.So I say you wasting your time these people do not honour the result of internal democracy within their own party and they opt to move out who are they fooling when they pretend to be concerned about democracy when they have clearly failed to accept the Polokwane outcome?
Sne
I hear you, and have been pondering the same. If he supports them, he will wait. I think if he quit the ANC now it might also jeopardize the Zim talks, because then he would not even have the support of the ruling party in his doings.
Mdu
Khosi is the biggest Mbeki supporter on this site. And it doesn’t matter who it was speaking or what the reasons were, it is our tax money paying for a hastily assembled program with political motives. If it was Lekota, Mbeki or anyone else, it would have still made it an abuse.
What would you have said, if it was Lekota who got an hour live interview on prime time television, paid for by your tax money? There would be something wrong with it, but not because it is your political opponent.
If it was Lekota I wouldn’t have watched it, and probably you also wouldn’t because he offers nothing except trying to fool the unsuspecting that he is concerned about democracy when we know he is not.He CHAIRED over an autocratic ANC , WHICH HUMILIATED mANDELA and he did nothing, and when Ma Mandela was smacked in front of the public he failed to admonish his recently demoted friend and when he was shown the failure he is in Polokwane hefull of unpalatable sour grapes has opted out,a cowardly bufoon indeed whoes rantings are’ we will kill for democracy”, which democracy when your fail to honour your internal one, who is this buffoon fooling?
I wouldn’t watch an interview of a hopeless hypocrite!
Mdu
You are evading the spirit of the question, I’ll rephrase: Would you have contended that it would have been an abuse of the SABC if Lekota got an hour live interview on prime time?
I wouldn’t have contended that, and I THINK the SABC should give them two hours for all to see their hollowness as I believe the splinter have no plans with which to better SA apart from ANC’S.But it would be boring to hear this bufoon’s rantings for an hour.
Khosi et al
Well, for one I would like to say a few things about the interview itself
1. for an anc president Jacob Zuma was very wishy-washy about a lot of important issues, policy change, economic policy, Desmond Tutu issue tec. For me, he was supposed to have used the platform to address those salient issues without pondering the side effects they may have on him
2. Again, he expressed a lot of his “opinion” if you wish. ANC is a big organisation with a lot of documentation on policies; and for its president to go on national TV and think his way through an interview on issues that his organization has written policies on was just a dismal failure.
3. He continues to say that there won’t be any policy change, which begs the question, how will that be considering the new NEC has somewhat vehemently vocal unionists and Red Socks in it who are arguing for that. As he said that the debate is not new, but the footing here is different, the people championing it are the very same people who put him to the presidency right now.
4. I do remember quite clearly the NEC saying that the sacking of Former President Thabo Mbeki will bring unity to the ANC and the country. Well as far as my eyes can see{believe me I’m not myopic} the unity must be happening elsewhere noty here.
Lastly, the new NEC did not line their ducks in order before they went on their spring cleaning job. They undermined or took for granted the thinking capacity of the SA public and thought they had the support.
As far as JZ is concerned and judging by the kind of answers he gives every time he has to think and not have a speech written down for him, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT HE IS NOT THE SCRIPT WRITER HERE. THAT HE IS SIMPLY ACTING.
Mdu
Second question:
Would you have contended that it would have been an abuse of the SABC if Lekota got an hour live interview on prime time and Zuma was refused a room for a press conference the week before?
Mdu,
Do not wish two hours of airtime for Shilowa. He would ace that interview. He gives better interviews than most of our politicians. That would also give him a chance of highlighting his successes as premier of Gauteng. That interview would give the new party a chance at projecting their man(not party) as a better person to lead the country. For as far as I know, Shilowa is clean and carries no bad history and that would resonate with voters.
Khosi
Shilowa has been referred to before as presidential material. Good enough reason to try to overshadow his speech at the press conference?
Did you hear of the debate between him and company and Phosa and company. I wish I knew more than this link has:
http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/90/29333.html
“Shilowa lashed at ANC and Jacob Zuma over the lack of consistency in dealing with the issue of political conspiracy and other matters. He said: “We all agreed at a meeting and a document was signed officially stating that there was no political conspiracy against JZ, but still he went to court and said that there was conspiracy against him.””
Do you know anything about the alleged document?
z,
I am not sure about the document, but I remember the previous ANC NEC saying there is no political conspiracy. JZ was part of that NEC. That was after TM had said the ANC should investigate the conspiracy claims.
Sne // Oct 16, 2008 at 9:24 am
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head – I wonder if they have a name in mind yet ?
While some of you seem to be watching an awful lot of TV, I’m more of a radio fan, specially safm’s 6-8 am news programme. Here, it is made very clear whose side the SABC is on, and it’s not that of the Zuma ANC. Must be Snuki Zikalala’s doing; but that may change!
By the way, Vusi Pikoli – while delivering a lecture at UCT yesterday – denied allegations that former president Thabo Mbeki had exerted pressure on the NPA to charge Jacob Zuma.
Clara
Interesting about Pikoli, the news report I read did not mention that. Only that they did like the aspects of the Nicholson judgment pointing to the need for the independence of the NPA.
I also listen to a lot of SAFM, and get updates on what I missed during the day from a friend, sometimes I listen while working on my phone. I mostly start listening just before 8 so I might not hear all you here, but generally what you say is not that clear to me. At times I think this person swings a certain way and then that person surprises me on another day. And they’ve been giving a lot of airtime to ANC and alliance guys, Pallo Jordan, Ben Turoc, Blade. But this is from things happening throughout the whole day, not just 6-8.
One guy at night does seem to favour certain points of view, but gives everyone a fair share of views, although I might only listen here and there at night.
Clara // Oct 16, 2008 at 2:33 pm
…………………………………………………
I do not like headless chickens… In what capacity was he giving that lecture?
z – regarding SAFM, maybe I’ve been ‘reading between the lines’ a little too much, it’s just been my personal impression. By “the guy at night”, do you mean Eric? I just love that man.
sne – as an inspired guess, I’d say Pikoli gave that lecture in his capacity as suspended NPA boss.
Clara
I also try to read a lot behind the lines, and have been accused of reading to much into things.
I didn’t really want to name names of the presenters. (:
Clara // Oct 16, 2008 at 6:09 pm
…………………………………………………
Thanks Clara… Strictly speaking, is that a capacity?
Linda, all 3 parties’s congress is broadcast directly, not just the ruling parties’.