For Misa’s “So This is Democracy Publication 2001”

By Zubeida Jaffer*

It was a rainy day in June when about 40 media professionals took to streets of Cape Town to stage a protest.  In old South Africa, protesting journalists were a constant feature of resistance. A gathering of this kind about a South African press freedom issue in the post-apartheid era was rather unusual..

The small but vociferous protest was prompted by the government’s decision to subpoena several journalists and media houses to testify in the murder trial of Cape Town Hard Living gang leader Rashaad Staggie.

Staggie was shot and set alight allegedly by People Against Gangsters and Drugs(PAGAD) during a march on his Salt River home in Cape Town on August 4, 1996. In the crowd that witnessed the murder were members of the public, the police and journalists who took pictures that were published across the world.

Those subpoenaed include former Cape Times photographer Benny Gool, the editor of the Burger, Arries Roussouw, Reuters and Associated Press.

 The murder trial of this gangster has for the past few years raised major legal debate on the issues of confidentiality of journalists in the democratic South Africa. 

Gool and others have refused to testify citing two reasons: Firstly for journalists to appear in the court of law to testify on the basis of the material they gathered for publishing, will impact on the free flow of information. Secondly, the murder trial of Staggie is a high-risk security trial in which at least seven state witnesses have been murdered and some of them killed while they were under state protection.

At the time of going to print, the state unexpectedly withdrew the subpoenas bringing this present drama to an end. The broader issue of the state calling journalists as witnesses however remains unresolved.

On the whole however 2001 was a year of subtleties. No longer are journalists confronted with the extremities of draconian legislation and forced into resistance mode. Rather 2001 expressed the dominant trend of testing the boundaries of the new found freedoms. Should cameras be allowed into the court rooms or should they not?

In the year 2000, they were allowed into the Hansie Cronje cricket hearings. In 2001, they were barred from the arms deal hearings. In deciding against the live transimission of the arms deal hearings, Public Protector, Selby Baqwa, said he would have no control over what a witness might say or not say which could transgress the terms of the Defence Act.  Scotch Tagwireyi of the Freedom of Expression Institute said: “There is an obvious contradiction for the government to call for public hearings into the arms deal, and then turn around and refuse the media permission to give live coverage,” he said. “This action raises questions as to whether the hearings are actually public or not.”

What should be the relationship between government and the media? Accusations and counter accusations between the two sides led to an extraordinary meeting between members of SANEF and the president and his cabinet in July 2001. The meeting initiated by SANEF was a frank exchange of views leading to a rather powerful admission by President Mbeki: “ It seems clear to me that as government we have not done really what we ought to have been doing more effectively, which is to communicate about what the government is doing and thinking. I think the message has come across very strongly, that this has been a very serious failure on the part of the government. Clearly it is something we need to correct.”

What the meeting had done was to start a process of breaking down mistrust, for both sides to understand why the other side behaves as they do.

He set the tone for a less fractious relationship when  he made his concluding statement:

“I do not know what happens in other countries but it may very well be that in these processes that we engage ourselves, we might be sending some message to other people about how this complex relationship can be handled in a manner that respects the independence of the two institutions and that recognises that even journalists are human beings. They care about poor people, they care about oppression, they care about discrimination against women, they care about discrimination against people on the grounds of race or colour. They will exercise their functions as journalists, independently, bravely, boldly, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care about these various things.”

Since the meeting took place in July, political correspondents report that tensions between government officials and journalists have eased off. “Since the president made  his speech,  I have found media liaison officers to be far more helpful,” said John Matisonn, parliamentary representative for Independent Newspapers. ‘We have some way to go but the meeting was unequivocally excellent,” he said. “There has been mistakes on both sides. The meeting has  really  changed the relationship.”

But the testing of subtleties are not confined to relations external to the media. At the core of how free the South African media can be really stands its own internal limitations. Addressing the president at the government-media meeting, SANEF chairperson, Mathatha Tsedu said: “… as Sanef, we concede there's too much shallowness, superficiality and unprofessionalism in the South African media, deficiencies which are a discredit to our profession - but deficiencies that much of our programme of action is focused on remedying. In a sense, South African media are grappling with the same issues of transformation as the rest of our society, including government.”

Like Tsedu, most editors are painfully aware of the limitations which serve to restrict press freedom. While most media gave wide coverage to the land occupation in  Bredell Kempton Park, many misrepresented the plight of the squatters and portrayed them as irresponsible people. The issue was mainly reported as a political one, failing dismally to give the squatters a voice.

Similary, trade unionists have charged that the South African media is failing to provide the critical view of government’s economic policies, mouthing only the pat statements of a few analysts while the rand keeps falling and the unemployment situation deteriorates. This is likely to be the greatest challenge for the media in the coming year: how to raise critical issues which could help all stakeholders continually find the best course to steer through heavy seas.

Surfacing strongly in 2001 was the beginning of a battle against advertising agencies which discriminated against black audiences. The charge is that advertising, being mainly white controlled gave greater support to media outlets with white supporters.

The youth community radio station, YFM has said that  newly launched radio stations found advertising revenues had not grown in line with audience growth. It blamed this on the fact that the majority of media directors, strategists, planners and buyers were white.

How the questions of advertising and ownership develop will be crucial to expanding media freedoms in South Africa and will impact on the future growth of media. One response has been the establishement of a new media investment company which aims to bring opportunities for veteran black journalists to share in investments in major media companies. The company, Thinta Media(Pty) Ltd, has brought together former editors of both the print and broadcast media. Some of the key players are Joe Thloloe of eTV and formerly with the SABC, Rashid Seria, former editor of South, Ryland Fisher, former editor of the Cape Times and Latiefa Mobara, the executive director of SANEF.

 

The greatest difficulty continues to be the limited reach of the media. Government research shows the following:

• about 30% read newspapers – though others may receive some sense of their content second-hand through intermediaries

• access to media is predominantly urban 

• about 20% of the population is beyond the reach of FM signals

• Internet access is restricted to less than 10% of urban South Africans (and approaches zero in the rural areas) 

• even where there may be physical access, it is often impeded by illiteracy and aliteracy. 

In an attempt to extend the reach of both the broadcast and print media, government proposes to set up a Media Diversity and Development Agency. The legislation will come before parliament in 2002. In the past year, some have raised reservations about this initiative.  

 There are  concerns that government funds will be moved away from existing community media to staffing of the development agency.  The National Community Radio Forum has reported that at least one  government department has discussed the transfer of both its community radio support funds and staff to the planned agency.

 As presently proposed, SANEF’s Latiefa Mobara believes the MDDA will be faced with the difficulty of balancing different interests. “Unlike Western European countries where the government drives diversity, industry will be involved here. If it is government-driven, government can push a development-agenda.”

The balancing of different interests also faces the national broadcaster as it moves towards combining its public service component with a commercial component. Technically, plans to commercialise the public broadcaster has moved slowly in 2001. The appropriate legislation has yet to pass through parliament. There has however been definite signs of the determination of the SABC to combine its public service role with a commercial base. The appointment of Peter Motlare as the new CEO is part of the corporate sweep through the broadcaster. Slow changes have also been observed in programming. “In the past year, the programming line-up indicates a move away from a public service commitment,” said Financial Mail journalist, Ferial Haffajee. “But the process is moving slowly.”

Slow tranformation is a constant thread weaving through the media landscape in post-apartheid South Africa. While journalists protesting on the streets are unusual, the tussle for change is now focussed within the country’s newsrooms – a battle which will determine how well South African citizens will be served in the future.

ends