'Spooks are everywhere'

The latest African Media Barometer (AMB): South Africa 2010 report presents a mixed picture on the state of the media and media freedom in the country. It says there is widespread belief that "spooks are everywhere".

South Africa's overall rating for its media environment has decreased, according to the report published by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) and the Media Institute of Southern Africa. FES is a private German political, non-profit, public-interest institution committed to social democracy. In 2006, the overall score for freedom of expression for the country was 3.2 out of 5, in 2008 it was 3.5 and in 2010 it decreased to 3.

Categories taken into account include: freedom of the media, the media landscape including diversity, independence and sustainability, broadcasting regulation and professional standards. Scoring in a range of subcategories were conducted by a 10-person panel of South Africans, including a trade unionist, a media academic, a journalist, a human rights activist, a broadcasting consultant, a social movement activist, a gender activist and an IT specialist.

The barometer says that although the right to freedom of expression, including media freedom and the right to access information, is guaranteed in the Constitution, in "recent years, though, these protections are being increasingly challenged in practice, or by proposals for new legislation". "The tone of the political discourse is becoming sharper", with "harsh criticism of corruption and greed in government circles from a broad spectrum of society". Government, as well as sections of the ANC, the report says, reacts defensively and critics are labelled as "unpatriotic", "enemies" or "counter-revolutionaries". And police, "overreact" against people with critical views whereas whistle-blowers feel increasingly insecure. "There are reports of people who had revealed instances of corruption to the press being threatened or even killed … and there is the suspicion that spooks are everywhere" the report says, quoting Congress of South African Trade Union's Zwelinzima Vavi's statement that many believe that people are listening in to phone conversations.

However, South Africa scored top marks for the fact that entry into and the practice of journalism was legally unrestricted and that websites and blogs were not required to register or get permission from state authorities. The scores dropped in the category: "the right to freedom of expression is practised and citizens, including journalists, are asserting their rights without fear". In 2008 it was 3.2 and in 2010 it was 2.9. The advertising market, according to the survey, was not large enough to support a diversity of media outlets: in 2008 this score was 3.9 and in 2010, it dropped to 2.7 There was a significant decrease in adequate competition legislation/regulation to prevent media concentration and monopolies. In 2008 it was 4.7 and in 2010 it was 2.6. In the same vein, the indictment on broadcasting regulation and its levels of transparency and independence was severe: the 2006 score was 4.6, the 2008 score was 5 and the 2010 score was 3.3. The scores for "public information is easily accessible, guaranteed by law, to all citizens" was generally low for the three years. In 2006, it was 2.7, in 2008 it was 2.3, and in 2010 2.7.

Regarding the provision that there were "no laws restricting freedom of expression such as excessive official secrets or libel acts, or laws that unreasonably interfere with the responsibilities of media", the country scores a good 4, but the report says if the Protection of Information Bill is enacted and if a media appeals tribunal is instituted, it would change the picture.

Applying for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2002 (Paia) is "cumbersome" and "often requests for information are ignored. Further, many departments did not appoint information officers as required under the act, the report says. Mention is made of the Mail & Guardian winning a High Court order in June 2010, which obliged the government to release a report on the 2002 elections in Zimbabwe. The judge agreed that the release of the report was in the public interest, but government appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, lost that appeal in December 2010, and then applied to the Constitutional Court this year. Judgment is pending.

The Secrecy Bill, if enacted, would threaten the gains envisaged in Paia, according to the report.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Analysis: Zuma vs Zapiro is possibly much more than just another court case

What does the SA prez possibly stand to gain from what seems like a case he is bound to lose? But looked at through the eyes of his supporters maybe – just maybe – it’s not about this specific case at all, but about the little media legislation they are so desperate to push through.

Even by our standards, in the third quarter of 2008 South Africa was another country. Thabo Mbeki was running things, technically, and merrily ignoring requests to attend ANC national executive committee meetings because he was meeting minor Chinese dignitaries. Julius Malema was too busy living to suggest killing for anyone, and Jacob Zuma was addressed as just plain mister. The main political action of the day had been a Mail & Guardian headline in which Gwede Mantashe had labelled some Constitutional Court judges as “counter-revolutionaries”. The political slogan was about “political solutions” to legal problems. Turns out those slogans were right in the end.

The reason we bring this up, is that this was all before the Nicolson Judgment. No legal person put their neck out and predicted Zuma would win that case, but the ANC was on a roll. They were going all out for Zuma. Heck, even Zwelinzima Vavi loved him at the time. In this context Zapiro published that cartoon. At the time, it seemed the ANC was literally ganging up against the judiciary. The wagons were being circled.

It was a pretty normal Sunday though when I first saw the cartoon. It literally took my breath away. It was so good, so funny, hit the nail on the head, and yes, it was offensive. In a way, that was probably the point. At the time, it seemed as if something offensive was imminent and Zapiro had found a way to capture that. But I couldn’t resist calling the ANC and asking what they felt. Jessie Duarte was their spokeswoman at the time. I remember the conversation clearly - she had seen it, she was a little angry about it, and hell yes, she’d say something about it, on tape. As always, she gave a good soundbite, and I filed it for the next morning’s Eyewitness News bulletins. It seemed a minor story.

The next morning, it ran on the 6am bulletin, and suddenly the world went into overdrive. Callers, outrage, laughter, anger, frustration, the usual stuff of talk radio, just at a much higher level. The fact is the cartoon had summed up the emotion of the time. It wouldn’t have been so powerful otherwise. It called a spade a spade and perhaps that’s why so many people were so angry.

Now it looks as if we’re going to have a nice big national argument about this cartoon again. And there are times when I wonder if I did the right thing in phoning Duarte. I’m not saying this cartoon wouldn’t have been a big thing otherwise. I just wonder if this is really an argument for which we as a country are ready.

You may think I’m being slightly alarmist. After all, the law is clearly on Zapiro’s side. We would be very surprised if any judge in the country saw things Zuma’s way. The Human Rights Commission (which has a few people on it who know their way around the ANC’s deployment committee) have already ruled in favour of Zapiro. There’s the defence of opinion, of satire and of course, freedom of speech. There’s even the old defence of “jest”, which makes us wonder if you’re allowed to be hugely insulting to a politician, so long as it’s funny. Which would mean to call Julius Malema ugly might be illegal, but to suggest he laughed like a stuffed hyena may not.

But all of this could be missing the point. The fact is this national argument about the limits of freedom of speech is not going to be won on the iPads of the chatterati. It’s not even about what they think. It’s a battle that will be fought in Esselen Park, at Luthuli House, and crucially, at ANC branch meetings. Those meetings are not occupied by people who worry too much about the legal definition of offense. They are more likely to be angered afresh by the cartoon.

We’ve argued for some time now that the media has not presented its case well on this score. That for many people in this country it could appear that newspapers and websites and radio stations simply offend because they can, that they really are controlled by people who want to offend the democratically elected leaders of this country. Imagine how you might feel if someone drew Nelson Mandela with something as rude as that showerhead. Now imagine being a Zuma supporter and seeing that piece of brass literally four times a week.

Now your leader is suing. He’s doing what he thinks he should. But then he loses. And, in your view, that means there’s a problem with the law. And possibly with the judges as well. How can it be that someone can be so rude, so deliberately offensive to the president? Surely you should respect the president of your country? So then it’s obvious that the way to fix this is to bring in the media appeals tribunal.

You may think we’re being a little paranoid. But this case has the potential to be far more damaging than a simple little legal skirmish. It’s easy to see it being used to whip up popular sentiment against the commercial media. We should all watch it very carefully indeed. Happy 2011.

Source: Daily Maverick

WikiLeaks Concern for South African Freedom of Information Activists

As WikiLeaks continues to release heaps of United States government secrets, freedom of information advocates in South Africa are concerned the controversy will spur the country’s parliament on to pass a controversial “Secrecy Bill” into law. “We’re concerned that the issues around WikiLeaks may drive the Ministry (of State Security) to suggest that even more information should be made classified,” says Alison Tilley, executive director of South Africa’s Open Democracy Advice Center.

ODAC’s website says it strives to “foster a culture of corporate and government accountability,” and seeks to achieve this “through realizing the (public’s) right to know.”

Earlier this year, South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) party introduced the Protection of Information Bill in parliament, and proposed the establishment of a “media tribunal” to “regulate” the country’s print media. The moves resulted in nationwide protests from human rights and freedom of expression groups, as well as the public, who remain concerned that they’re the first steps towards an ANC clampdown on media freedom and a new age of censorship in South Africa.

In recent years, the country’s media has exposed several scandals implicating top ANC officials – including President Jacob Zuma – and businesspeople close to the ruling party, in a variety of crimes - including massive corruption. The ANC denies it wants to curb media freedom, insisting its bill merely seeks to protect state secrets - the publication of which it insists could endanger South Africa’s security. But legal, constitutional and access to information experts say the bill’s definition of a “state secret” is so broad that it could allow the ANC to prevent the media from reporting on a wide range of issues embarrassing to the government – including corruption and even personal scandals.

According to the bill, the media would not be able to publish a story based on a “secret” document, even one that shows that a government minister has stolen taxpayers’ money. Instead, the person who leaked the document would be punished: the possession of such a document is a crime that could result in prison terms of up to five years – for the journalist and the whistle-blower who leaked the document.

Tilley says if the South African bill becomes law, a lot of people could end up in jail for possessing information such as that published by WikiLeaks. “Perhaps I went onto the website and downloaded information from the WikiLeaks website – that would make me liable; if I sent it to a colleague – that would make my colleague liable; if my colleague sent it to a newspaper – that would make the journalist liable. And presumably once the journalist publishes it and people buy and read the paper, it would make them liable too,” the lawyer explains. “The principle that we want to introduce in terms of the bill is that the only person who is liable is the person who’s actually professionally responsible for keeping that secret - that is, the member of the security agency, the person in national intelligence,” she maintains.

Thus, according to ODAC, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, should not be charged with any crime linked to the publishing of the US government secrets. Only his alleged source – US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning – should be held responsible for the leak. “Once the information is leaked, we think it’s completely wrong to try and criminalize everyone down the chain,” Tilley tells VOA. “That’s what the (South African) legislation does as it’s currently tabled.”

Experts who’ve analyzed the South African bill say the fact that it doesn’t contain a “public interest defense” holds extremely serious consequences. This means that whistle-blowers and reporters can’t argue in court that the “secret” information they’ve revealed is in the public interest – even if such information shows evidence of damage to the environment or theft of taxpayers’ money, for examples. “The Secrecy Bill says that in fact it doesn’t matter whether information’s in the public interest or not, it doesn’t matter what the (confidential) documents reveal - it could be anything up to genocide and you still would be criminally liable if you made the documents available in the public interest,” says Tilley.

Activists in South Africa argue that the South African government’s main motivation in drawing up the Bill is to prevent certain politician’s crimes from being exposed. Tilley says the instinct of security and intelligence agencies across the globe, including in South Africa and the US, is to try to keep increasing amounts of information secret. This is dangerous, she says … as Washington has discovered via WikiLeaks. “We think that would be a very wrong analysis of what WikiLeaks should mean to security agencies,” she stresses. “We think what it means is that you must narrow your focus, and concentrate only on that information which it is absolutely essential that you keep secret because lives are at risk. Then you secure that information as completely as you can.”

ODAC’s stance is that governments should keep as few secrets as possible, and strive for “openness and transparency.” “We think it improves decision-making; we think it allows people to participate in government more effectively; it allows them to advocate on issues more effectively; it allows better decisions around resources,” says Tilley. “The more transparency, the better the decisions that are made – both by people in power and by people who seek power.” She adds, “The instinct of security agencies to try to keep more and more information classified simply means that there are more people in the tent. And the more people there are in the tent, the more difficult it is to keep information secure, and the more likely it is that there’s going to be a security risk, there’s going to be a leak, and somebody’s going to let slip the information.”

Tilley and ODAC are not suggesting that governments don’t have a right to keep certain information hidden from the public. She says, “Governments do have secrets that they should legitimately keep. They keep those secrets in the interests of their citizens. They generally relate only to narrow security issues. If we have undercover policemen, for example, working in gangs to try and end gang violence or trying to end organized crime, we would accept that those identities need to be kept secret. This would benefit the public, in that criminal activity would be stopped.”

But Tilley says the “problem” is that once governments are entitled to keep secrets entirely at the state’s discretion “it seems to know no end” and is open to great abuse. “(In South Africa), we have documents that go in front of local government (municipalities) that are automatically marked ‘secret,’ simply because they’re being dealt with by an executive committee in local government. That’s clearly wrong,” she says.

Tilley says in South Africa, officials – using the excuse that certain information should be kept secret in the interests of the state – have tried to keep tender documents secret. “We’ve had people tell the Public Protector, she’s not entitled to documents because they’re classified so she can’t investigate corruption,” she says. “That’s precisely the misuse of classification which is problematic, and which we think will be probable – given the scope of the Secrecy Bill.”

South Africa’s Public Protector is appointed by the president to investigate complaints from the public against government agencies or officials. Tilley hopes South Africa’s government, as it continues to try to limit access to information, learns some lessons from the leaking of more than 250,000 US government secrets to WikiLeaks. “It shows that it’s very difficult to keep secrets – whatever you think about whether they should or shouldn’t be kept. The fact is that America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with a very extensive network of specialists trying to keep secrets secret, has found that it can’t be done.”

Source: Voice of America

Authorities urged to drop two projects that threaten media freedom

As the leaders of the ruling African National Congress meet this week in the eastern city of Durban, Reporters Without Borders urges the South African government to abandon two projects, one to create a media tribunal and one to pass a bill protecting information involving “national security.”

The press freedom organisation offers South Africa’s media and civil society its full support in their efforts to combat these two retrograde projects. “We are amazed that the ANC keeps on coming up with this kind of measure which, if implemented, would represent a dramatic step backwards,” Reporters Without Borders said. “We hope that President Jacob Zuma and all the government will understand the reservations expressed by the media and press freedom groups in recent weeks and will abandon these projects. Not only the independence of South Africa’s journalists but also the country’s image and its role as the engine for all of Africa are at stake.”

The ANC plans to create a media tribunal whose members would be appointed by the government and would have the power to punish breaches of journalistic ethics. If created, the tribunal would usurp the existing system of self-regulation. Led by President Zuma, officials insist that their intention is to protect the public against media abuses. But in the hands of the authorities and the ANC, such a tribunal would jeopardise the media independence that is guaranteed by the 1994 constitution.

The South African parliament is examining a protection of information bill that would classify information that could endanger national security and make publication of such information punishable by up to 25 years in prison. The possibility that journalists could be jailed because of their work, the length of the sentences they could face and the failure to clearly define what is meant by “national security” are all reasons for great concern.

The proposed law could end up making investigative journalism impossible or even illegal. Reporters Without Borders fears that journalists would no longer be able to investigate sensitive stories, such as corruption scandals, for fear of being jailed. The debate about media freedom in South Africa, which is eliciting heated comments both domestically and abroad, comes at a time of great mistrust between the authorities and the media. When ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema expelled BBC correspondent Jonah Fisher from a news conference on 8 April, he called him a “bastard” and “bloody agent”. Watch the video.

President Zuma’s relations with the media are fraught, especially with those that criticise the way he governs, cover his private life and investigate such sensitive issues as corruption and crime. The times have changed and South Africa has moved on since 1994, but the attitude of the ANC’s current leaders towards the press is disturbing when one recalls the role the party once played in defending fundamental freedoms.

With its bold and diverse media, South Africa has until now been a model of media freedom in Africa. Ranked 33rd out of 175 countries in the 2009 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index, it was one of the three African countries that showed most respect for the work of journalists. The ANC’s two projects could change that.

Source: Reporters without Borders

NPA withdraws Wa Afrika charges

Charges against Sunday Times journalist Mzilikazi Wa Afrika and his co-accused Victor Mlimi will be provisionally withdrawn, a National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson said on Tuesday. "The case docket containing evidential material was submitted to prosecutors in the NPA. After perusing the case docket we are of the view that it is desirable that the matter be fully investigated prior to taking a decision on whether or not to prosecute," read a statement by advocate Mthunzi Mhaga. "We therefore deem it appropriate that the charges be provisionally withdrawn pending further investigations."

They had faced charges of fraud, forgery and uttering after being arrested by members of the Mpumalanga police and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations, a division of the police known as the Hawks, in August. The arrest of the pair related to alleged possession of a resignation letter by Mpumalanga Premier David Mabuza, which the presidency has said is a fake. The NPA said once investigations had been concluded, the docket would be re-submitted and the case could be reinstated. The charges will be formally withdrawn on Wednesday.

Wa Afrika was arrested on August 4 as a debate on the possible introduction of a media tribunal and the Protection of Information Bill was underway at his employer's headquarters in Rosebank, Johannesburg. After being kept in custody, charges were withdrawn the following day, then reinstated. A court order issued by the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria had him released ahead of his bail hearing. He was finally released on R5 000 bail after an appearance at the Nelspruit Regional Court on August 6. Mlimi is a deputy director for informal settlements in Mpumalanga.

Sunday Times editor Ray Hartley was not immediately available for comment, but their online portal Timeslive quoted him as saying that National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele "owes wa Afrika an apology. A big one". Wa Afrika's lawyer Eric van den Berg said they had been notified of the NPA's intentions and were pleased. "It has been a shadow over him," said Van den Berg. Some critics felt the arrests were related to a story Wa Afrika had co-written about a R500m on police headquarter lease agreement, purportedly agreed to by Cele without it going out to tender.

The day before his arrest, Cele called him a "very shady journalist", and when asked if he would take action against the reporter, he replied: "Time will tell".

Source: News 24

Board moves to suspend SABC boss

The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) board has moved to suspend CEO Solly Mokoetle, it emerged on Tuesday after the Western Cape High Court overruled attempts by Parliament to hold a briefing on the latest trouble at the public broadcaster behind closed doors. "They [the board] have served him with a legal letter with the intention to suspend him and he has been given an 'x' number of days -- exactly how many days I don't know -- to respond to the letter to explain why he should not be suspended," said Ismail Vadi, the chairperson of Parliament's portfolio committee on communications.

Vadi was speaking to reporters after the media won an interdict preventing the committee from continuing with an in-camera meeting with the SABC on renewed strife at the broadcaster, a mere eight months after Mokoetle and the new board took up their positions.

The ruling was handed down as an interim order shortly before noon by Acting Judge Sven Olivier, following an urgent application by the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef). It came after the committee allowed SABC chairperson Ben Ngubane -- who has fallen out with commissioners -- to deliver a submission defending his position. "He expressed very serious concerns about the disfunctionality of the board and he cited a whole number of examples which he had experienced which contributed towards the state of disfunctionality."

Following the court order, Vadi decided to suspend the meeting with the SABC indefinitely, rather than proceed and allow the press to attend. He said he needed to discuss the way forward with Parliament. "I think we still need to confer with the speaker's office and the leadership of Parliament about the implications of the judgement because this has a bearing on the functioning of Parliament as a whole and on other committees."

Vadi said the meeting remained urgent because members of the legislature were perturbed by the problems besetting the SABC. These were brought to a head by Mokoetle's decision to name Phil Molefe as head of news without the agreement of the board. Ngubane's backing for the appointment further soured relations between him and commissioners. "It is a matter of very serious concern to the committee, that is why we summoned the board to appear before the committee," Vadi said. He decided last week to close most of the meeting to the press, for fear of the legal implications of having somebody's reputation and position challenged in public.

Sanef had on Monday through its lawyers asked the committee to open the meeting, but the committee decided on Tuesday morning that the session would stay closed to the public and media. Sanef lawyers were in the Western Cape High Court as the meeting got under way. When the committee failed to give an undertaking to suspend the meeting while the application was being heard, they asked Acting Judge Olivier for the order. In his ruling handed down just before noon, Olivier ordered that the committee not proceed with any sitting from which the public, including the media, were excluded. This order would be valid until "the final determination of this matter".

The ruling came amid an increasingly tense stand-off between the media and government over a perceived attack on media freedom, weighted around the Protection of Information Bill and the ANC's proposal for a media tribunal that reports to Parliament. In an affidavit filed in support of Sanef's court application, the forum's secretary general, Gaye Davis, said there was a clear public interest in the meeting. "The SABC is resourced with public funds, and the public has a clear interest in its functioning and a right to information concerning the affairs of the SABC," she said. "As a corollary, the media has a right and indeed an obligation to report on the functioning and affairs of the SABC."

Idasa sent a letter to Vadi on Tuesday criticising the committee's bid to hold the meeting in camera before the court ruling was made. "The problems within the SABC have persisted and holding a closed meeting simply creates the perception that facts are being withheld from the public."

Idasa said Parliament was obliged by section 59 of the Constitution to "conduct its business in an open manner, and hold its sittings and those of its committees in public". Attempting to hold the SABC briefing behind closed doors could set a dangerous precedent, it warned. "Idasa is concerned that closing the meeting will set an unhealthy precedent which other committees may in future also follow, thereby leading to a culture of exclusion and secrecy within Parliamentary committees."

Source: Mail & Guardian

Cosatu supports Media Tribunal

Cosatu supported the ANC's proposal to set up a Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) to regulate the media, City Press newspaper reported today. The newspaper reported that the labour federation wanted a different approach to the tribunal to what the ANC suggested, though. It said there was a "censorship" risk attached to the tribunal as well as the proposed protection of information bill. It warned that the tribunal could become a "censorship" tool as editors could decide to hold back stories about ministers for fear of being "hauled before a MAT that is biased towards government's view".

In a paper for discussion at the federation's central executive meeting which starts tomorrow Cosatu apparently envisaged that the tribunal should include representatives of the print media, the state, and organised civil society, the newspaper said. The discussion paper apparently suggested that state representatives should recuse themselves when the tribunal deals with matters involving government officials or institutions.

At the Ruth First Memorial Lecture on Aug 17, Zwelinzima Vavi, secretary general of Cosatu, criticised the protection of information bill. "If Ruth First were alive, she would ask where all the democrats had gone to after reading about the proposed protection of information bill, which would make a mockery of her work as a journalist".

Source: Business Day

Top writers condemn Protection of Information Bill

Writers threatened by apartheid say they are now being threatened once more, this time by the new Protection of Information Bill and Media Tribunal which is really just another form of censorship.

South Africa’s top authors including Nadine Gordimer, André P. Brink, Zakes Mda, Abraham H. de Vries, Chris Barnard, Breyten Breytenbach, Marlene van Niekerk, Zoë Wicomb, Damon Galgut, Mandla Langa, Etienne van Heerden, Hermann Giliomee, Fred Khumalo and Justice Malala have issued a joint statement warning against the Protection of Information Bill.

The statement says muzzling media freedom affects media in the responsibility and necessity of their function. “..which is to keep citizens informed of all aspects that affect life in the country, whether by government edict, the law, economic practice, or the ethical standards of individual behaviour.”

The statement says denial of freedom of expression makes a mockery of the profession of journalism. But the writers are also unanimous in saying that freedom should be not granted for hate speech in any form, including advocation of violence. They point out that the Constitution deals with inflammatory speech. “Bill of Rights. Freedom of expression. The right does not extend to a) propaganda for war, b) incitement of imminent violence; or c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”

The writers say they are now threatened by denial of freedom of the word. Among the signatures included in the campaign are those of writers whose work was banned under the apartheid regime. They say they are threatened again “(With a) .. a gag over the word processor if we penetrate the ‘transparency’ promised in the new South Africa, which a Media Tribunal will replace with the descent of a shutter over the dialogue of the arts in the attempt of understanding who and what we are, where we come from and what we may yet become.”

They say the Media Tribunal is really just a pseudonym for censorship and “...so, if the work and the freedom of the writer are in jeopardy, the freedom of every reader in South Africa is in danger. Consequently our protest is an action undertaken by South Africans for all South Africans, committing ourselves to a demand for our free country: freedom of thought expressed, freedom of dialogue, freedom from fear of the truth about ourselves, all South Africans.”

The full text of the statement by the South African Writers can be found here.

Source: Business Day

Why now?

There is no doubt that the media is facing the greatest threat to its freedom since the advent of democracy. The proposed Protection of Information Bill and Media Appeals Tribunal, the proposed Protection from Harassment Bill (which thankfully seems to have been put on hold), the proposed Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Amendment Bill and the proposed Public Broadcasting Service Bill all aim to tighten the control of the government over the free flow of information.

We are far from the dark days of apartheid (see picture below) when the Nationalist government muzzled the press to try and retain its illegitimate power. We live in a constitutional democracy now and our courts will probably play a pivotal role in preventing the muzzling of the media (or will at least limit the effectiveness of such attempts). They will do so, because most judges understand that the free flow of information is, of course, the lifeblood of any democracy.

The question is: why now? Why is the government of the day orchestrating this concerted effort to change the way in which our media report on government activities? It is tempting to find an answer by turning to the personalities involved and arguing that President Zuma and other ANC leaders are upset about how the media has reported on their own activities and actions. But another reason for this attack on the media suggests itself and can be found in the utterances and documents of the ruling party itself.

Perhaps the move against the free media is based on a realistic acknowledgement on the part of the ANC that it is facing a crisis of legitimacy. It seems incapable of addressing this crisis, so some of its leaders might believe that the only way to deal with the problem is to stop the reporting on events that has precipitated this crisis.

I offer a few quotes below to illustrate this point. President Jacob Zuma at a March 2008 National Executive Committee (NEC) Meeting:

When elected leaders at the highest level openly engage in factionalist activity, where is the movement that aims to unite the people of South Africa for the complete liberation of the country from all forms of discrimination and national oppression? When money changes hands in the battle for personal power and aggrandizement, where is the movement that is built around membership that joins without motives of material advantage and personal gain? When the members of the NEC themselves engage in factionalist activity, media leaks and rumour-mongering, how can we ex pect the membership of our movement to carry out their duties toobserve di scipline, behave honestly and carry out loyally the decisions of the majority and the decision of higher bodies?

From the admirably frank document on “Leadership Renewal, discipline and organizational culture” prepared for the ANC National General Council later this year, which highlights the following tenancies in the ANC:

12.1 Leadership in the ANC is seen as stepping-stones to positions of power and material reward in government and business (Organisational report to the 1997 Mafikeng Confe rence).

12.2 The emergence of social distance between ANC cadres in positions of power from the motive forces which the ANC represent, with the potential to render elements in the movement “progressively lethargic to the conditions of the poor.” (Strategy and Tactics, 1997)

12.3 Disturbing trends of “careerism, corruption and opportunism,” alien to a revolutionary movement, taking roots at various levels, eating at our soul and with potential to denude our society of an agent of real change. (Midterm Review, NGC, 2000)

12.4 Divisive leadership battles over access to resources and patronage becoming the norm and allegations about corruption and business interests of leadership and deployed cadres abounding (Organisational report to the Stellenbosch Conference, 2002).

49. Failure to build a New Person (continued the 2000 NGC document), among revolutionaries themselves and, in a more diffuse manner in broader society, will result in a critical mass of the vanguard movement being swallowed in the vortex of the arrogance of power and attendant social distance and corruption, and, ultimately, themselves being transformed by the very system they seek to change. An important challenge, among others, is thus to ensure a systematic intervention by the ideological centres and institutions of society, as well as mothers and fathers and the family as a whole in shaping social values and a new morality.

53. Strategy and Tactics (2007: par. 138) recognizes the challenges and ‘sins’ of incumbency (patronage, bureaucratic indifference, arrogance of power, corruption) and suggests approaches to the management of relations within the organization. Our ability to manage this minefield, it contends, will determine “our future survival as a principled leader of the process of fundamental change, an organization respected and cherished by the mass of people for what it represents and how it conducts itself in actual practice.”

From the various ANC discussion documents it is clear that the problem of legitimacy facing the ANC has long been acknowledged by the movement. As far back as the Stellenbosch conference in 2002 these “tendencies” were identified. But now, eight years later, the problem has become more acute and the movement has been unable to address them in any meaningful way. It is one thing to admit the problem. It is a completely different matter to deal with it effectively.

A culture of forgiveness (or some would call it impunity) starting at the very top of the leadership, makes it very difficult to address the problems and to take decisive action against ANC leaders in government.

Tony Yengeni, due to his admirable role in the struggle, is carried shoulder high to prison. President Jacob Zuma, due to his admirable stance against the dictatorial tendencies of the former President, is elected as leader of the movement despite the fact that he took money from a crook, did favors for that crook and then submitted a fake loan agreement to Parliament to try and justify this. Ebrahim Rasool is accused of handing out brown envelopes to journalists and, because of his good work in the Western Cape, is appointed as ambassador to Washington. MP’s abuse the travel scheme of Parliament, is convicted and remain in their positions.

The list is endless.

The only way the ANC is going to address the problems so frankly and admirably highlighted in the discussion documents is to fundamentally change its prevailing culture which rewards (or at least turns a blind eye) to transgressions, illegality and even criminality.

What is needed is a body (perhaps an improved version of the Scorpions) that will vigorously and impartial investigate corruption, nepotism and the like across the board. Such a body should instill fear in the hearts of every official and politician – whether it is the President or a ward councillor in Lusikisiki. For such a body to have any effect, no one should feel safe from investigation and prosecution. And once a person is investigated and successfully prosecuted he or she should be expelled from the movement – at least for a certain period.

But because the problem seems so widespread (one could say endemic) – as is made clear by the ANC discussion document – it will be very difficult if not impossible for the ANC to take this rout. That is why the Scorpions was abolished and, I would suggest, why the ANC is trying to tighten its grip on the media. Many ANC leaders understand that it has a problem and know that the movement is incapable of dealing with it effectively. The next best thing is therefore to try and hide this fact from the electorate.

But because we live in an open and democratic society this will not be possible. The attempts by the ANC to deal with the firmly entrenched master narrative (a narrative that suggests the ANC has become corrupt and heartless) by muzzling the media is therefore doomed to failure. But I guess some in the ANC believe it is worth a try.

Source: Constitutionally Speaking: Pierre De Vos

Would Media Appeals Tribunal be constitutional?

Many people have asked me whether the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal (MAP) would pass constitutional muster. We already know that the proposal for a MAP is wrongheaded, self-serving, deeply reactionary and unnecessary. But if Parliament passed a law that further limited the freedom of the printed media to publish what it deems important, and if such a law subjected the printed media to the dictates of a MAP, would this limitation on the freedom of expression be justifiable in terms of our Bill of Rights?

The short and somewhat unsatisfactory answer is that it is far too early to answer this question.

The various ANC proposals for a MAP and the various justifications for this Tribunal have been so confusing and contradictory that it is impossible to say what such a Tribunal would actually be empowered to adjudicate on, how it would be constituted and what its powers might be.

Last week Julius Malema stated that the ANC has already decided on such a Tribunal and that it wants Parliament to appoint it. He seemed to envisage that such a Tribunal would prevent the printed media from publishing certain facts which had been denied by politicians (and those lucky individuals connected to politicians) because such facts would be “mere gossip”.

These people [members of the printed media] are dangerous. They write gossip and present it as facts.

President Jacob Zuma, citing his experiences in Russia (that bastion of freedom of expression, respect for human rights and democracy), indicated last week that such a Tribunal would protect politicians from the publication of facts about their “private lives”. This is a contradiction in terms, as in an open and democratic society only the most intimate aspects of a politicians’ life can be said always to be truly private. (Of course, President Zuma has a vested interest in stopping the media from reporting on his private life, given the fact that his private life is rather adventurous and does not always conform to what he claims to believe when he speaks in public.)

He has also argued that the media tramples on peoples rights (by which I take him to mean the rights of politicians and their friends) to human dignity.

He continued by suggesting that the problem with the media was not only that it sometimes reported badly or even wrongly on events: it was ideological. Because some in the printed media do not agree with everything ANC leaders do and say, they are not in tune with the South African public. As President Zuma wrote:

The media must seriously conduct an introspection (sic) and open a constructive debate about the role of this institution in a post-apartheid South Africa. Is the media a mirror of South African society? Is it in touch with what the majority of South Africans feel and think? Does this institution actually know and understand South Africans? Why was it surprised by the explosion of national pride during the Soccer World Cup tournament? Why did South Africans decide to rise above the daily diet of negativity and defeatism that they are fed daily in the media?

So what is it to be? Will a Tribunal take over the role of the Press Ombudsman – but with enhanced powers? Will it censor journalists to stop them reporting “gossip” or other facts that are routinely denied by the well connected and the powerful? Will it be used to ensure that the media change its ideological stripes so that it becomes more compliant and in touch with what the majority of South Africans (read, members of the ANC) feel and think?

Before we have answers to these questions (on which the various ANC cadres who have commented on the need for a MAP seem to differ) it is not really possible to say whether the MAP has any chance of passing constitutional muster. A few preliminary points may be of interest though.

First, a MAP empowered to adjudicate on and punish members of the printed media will have to be independent. If it is not independent, it will be unconstitutional. A body appointed by Parliament will not be independent as it will in effect be appointed by the majority party.

If the proposed law therefore creates a MAP appointed by Parliament and that law empowers the MAP to punish journalists and newspapers, the law would be dead in the water. The limitation on press freedom would be so egregious that it could never be justifiable in an open and democratic society (although it might be well received in Russia) and would therefore not be found to be justifiable by our Constitutional Court.

Second, a MAP – even an independent one – that is empowered to address the perceived ideological impurity of some sections in the media will also be dead in the water. The very essence of media freedom hinges on the prohibition of state interference with the ideological content of what the media publishes. If the President does not like the attitude or ideological perspective of some in the media he has every right to complain and moan and shout about it. He can also make reasonable arguments about why the media is too cynical, hysterical or negative about South Africa.

But in the end – from a constitutional perspective, at least – he (or the legislature) has no power to interfere with the media to try and change the way it reports on what is happening in South Africa. If a newspaper only wants to report on corruption, crime, and how evil the ANC is, it has a constitutional right to do so (I might not buy that paper, but many others – with money to burn – probably will).

Just as members of the media can complain about the ANC but cannot tell the ANC what to think or do, so the ANC can complain about the media but cannot tell it what to write and what not to write. If the ANC wants to get the media to be more positive and less hysterical it needs to convince the media to do so through persuasion, charm and - just a thought – through good governance.

Third, if the MAP will be empowered to address the possible infringement of the dignity of individuals by the media, this might also be constitutionally problematic. At the moment courts are legally empowered to deal with this through our defamation laws. The Constitutional Court has developed our common law of defamation to bring it in line with the guarantees of media freedom and it is now far more difficult for any person – including any politician – successfully to sue the media for defamation.

If the MAT is required to apply a less onerous standard when it deals with complaints about the infringement of the human dignity of anyone, this would therefore most probably also be unconstitutional. If a court cannot impose a stricter standard to punish the media for defamation, then a MAP – who will always be less indpendent than a court – will never be constitutionally allowed to do so.

These preliminary remarks indicate that there is very little that the proposed MAP could legally and constitutionally do that the existing Press Ombudsman or the courts cannot already do. This suggests that the members of Parliament will waste lots and lots of their time – time perhaps better spent attending to the concerns of constituents about potholes, trigger happy policeman, lack of toilets and running water and dysfunctional schools. The legislature will thus either pass a law creating a MAP that will not change anything, or it will pass a law creating a MAP that would be unconstitutional and therefore would be declared invalid by our courts.

The question to ask (but maybe not of the Chief State Law Advisor) is: why bother?

Source: Constitutionally Speaking: Pierre De Vos

U.S. Ambassador Warns on Media Tribunal

US AMBASSADOR to SA Donald Gips yesterday cautioned the country to carefully consider the implications of establishing a media appeals tribunal. Mr Gips becomes the latest high-profile figure to enter the debate on the mooted tribunal, aimed at regulating the media in SA. The debate was ignited by the ruling party's proposal that a media tribunal be established to monitor information published by media houses.

Mr Gips urged the government and the media to "reach common ground". He said: "I believe the challenge here is to balance that right of criticism with the need for media professionalism and standards for truthful and fair reporting. The media and government must come together to agree on specific and concrete standards for the management of sensitive information that also guarantee free speech and the right to dissent." Mr Gips was speaking at the South African Institute of International Affairs in Johannesburg.

South African National Editors' Forum chairman Mondli Makhanya said yesterday that he was very encouraged by the interest the international community had taken "in this worrying development". "Those people driving these processes must realise that SA is not some small island in the Pacific and what happens in this country is being very closely watched by the world."

In a debate with media professionals on Tuesday night, African National Congress (ANC) spokesman Jackson Mthembu defended the party's right to raise the idea of a media appeals tribunal. Mr Mthembu said the tribunal will not serve as a punitive measure to put journalists behind bars. He claimed it aims to hold media houses accountable for publishing defamatory stories without sufficient evidence.

In response, City Press editor Ferial Haffajee contended that the proposed tribunal is a red herring to intimidate journalists and stop them publishing embarrassing stories on government corruption. The ANC is on a countrywide drive to garner support from its members and the wider public to realise the tribunal as a legal, enforceable regulatory body. At this stage, it is still a discussion document ahead of the organisation's national general council, expected to take place next month.

This week, SA's business community also labelled the document another attempt to muzzle the media. Business Leadership SA - an influential body representing major businesses in the country - rejected the notion of a government- controlled media tribunal. International media associations have also added their voices to the mounting concern. US-based body the Committee to Protect Journalists on Tuesday wrote a letter to President Jacob Zuma urging him to use his influence as head of state to prevent the establishment of the tribunal in its present form.

Source: All Africa

‘Media Bill threat to investment’

ANY attempt by government to restrict the free flow of information or to circumscribe the liberty of the media should be opposed, one of South Africa’s largest retailers said yester day. “Pick n Pay recognises that there is a close link between economic and political freedom, and the economic freedom on which business depends flourishes best when citizens are able to rely on an unfettered flow of information that is free from excessive government control and regulation,” chairperson Gareth Ackerman said in a statement.

He was referring to a controversial ANC proposal for a media appeals tribunal, and to the Protection of Information Bill. “To the extent that the Protection of Information Bill and the proposed media appeals tribunal threaten that freedom, all sectors of South African society are justified in opposing them.”

Ackerman said the business sector should not believe itself exempt from this duty of responsible citizenship. “We thus have no hesitation in adding our voices to those who have expressed their misgivings about the consequences of the governing party’s proposals.”

All the historical evidence spoke unambiguously on the relationship between political freedom and a free market, he said. “An open society is one in which government is responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible, in which political leaders can be replaced without the need for bloodshed, and in which the rule of law, property rights and freedom of economic initiative are guaranteed.” Ackerman said throughout the world, nations with more economic freedom were wealthier than nations with less economic freedom. “There are no wealthy nations that have little economic freedom.”

For those reasons, any attempt by government to restrict the free flow of information should be opposed. “There is no doubt that the South Africa of today is a far, far better place than it was before 1994,” Ackerman said. “We live in a country that is governed not by the unchallengeable dictates of Cabinet ministers or security chiefs, but by the entrenched principles of a progressive Constitution which binds Parliament and citizen alike to a judiciable Bill of Rights, a free press and an independent judiciary.”

Ackerman said the fact that South Africa had escaped its past and had launched itself on a road to prosperity and human rights should be a matter of great pride. “But those ethical sensitivities which drove us onwards in the days of apartheid cannot be allowed to slumber contentedly now that liberation has come.”

Ackerman said that over its history Pick n Pay had had its own conflicts with the press. “But we have never lost sight of the fact that the media play an indispensable and valuable role in monitoring the conduct and standards of business and that, however irksome this may occasionally be, that role should never be suppressed or intimidated.”

Ackerman said any perceived limitation on media freedom would be negatively viewed by the international markets on which South Africa relied for investment. “The positive sentiment generated by the World Cup and the consideration that international business is giving to investing in South Africa makes this all the more important.”

Foreign investors required the assurance that South Africa was serious about combating corruption and waste, that government affairs were transparent and accountable, and that information was readily available and reliable. “In the absence of these features, South Africa’s reputation as a destination for foreign investment will suffer, as will our reputation as a state that is governed by the rules of openness and accessibility.”

Source: Online Dispatch

US media urges Zuma to shelve tribunal

A body representing major media houses in the United States has sent a letter to President Jacob Zuma urging him to shelve legislative proposals that would "severely restrict" South African media.

"We call on you as the head of state and leader of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to ensure that such proposals are either amended in line with constitutional safeguards for freedom of the press and access to information, or withdrawn altogether in the interest of preserving the transparency, accountability, and democracy gained after apartheid," the letter penned by the newly established Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said.

The committee, consisting of leading media houses including NBC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post, was responding to the ANC's proposal on an independent media tribunal and the Protection of Information Bill. "The Protection of Information Bill currently before parliament is meant to replace an apartheid-era law dating from 1982... It would virtually shield the government from the scrutiny of the independent press and criminalise activities essential to investigative journalism, a vital public service," the letter said. Journalists, under the proposed law, would face "heavy" jail time for violations.

The committee said according to its research and legal experts, officials and state agencies would have unchecked authority to classify any public or commercial data as secret, confidential, protected, or sensitive based on "national interest" and without any explanation. "National interest would, for instance, include details of criminal investigations, a definition that risks chilling coverage of public law enforcement and judicial matters," it said. Journalists found guilty of unauthorised disclosure of official or classified information could face up to 25 years in jail.

The committee said further that the proposed tribunal would issue "unspecified sanctions" for complaints against the press. "Moreover, we believe members of the public already have mechanisms of legal redress to settle disputes with the press in addition to the existing media self-regulatory institutions," it said.

The CPJ said it was also concerned that the arrest of Sunday Times journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika may have been in retaliation for critical coverage of ANC officials. "The growth of South Africa's democracy will depend on the government's acceptance and tolerance of the media's scrutiny of its performance," the CPJ said. "We therefore call on you to amend or shelve the Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunals proposal as they undermine guarantees for a free media and access to information as enshrined in the Constitution."

The letter comes just days after the Vienna-based International Press Institute -- a global network of publishers, editors and journalists --sent a similar letter to Zuma saying that recent moves would endanger the independence and vitality of South African media.

Source: Times Live

SA too great to be destroyed by fools

Not long ago this year, our nation was made to benefit from free political drama. The main actor in this was Cosatu’s Secretary General, Mr Zwelinzima Vavi. On behalf of his organisation, Vavi publicly read out a statement to register Cosatu’s concern that President Jacob Zuma remained silent about allegations of corruption levelled at some of his ministers.

Not unexpectedly, the ministers concerned were livid against Vavi, and indeed Zuma continued to remain silent. As we held our breaths to see how the drama would end, the ANC dramatically entered the theatre; it threatened to haul Vavi before its disciplinary committee.

Invariably, grotesquely theatrical moments in drama leave observers with dropped jaws. And so did the ANC choke our collective soul as a nation. In a kind of corruption-vs-society scenario, few would believe it to be true that the ANC could adopt a pro-corruption posture.

In its 2009 election manifesto, the ANC is unambiguous about its commitment to fight corruption. It states clearly “Corruption must be stamped out”. Therefore, when Cosatu calls for allegedly corrupt ministers to be investigated, readers of the manifesto would quite logically expect the ANC’s political morality to side with Vavi, rather than with the ministers.

In line with the spirit of the ANC manifesto, Cosatu was right in calling for President Zuma to investigate the ministers, since Zuma is the leader of Cabinet. His unwillingness to investigate – and the ANC’s threats to charge Vavi – leaves us with no option but seriously to doubt if Zuma is indeed committed to the manifesto of his party, which says “Corruption must be stamped out”.

Who will investigate who?

While our nation continued to wonder as to when President Zuma will finally institute an investigation against the ministers, the theatrical moment got even more unbelievable. Serious allegations now dominate our newspapers that, beyond the near-dearth Schabir Shaik, Zuma is currently being corrupted by a family from India, the Guptas. The Kumba/ArceloMittal saga – in which the Guptas and Zuma’s very own son were controversially involved – conjures up kleptocratic images, reminiscent of former Zairian leader Mobutu Sese Seko, who used his office to amass wealth. Suddenly, the Zuma surname seems to have become a winning business formulary.

When corruption allegations were levelled against ministers, Cosatu thought that Zuma was the suited higher authority to institute an investigation. Of course, this did not happen. Now that a cloud of corruption hangs over Zuma himself, a more difficult question demands answers: Who will investigate who? As for the ANC, we now know that the party sides with those who are alleged of corruption. Therefore, we can rest assured that the party will threaten anyone who would dare call for Zuma’s investigation. Fortunately, the author of this column is not a Cosatu Secretary General, he would certainly be charged for expressing an opinion.

All this happens against the backdrop of concerted efforts to prevent the media from reporting critically about acts of corruption on the part of those who hold public office. There is a party spokesperson with an interesting dental formula who is on record saying that journalists must be jailed. Coincidentally, this spokesperson comes from Mpumalanga, a province where politicians who speak against corruption literally get killed. If the mooted media tribunal does not succeed in silencing journalists, one can only hope that what happens to honest politicians in Mpumalanga will not happen to journalists, or to the author of this column. As we have all witnessed, the jailing of journalists has already begun.

Parallel to efforts to silence independent media, the public broadcaster – the SABC – is brazenly being remodelled as a media desk of the ANC. Recently on Siki Mgabadeli’s show, the new head of SABC news, Phil Molefe, comically announced what he calls his “new strategy”, which is a rehash of the ANC’s five priorities: jobs, crime, health, education and rural development.

While these priorities are indeed noble, it is rather strange when the head of news of the national broadcaster parrots them exactly as they appear in President Zuma’s speeches. Should we be surprised, therefore, that the SABC does not tell our nation that there are allegations that the president is corrupt? Imagine the SABC being the only source of information for us; would we have known how dirty our politicians are by watching news at seven?

Protect freedom of expression

We must not forget that the threat to clip the wings of the media is a matter far bigger than the clamour to protect silly journalists; it is a fundamental question of the freedom of expression. Unlike that of an animal, the human spirit has a natural urge for self-expression that politicians – however drunk with power – must never be allowed to trammel. In an article published in 1940, entitled Freedom and the Colleges, acclaimed philosopher Bertrand Russell makes this point with unequalled eloquence:

Let it be remembered that what is at stake...is the freedom of the individual human spirit to express its beliefs and hopes for mankind, whether they be shared by many or by few or none. New hopes, new beliefs, and new thoughts are at all times necessary to mankind, and it is not out of a dead uniformity that they can be expected to arise.

Imagine if all of us were like Phil Molefe, whose “new strategy” reproduces a dead uniformity with Zuma. Imagine if the thoughts we hold as individuals were to be expressed only if they are shared by many. Imagine if the freedom of the individual human spirit to express its beliefs and hope were to be threatened by the possibility of being punished harshly by a media tribunal, or suppressed by an apartheid-like Protection of Information Bill, introduced by latter-day looters of public funds who masquerade as leaders. This might please an unintelligent spokesperson from Mpumalanga, but it would certainly do very little to release the natural urge of the human spirit freely to express itself.

Corruption has brought our nation speedily to the brink of collapse. Like cancer, money has spread into every corner of South Africa’s body politic; a colossal social catastrophe is imminent. Many in society now see politics as a great stage of clowns; the integrity of our public institutions has been hollowed out. The most talented in our communities no longer feel the urge to serve the public, and the stage is left completely to the dumbest of fools. The danger of foolishness is that when it fails to persuade, it resorts hastily to force.

In times like this, all truly patriotic South Africans have a national duty to tell the truth about the unfolding drama before our own eyes. We must seize every space and opportunity to make it known that Zwelinzima Vavi is right in calling for an investigation against allegedly corrupt Ministers, or the President himself. If we do not do this, we will not have answers when our children ask: Where were you and what did you do when South Africa began to degenerate?

Source: News 24: Prince Mashele

The ANC's anti-media campaign and its unexpected brilliance

Over the past couple of months, many editors, journalists and analysts have been surprised, indeed taken aback by the effectiveness of the ANC's march towards what would effectively be criminalising the free media. Here's how they're doing it.

For many years now we've grown accustomed to just about anything touched by the ANC-dominated government wilting and dying. Government departments are in chaos, many of them without functioning directors general, with parastatals faring even worse. And yet it appears that the ANC just had a moment of shining clarity in its latest war against its über-enemy, the media. They are actually doing it well, very well.

Unity is a crucial element in doing anything of importance in an organisation as diverse as the ANC. Riven by divisions and run through with meetings dominated by “robust discussion”, the ANC was always at its best when mobilising against the common enemy. And this time, it’s facing one enemy that all its factions can heartily unite against - the media. The desire and, quite frankly, the need, to stop freedom of the media in this country runs so strongly, that it even managed to split previously unbreakable ties between SA’s communists and Cosatu, which is so far resisting calls to muzzle the media.

In its anti-media march, the ANC felt, or knew, that it would never be able to convince anyone else except its own ranks, that its moves were nothing other than extreme ways of protecting its own turf and extinguishing what it sees as its own enemy. And that's exactly where its campaign's brilliance lies.

In every campaign, and especially in one as tough as this is shaping up to be, it is important to understand what needs to be achieved. This time (and at this point, we need to clarify that we do not know if it was a conscious decision or a lucky fluke) the focus is, quite rightly, being put on convincing ANC members and voters that the party is right.

When you position your goal in that way, it is not about building the best argument anymore, but rather about building an entire eco-system in which all things ANC are good, and all things media are bad. It allows for statements that appear mind-bogglingly crazy and easily debunked by anyone with a triple-digit IQ and 30 seconds on Google. Because it is not about truth or lies. It is about the right; the ANC's right to set the rules in South Africa, and that is that.

The way the ANC officials update their thoughts and statements daily also smacks of the recipe taken from the US Republican party's handbook. It is an incredibly effective system of talking points that the GOPers developed, in which the notes are distributed daily to all the talking heads and spokespeople for the party. As a result, each and every newspaper, TV and radio station quotes the people singing from the same song sheet, amplifying the message of the day. And, more than anything, statements that are repeated all the time make people remember them. (We are reluctant to give the ANC that much credit though; it is possible that the mechanism of repeating the message could be just plain parroting, but the result is the same: Every time the position of the day is repeated, one more morsel is added to its audience's resolve.)

And the ANC leaders know their own audience. They know how to talk to them, they know what buttons to push to get the “down with media!” reaction. For Blade Nzimande it was even easier to convince his party members that the media is the root of all evils. Never in history has there been a communist party ruling a one-party state in which any kind of free media was allowed.

Here are the best examples of the campaign, its nature and its efficiency. Use Lenin's old saying: Many times repeated a lie becomes the truth. Use it liberally.

When Blade Nzimande says the media is the greatest threat to South African democracy, it is obvious that the statement has nothing to do with reality. Quite the opposite, actually. No true democratic state can exist without a thriving free media, which has been proven all over the world. On one side, the good doctor probably genuinely believes that the USSR, China, Cuba, Libya, North Korea and, God bless them, the German Democratic Republic, were or are true genuine democracies. But to the rest of the world they are not. And yet, the same “media threatening our democracy” statements are repeated by so many officials that many people in South Africa will now readily repeat it as an absolute truth, regardless of its non-existing connection with truth. Lenin would have been proud of his little helper.

Use half-truths, reverse logical processes, but make sure your target market never bothers thinking about the whole truth:

Nzimande uses his favorite example (you could use 'whipping boy'), former Cape Argus reporter Ashley Smith, who was bribed by Ebrahim Rasool, as solid proof that every South African journalist has sold out.

The logic will say that the rules are always made by observing many events, measuring the elements of many experiments and then, after careful comparison, drawing a proper conclusion that would successfully predict the way other elements will behave. In the case of Argus journalist Ashley Smith’s bribing scandal, the good doctor Blade turns that principle upside down, using a sample of one to presume how thousands would behave.

The same logic is being used every time someone in the SA media makes a mistake, making it a good and properly scientific reason to deal with the entire media community. That logic has been enhanced somewhat of late by using, hold on to your hats, a mere possibility that someone's dignity could be hurt, as a good reason to stop free media from ever coming into position that might make it possible.

But that's not the doctor's only fallacy, of course. In an extraordinary somersault of logic, he avoids the principle he just established and fails to conclude that, if Ibrahim Rasool bribes a journalist, then every ANC official bribes journalists.

Of course, Julius Malema considerably added to the “robust media debate” by claiming that the media put his and his family's lives in danger during the days immediately after Eugene Terre-Blanche's death by claiming that him singing “kill the boer” song encouraged the murderers. Of course, he conveniently forgot to say that he did sing the incendiary song, many times, to start the race debate and make the media forget about his tenderprenurial woes at that moment. And by saying a half-truth, Malema knows that his target market forgot any inconvenient truths and would believe everything he said, no matter how remote its connection was to reality.

All these examples owe their effectiveness to the existence of this crucial ANC's eco-system: it is a double-standard system which makes it impossible for the “Greatest Liberation Movement” to ever be wrong. In that system, it becomes entirely logical that Rasool was only an aberration that was harshly dealt with by being sent to Washington DC, while the entire media needs to be punished because of the one. Malema is also the victim of the horrible media monsters. Because the ANC can't be wrong.

Media is THE most powerful group in the country and, because of this, it must be dealt with by the representatives elected by the people.

Statements like this would mostly produce a chuckle were it not that such nonsense at such dangerous moments have immense power. A party that controls almost 66% of Parliament, federal government with all parastatals, eight out of nine provinces, institutions of democracy, a party that has infiltrated big and small business nationwide, that directly controls the state broadcaster, is somehow a weakling here. Somehow, the media, that does not control a cent of the budgets, nor issues any licenses or concessions, BEE processes, appointments of officials or actually anything else, is now the big bad wolf out to get the ANC's poor little sheep. And yet this picture, as preposterous as it is, is currently taking hold among ordinary ANC members and their voters. Because they WANT to believe it.

But still, all of the examples listed so far can be seen as one side fighting a smart battle, not much different from a usual US election duel. The members of the ANC these days routinely call talk shows to debate and leave long comments on websites and that could be a sign that they are becoming serious about taking their views to the public. (A cynic could also point that they are using the media network in order to destroy it.)

But the way the following issues are framed by the ANC are where things become downright dangerous and will probably haunt this country for a long time to come. The first one is:

Free media is somehow against black culture and only serving white liberals.

Racial profiling has been a deeply worrying element of the SA's political scene of late. Its champions, the Youth League under Malema's leadership, are not strangers to using the most crass racism in their press statements and speeches. We now find more and more voices adding to statements that it is not in African culture to criticise elders and that the party in power is, by default, an elder. Also by default, is that only white people support the media that can do whatever they want and that fighting against freedom of media in our society is somehow part of the black DNA. The ANC will probably be relatively successful in pushing this dangerous point that will turn to bite this country many times in the future.

Together with the racially divisive tactics, is the equally dangerous framing of the creation of false choices. Here's the one used the most:

What is more important, for the poor to get water or to have free media?

The structure is always the same: on one side is something really important and close to hearts of many, and on the other side is the free media. It is, of course, a complete nonsense that these are mutually exclusive and the village is far more likely to get the water if the media reports on government's delays or shoddy delivery. But the emotional power of the left hand side of the choice will blind many an inexperienced person into believing the free media should die right now in order for granny to get water. It is a truly dangerous, criminal way of conducting the propaganda war.

The ANC's war against the media is a truly fascinating subject and one day will be a basis of the great study of a society desperately trying to push a self-destruct button. By choosing not to really talk to the media or anyone else supporting the freedom of expression in the country, and only to their own people, the ANC has chosen an effective path that will strengthen its lines for the time being and may even finally bring them the obedient media they so crave. But the reversal of the late 20th century's gains of freedom of expression will bring long-term misery to South Africa. Unfortunately, there's only one way for them to find that out.

Source: The Daily Maverick

For democracy's sake, mistrust the government

Being politically ignorant has become symbolic of young people today, but, unless we wake up to a full understanding of how the African National Congress now poses a threat to democracy itself, we risk losing the freedoms we come to take for granted.

There are three things no person should ever boast about - being a drug addict, being a social media “expert” and being politically ignorant. It is, therefore, with a sense of disquiet that I note how many young South Africans proudly declare “I don’t know anything about politics, and I don’t want to know because it doesn’t affect me.” Is it any wonder then, that the ruling party can steamroll constitutional rights with gay abandon, safe in the knowledge that their constituency will do nothing to stop them?

A few columns ago, I defended political apathy among the youth by saying, “We are creatures of circumstance – we act upon and react to what life throws at us. Our circumstances allow us to become politically apathetic. Our struggle is not about politics – it’s about economics. Our struggle heroes are men like Herman Mashaba.”

Things have changed drastically since then. The government and ruling party have mounted one of the single greatest threats to democracy in South Africa by introducing a mass of new legislation, including the Protection of Information Bill and laws that would put in place a media appeals tribunal. Our circumstances have changed, drastically changed. Our situation no longer allows us to be politically apathetic.

Democracy is a demanding ideal. It requires an active constituency that keeps the government in check at all times. Democracy demands that the government should be fearful of the people. Totalitarianism on the other hand, requires nothing more than for people to do as they are told, to blindly follow their government wherever it leads and for the people never to question the government.

North Korea and Kim Jong Il have become the embodiment of the “cult of personality” in our times. We may be tempted to congratulate ourselves for escaping a similar fate in South Africa. But when I observe the almost unthinking adulation for the ANC by young people, despite the party becoming consumed by the naked plunder of state resources, corruption and the “African big man” mentality, then I begin to wonder whether there isn’t a cult of personality of sorts here, aimed not at an individual, but at a political party as a whole. It’s not as if it hasn’t happened in other African countries before.

The ANC is elevating itself to the position of sole protector of rights, as it is busy elevating itself to sole “liberator” of the people, and we are complicit in this perversion of history and government by not questioning and criticising the government. The ruling party believes that since it single-handedly wrested democracy from the hands of the apartheid government, the ANC alone can rule and alone can give or take away rights.

Not all is well in the media, but a media appeals tribunal is not the way to go about fixing these problems. Anyone who would think the way to solve problems within the media is through government control is throwing the Constitution into the dustbin, and abandoning all pretences of living in a constitutional democracy.

The saddest part is that my generation is not equipping itself with the tools necessary to become an active participant in the democratic process. We are not reading up on critical investigative reports that expose corruption and mismanagement of public funds. We are not reading at all. We are woefully ignorant of the erosion of our rights and our freedoms. We stand idly by as the government launches a broadside attack on the media because we don’t grasp how this could possibly affect us. We’d rather concern ourselves with what Khethiwe did on “Generations” than with the future of our country.

Is it any wonder that race still dominates political discourse in this country? It’s all we know. That’s where we’re safe, where we can hold our own ground with rank clichés and bumper-sticker slogans. When macroeconomic policy or the rule of law come up, we quickly hide behind, “I don’t care about politics because it doesn’t affect me”.

The woeful absence of anything that begins to resemble an attractive opposition party aside, we are voting with our hearts, not our heads.

What a dreadful, dreadful mistake we are making. We trust our government. We trust the ANC. If we were voting for the ANC because it presented the best policies and leaders of all, and if it stood to lose its grip on power at any moment if it did anything to upset the constituency, there would be no talk of a Protection of Information Bill and there would be no attempts to muzzle the media.

We can still save this country. It’s not too late yet. The first step is to stop blindly trusting the government and the ANC. They are in power for us, not for themselves.

Source: The Daily Maverick

Why ANC hates a free press

There has been anger, consternation and disappointment over the ANC's two-pronged move to gag the media through a tribunal and a "protection of information" bill. I am surprised there has been so much surprise. These attempts to gag the press have nothing to do with the need for accuracy on the part of journalists, or protecting the dignity of South Africans, as claimed by ANC spokesmen.

They have, however, everything to do with the fact that the ANC right now has the weakest, greediest, most corrupt and compromised leadership since its birth 98 years ago. These so-called leaders want to shut down the medium that exposes their corruption, looting and hypocrisy.

In Polokwane, the ANC had a choice between a high road and a low road. It could, in thumping Thabo Mbeki's ambitions for a third term, have elected a leader more talented and better equipped to deliver on the promise of a free, united, non-racial and democratic South Africa. But, as happens in all kangaroo courts and mob slayings, in its rush to destroy Mbeki the ANC chose a man whose most marked traits were a talent for populist rhetoric and an inability to lead effectively. The ANC went for the lesser man, someone whose moral, intellectual and leadership skills remain a mystery to the nation.

The ANC did not stop there. Many in its current leadership know nothing but the world of the jackboot and violence: securocrats dominate the top echelons of the party. These are not leaders who enjoy the light shone by a free press. They prefer the dark; they like secrets and the cover-ups that allow corruption to flourish. A man who sleeps with his friends' children - one of them with mental problems and HIV-positive - cannot tolerate a free press that keeps putting the spotlight on the reprehensible behaviour of elected representatives. Such a man cannot understand or tolerate the watchdog role of the press, hence President Jacob Zuma's utterance this week: "The constitution talks about the privacy of people. At times, things that are private are not made private in the manner in which the reportings are done."

It is in this context that one must understand the virulence of the ANC and the president on this matter. Zuma would much rather have had the country be silent while he spoke with a forked tongue on moral regeneration (a programme of which he was a government leader), safe sex (an issue on which he was supposedly a government leader) and the dangers of having multiple concurrent relationships without using protection. This is not an elected leader who wants to be examined. The continued spotlight on him, every day and every hour, ensures that he will be found wanting. So we should not be surprised that he does not like the light. He likes things to remain "private" despite the fact that he occupies a public office.

The ANC leadership is aware that the rot has spread through the whole organisation. The party's discussion documents for its national general council meeting paint such a damning picture that it is amazing that an organisation so committed to secrecy should have made them public. But debate is one thing and action is another. This is an ANC that is ready to acknowledge in public that corruption is destroying it - but, as evidence mounts that all is not right with the business dealings of its senior leader and Communications Minister Siphiwe Nyanda (the Public Protector has called for an investigation of the man) - the party stands frozen.

This is the party that wants the press to stop pointing out these wrongs. Nyanda himself wants a media tribunal. Of course he would. The press is the only entity that has dared to expose his extravagant lifestyle at taxpayers' expense: buying hugely expensive cars, living it up on champagne and sleeping at five-star hotels. All this in a country where millions go hungry every day.

We should not be surprised. When Zwelinzima Vavi pointed out that Zuma was dragging his heels on Nyanda and allegations of corruption against another minister, the ANC decided to haul Vavi before a disciplinary hearing.

We should not be surprised. Blade Nzimande, a communist leader who disgustingly chose to buy himself a car worth more than a million rands, wants a media tribunal. This is understandable. His hypocrisy in buying himself the car while teachers, doctors and nurses earn a pittance is exposed by the press. He wants these things to be "private".

We should not be surprised. This is what the ANC is today: a rotten, greedy, corrupt and compromised leadership which wants to muzzle the media to hide its looting of the country.

Source: Times Live

Funding the JZ Times

The arrival of a new newspaper on the scene always evokes interest, not only among newspaper people. There has been keen interest in the arrival next month of The New Age (TNA), best described as a Zuma-aligned newspaper because its backers, the Gupta family, are closely associated with the president and his family.

The Mail & Guardian reported that the Guptas all but took over Zuma's recent visit to India. The Guptas have also reportedly described one of Zuma's sons, Duduzane Zuma, who shares mining interests with them, as their own son too.

TNA is unlikely to be yanked in front of the ANC's mooted media tribunal. The paper will unabashedly publish sunshine journalism. It remains to be seen if and how it will report on such stories as the president's love children and the oyster-and-champagne lifestyles of some of our ministers. But when people discuss start-up newspapers the talk quickly moves to money, because it costs a ton to set up one of these. TNA backer Atul Gupta has indicated that he has deep pockets. It is understood that R175-million a year will be invested in the formative years. Its critics believe that its prime purpose will be to put a rosy spin on the ANC in general and its president, Jacob Zuma, in particular. TNA will perhaps be there to help Zuma seek re-election, these critics believe.

The Gupta brothers, Ajay, Atul and Tony, are the drivers behind the successful Sahara computer brand, having settled in South Africa from India in the early 1990s. They have deep pockets but deeper political connections. The numbers are not yet all available but it appears that the Gupta family and its allies will make up about half of the so-called strategic shareholders that ArcelorMittal has brought in. They will also get about half of the R800-million on offer from the steel giant should Imperial Crown Trading convert its prospecting right at Sishen to a full mining right.

A peculiarity of this deal is that ArcelorMittal appears to be doing little more than renting its BEE partners for four years to meet its BEE obligations. At this point it will buy them out at a combined price of between R900-million and R2,1-billion, depending on the performance of its share price. This gives the Gupta interests more than a nice chunk of change to be able to fund its newspaper.

When it hits the streets I will not think of it as The New Age. The Iron Ore Times or the Zuma Times will be more apt.

Source: Mail & Guardian

It’s 'a political game'

Mmanaledi Mataboge talks to press ombudsman Joe Thloloe about the proposed media tribunal

When and why was the press council formed and a press ombudsman appointed?
The system started in the early 1960s when the National Party government was threatening to regulate the media in the same way the ANC is doing now. To ward off that threat, the industry decided to create a media council.

It has been changing over the years, until after the 1994 elections, when it became clear that we needed to create a whole new structure. A judge from the Constitutional Court was asked to do a public inquiry as to what type of a system is adequate. A committee formed by various media organisations appointed a press ombudsman, Ed Linington.

Is there merit in the argument that because you are a former journalist you are lenient on the press?
It's not true. All you have to do is look at all the decisions we have made. They are very well thought out. All the people who accuse us of being biased have not even looked at the results of our work. From August 1 2007 to July 31 this year the number of cases that we handled from the government was 13. Sixty-two percent of these cases were decided in favour of the complainants, who are government- or ANC-related.

The ANC claims that, despite the ombudsman ruling on mistakes made by the press, the same mistakes are repeated over and over again by different newspapers.
It is true that sometimes it gets quite irritating when you have made a decision and you find the same mistake repeated in another publication. We are now considering a structured set of workshops throughout all the newsrooms related to the press code, the press council, self-regulation and ethics generally. Luckily for us, we have not had the same mistake being repeated by the same publication.

Why is it better for the ombudsman not to impose sanctions on journalists and editors?
Almost 95% of self-regulation mechanisms around the world do not impose fines, so we are in line with what the rest of the world is doing.

Why is the press ombudsman better than the proposed tribunal?
The self-regulatory mechanism maintains freedom of expression, which is fundamental to democracy. If a statutory tribunal is created, it is going to have to create a code of conduct, which will be imposed on newspapers from outside the newsroom. That is in breach of the Constitution. The system we have is that publications voluntarily adopt this code. It not imposed from outside, so there is no interference with the freedom of expression.

Why do you think the ombudsman is being criticised for being an inadequate avenue through which the public can complain?
It is much more of a political game than a real issue. When somebody complains to this office, we give them a choice right from the beginning. We say to the person: if you want to clear your name quickly, cost effectively, you can use our system. But if you want damages or any form of an award, you might want to use other tribunals, such as the courts. People have been using this system because they think it's an easier way. If they go to the courts, it is expensive and they [courts] take years before they adjudicate on the matter.

What the ANC is basically saying is that the ombudsman is toothless.
Outsiders think that when a newspaper has to publish an apology on the front page it is not punishment enough. For people inside the industry, you know that having to apologise publicly for a mistake you made erodes your credibility … hence, editors and journalists guard their credibility with their lives.

There have been suggestions before about strengthening the existing press ombudsman's office. What, in your view, needs to be done to strengthen the press ombudsman?
I don't think that it can be strengthened in any way. The suggestions that are being thrown out in the ANC alliance at this point don't make sense. Jailing journalists is absolute rubbish. Fining publications is a possibility but, then again, I don't think it will serve to improve the quality of journalism in this country.

Would the press ombudsman work better if your position was occupied by a retired judge who would not be seen to be biased?
At the pinnacle of our adjudication system is a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal. If I make a decision either of the parties has a right to appeal to the press appeals panel and it is headed by a judge. You cannot be more objective than that.

It seems the ANC has made its mind up and is going to establish the media tribunal anyway.
The sad thing is that if they go ahead, it will mean the taxpayers' money, as well as money from the newspapers, will be spent on lawyers fighting the matter right up to the Constitutional Court. I believe very firmly that the Constitutional Court will not uphold the statutory tribunal for the simple reason that it goes against the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Source: Mail & Guardian

SA's press freedom debate goes global

The furore over the Protection of Information Bill and the ANC's proposed media appeals tribunal (MAT) has gone international, according to a statement sent to the media on Thursday. The Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI) on Wednesday sent an open letter to President Jacob Zuma urging him to address the press freedom concerns. The IPI is a global network of publishers, editors and leading journalists. In the letter, IPI interim director Alison Bethel-McKenzie expressed deep concern over "recent moves which we fear will endanger the independence and vitality of the South African media".

"We believe that plans for a government-appointed media appeals tribunal, as well as a draft Protection of Information Bill, if enacted, will endanger the South African media and thereby threaten the people of South Africa's right to information and rigorous political debate," she said.

The proposed tribunal came despite the fact that a system of self-regulation was already in place through the Press Council, in the form of a Press Ombudsman and an Appeals Panel. The current Press Council had proved its independence and had frequently ruled in favour of ANC and public officials, forcing newspapers to print embarrassing retractions and corrections -- the ultimate sanction for a business that depended on its consumers' loyalty and trust. The current Press Council was inclusive, and both journalists and public representatives sat on the adjudicating panels.

Bethel-McKenzie said any MAT would not be independent.

"If the MAT is appointed by Parliament, it will face an inherent conflict of interest that will skew its rulings in favour of public and party officials and essentially amount to government oversight of the media, which is unacceptable," she said.

The call for a MAT coincided with consideration, by the National Assembly, of the Protection of Information Bill. The bill, which aimed to regulate the classification of secret state information, also contained a number of provisions that would damage investigative journalism in South Africa. The bill provided for a very low threshold for classifying information, but at the same time imposed draconian penalties on those who revealed that information, without providing for a public interest defence. Under the draft law, officials who abused their authority to classify information might be punished with a fine or up to three years in jail. Those who exposed such information, however, would be penalised with between five and 25 years in prison -- an unfair penalty system that encouraged secrecy and could lead to the erosion of investigative journalism.

Bethel-McKenzie said the media played a fundamental role in safeguarding democracy by holding elected officials accountable to the people. Both the bill and the proposed MAT seemed to represent a policy of protecting public officials, and punishing those who would hold them accountable.

"Mr President, as leader of the ANC and of the country, we hope that you will urge the amendment or withdrawal of the Protection of Information Bill, and will act now to end the creation of the media appeals tribunal. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing how your government and your political party will work to ensure continued press freedom in South Africa, and would be happy to meet you, at a time of your convenience, for further discussion," Bethel-McKenzie said.

Source: Mail & Guardian