Behind the governments attack on the media lie more serious problems of ownership and credibility. But the ANC itself is not above criticism, writes Anton Harber
RELATIONS between the government and sections of the media are at a relatively low ebb, President Nelson Mandela said this week in a special address to newspaper editors.
Its a surprising view, because the South African media has never enjoyed as much freedom and as much protection as it has since the April election.
Although many restrictive laws remain on the books, these are being effectively ignored; attempts by some government departments, such as defence, to restrict and manipulate the press are falling flat; there is a livelier, more open political exchange than this country has ever seen (consider an editor mocking the PWV premier as His Regional Highness, the premier calling him a liar in response and the editor then dismissing the provincial leader as an excitable fellow).
Besides all of this, the media has Bill of Rights protection which, though not as strong as had been hoped for, still allows more freedom of expression than ever before.
And Mandela himself this week said the ANC would support moves to strengthen this clause in the Bill of Rights.
So whats the problem?
It is that only part of what the ANC is saying about the media is being heard. The flourishing rhetoric is drowning out what is probably the more important part of the governments message.
There are those ANC leaders who are issuing thinly veiled threats against counter-revolutionary media that undermines the reconstruction and development programme and is overly critical of the new government. This is what has caused the scare and the exchange of insults.
But behind the rhetorical flourishes lies another message, being given in a more sober and reflective way by key ANC leaders such as Mandela and Deputy President Thabo Mbeki.
It is this: the media, that great champion of change, has itself not gone through the kind of change one would have expected. Mandela this week outlined three problems he sees with the media:
* Ownership — not only concentrated in a few hands, but reflects the patterns of racial exclusion characteristic of the old era
* Demographic composition of management, editorial executives and senior journalists which mirrors the same pattern
* Broader socio-economic issues, such as illiteracy and language constraints which limit the ability of the majority to exercise their freedom of expression
It is not really surprising that these issues have had less attention than the dog-fighting. Mandela did, after all, raise some tough and difficult issues that the newspaper world in particular has been slow to deal with.
The industry is still dominated by a few large players who tend to think alike. The post-1990 era has seen the closure of newspapers and other publications — Vrye Weekblad, New African, Work in Progress, Sunday Star — reducing the diversity of voices and increasing the dominance of the few strong players.
The major newspaper groups also tragically and short-sightedly neglected journalistic training during the 1980s, leaving a criticial shortage of fresh, young journalists with the skills and talent to lead a transformation of the industry. An indication of this is that this newspaper, a relatively small one, did more training in the late 1980s than both the two major English-language newspaper groups put together. The response of the big groups was simply to poach emerging talent rather than try and develop it themselves.
Speaking off the cuff, Mandela said the problem came down to one of credibility. Did an industry with the shape and structure of the South African media have the popular credibility so important to it?
The fact of the matter is that the industry is still overwhelmingly dominated by newspapers and journalists who spent the 1970s and 1980s abusing the liberation movements, supporting the tricameral system and doing deals with the defence force which had the effect of containing sensitive information. Many of these individuals and organisations are now born-again freedom fighters, quick to proclaim their contribution to the struggle. But little of this holds water outside their own newsrooms.
Mandela and Mbeki have raised real issues for newspapers. The question now is whether these will be treated as seriously as some of the more provocative utterances.
But the ANC is also not in a position to simply point fingers. Its own communication has been poor, and so things it is saying and thinking are not getting across. It failed to see the gravy train issue emerging as a problem, and has since dealt with it in a confused and half-baked way.
Insiders say that there is real bewilderment in ANC leadership about this issue, and real bitterness being expressed towards the media. It is a case of the ANC blaming the media for its own problem in handling the issue poorly.
The new government has inherited a huge structure in the South African Communication Services, which spends hundreds of millions of rands ostensibly communicating between the government and the people. If the message is not getting through, this is surely where blame must start.
The ANC is also lumping all media and all newspapers together. Different media have different functions — some, like national television, have public service obligations; others, like independent newspapers, have different duties to their readers. Mandelas and Mbekis statements miss this subtlety.
And if the ANC is unhappy with the range of media diversity, why is it not doing more in government to encourage and enhance new and different voices? It could divert the millions being spent by SACS on propaganda publications of dubious merit into promoting media diversity through an independent body such as the Independent Media Diversity Trust, which is battling with a shortage of funds to promote and encourage new and different voices.
It could also speed up the work of the Independent Broadcast Authority to bring new voices on to the airwaves. Broadcasting Minister Pallo Jordan said this week that the IBA should speed up its work, but not a lot is being done to pressure this body to move more quickly to open the door to aspirant broadcasters.
And the ANC could be more consistent in its own media policies. If Mandela wants to see more diversity in media ownership, why did his party say or do nothing about the Argus newspapers latest purchases of the Cape Times, Natal Mercury and Pretoria News, which increased their dominance in three cities to an insurmountable monopoly?
The ANC stayed silent. It isnt because the man responsible, Tony OReilly, the new Irish owner of Argus Newspapers, is Mandelas personal friend, is it?