THE freedom of the press depends on the number of newspaper titles available to the public rather than nonsensical claims to objectivity by a few newspaper groups trading in monopolistic conditions.
We are therefore extremely concerned by the manner in which the closure of the New Nation has been passed off with little comment and no action on the part of government or other agencies and organisations that pretend to be concerned about fundamental tenets of liberty.
New Nation was launched in the 1980s because progressive journalists believed the mainstream media were not reflecting the struggles against apartheid and the policies of the liberation movements.
Its sister publications – South, New African and Vrye Weekblad – did not survive the transition to democracy because they were not financially viable and, in the case of Vrye Weekblad, crippled by litigation. In all instances more should have been done by society to rescue them.
While the commercial media have vastly improved coverage of black society and liberation forces-turned-political parties, there are still major gaps that only papers like New Nation were prepared to fill.
It is notable that New Nation was mourned by Cosatu. The trade union federation, which represents millions of workers and has become increasingly outspoken about the government’s failure to deliver on its election promises, praised the newspaper as one of the few publications that consistently gave it space in its columns and reflected its policies sympathetically.
It is also notable that a few days before New Nation’s demise was announced, President Nelson Mandela embarked on a tirade against the media. He rebuked the “white minority-controlled South African media” and black journalists who sought promotion by repeating the views of their employers.
Given these sentiments, it is suprising that Mandela’s office wasted the opportunity to mourn the closure of a black-owned and editorially controlled newspaper with a track record of fighting for democracy.
The death of New Nation places a burden on the Mail & Guardian. We are the last of the 1980s generation of progressive media, one of the few independents left in a market dominated to a dangerous extent by a handful of newspaper groups.
While we have faced the challenge to adapt to the new, post-apartheid era, we remain rooted in the ideals that created a vibrant alternative newspaper culture more than a decade ago.
We will continue to fight for a plurality of ownership and editorial diversity in an industry that after Friday will, sadly, have one less voice in the marketplace.