The editor, Phillip van Niekerk, replies to claims against Mail & Guardian reporter Lizeka Mda:
Lizeka Mda’s article was merely pointing to a pattern of perception about the leadership style of Deputy President Thabo Mbeki.
In politics – despite what Ronald Suresh Roberts says – perception is everything and even hallucinations, if they are genuinely received as reality by enough of the public, should be taken seriously.
Despite this being flagged as an opinion piece, and despite the explicit statement that the litany of rumours that Mda mentioned were urban legends, an impression appears to have been created that we were citing proven facts. We would like to state for the record that we have no evidence:
* That Mbeki, his office or the Jay Naidoo, communications minister, influenced the decision of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) in awarding the new free to air television licence.
* That Yfm received its licence through the intervention of the deputy president. Mda would be the first to agree that Yfm is one of the success stories of the IBA process.
* That the granting of the Yfm licence was a trade-off between Mbeki and the three former IBA councillors in which the councillors were guaranteed cushy jobs after leaving the IBA.
Regarding the attack on the integrity of the journalist, it is important, however, that our critics be equally vigilant with their facts as they demand we be with ours.
Mda had no material interest in any of the bids and was never paid a cent. Along with a number of other journalists, she would have been on the editorial advisory board of one of them, had it won the bid.
The fact is that, since the announcement of the winner, a number of people associated with losing bids have been exchanging business cards, reflecting the reality that Midi will attempt to seek out the best and brightest anyway.
It is interesting to note that Dirk Hartford identifies the consortium Mbeki was alleged to have been supporting as Midi, the winning bidder. But Mda never named any of the bids as being Mbeki’s favourite and virtually all of them had some connection with leading personalities connected to the African National Congress. On what basis does he suppose she was referring to Midi?
The fact that her partner was part of one of the consortiums bidding (not competing) for a radio licence is neither here nor there.
She is a journalist of standing and not inconsiderable reputation in her own right. The implication that Mda would be expressing sour grapes on behalf of her boyfriend is absurd.
Given the incestuous nature of the media industry, the cross-relationships between officials in Naidoo’s office, the IBA, and the various bidding consortiums would make far more interesting reading.
One thing must be kept clear: Lizeka Mda is a journalist of the highest integrity. By writing critically about the deputy president, she could hardly be said to be serving her own interests or advancing her career and job prospects.
She has opened herself to vitriol and censure for breaking a taboo on writing critically about the man who will be president of this country within a year and is already de facto in charge.
The Mail & Guardian believes that in a democracy, robust criticism and debate, even if it is wrong, should be encouraged, not stamped out.
Lizeka Mda replies to Dirk Hartford:
Did I have a vested interest in the awarding of the radio and television licences? Yes. Not because my partner was part of a consortium that bid for a radio licence, or that I had said yes when New Channel TV asked me if I would be willing to serve on their advisory board, should they get a licence.
I had a vested interest in the process simply because I am a citizen of this country.
Instead of tackling the man, Hartford should be playing the ball. The question is whether there is any substance in what I wrote, and it is telling that he does not sufficiently apply himself to this.
Yfm’s success as a radio station does not change the fact that their application was “particularly bad”, and that there were several irregularities in the IBA’s handling of the application and the granting of the licence. If Hartford’s memory is failing him, a cursory perusal of the transcript of Yfm’s public hearing should remind him of the shortcomings of their application.
And now for the iffy shareholding structure. There were four shareholders in the documents handed in by the Youth Radio Consortium, and the Youth Development Trust accounted for 40% of the total shareholding. On granting the licence, the IBA said: “The component of youth groups in YFM’s shareholding structure impressed the authority as this was seen as adding to the youth character of the service.”
However, by the time Yfm went on air, there were nine shareholders, and 54% of the shareholding rested with the new shareholders, who were not part of the application, while the Youth Development Trust held only 14%.
Hartford says the changes were made after consultations with the IBA. What kind of consultations were these? Where are the supporting documents? If there was an oral submission, where is the transcript thereof? I know of no statement from the IBA in this regard.
The shareholding structure of the Youth Radio Consortium (Pty) Ltd presented at the public hearing on February 3 1997 was, I repeat, “fictitious”.
ENDS