I was astonished and saddened to read the editorial in the Mail&Guardian headed ”The M&G’s not for burning” (April 7 to 13). Three-quarters of the editorial was devoted to an attack on the submission of the editor of The Sunday Independent to the Human Rights Commission’s (HRC) investigation into racism in the media.
Firstly, I would contend that anyone who had read the written submission and heard the testimony of its editor could not have written the editorial which appeared in the M&G last week or, if they had, would have been engaging in deliberate distortion and vindictiveness. The Sunday Independent stands accused, among other heinous crimes, of ”unreason” and fuelling ”the hysteria which is beginning to mark ‘the racism in the media’ hearings by way of reckless allegation”. We are accused of ”an attack on the freedom of expression of the individual and, as such, an attack on the Constitution”. We were also accused, by implication, of ”a reversion back to the primitive tenets, such as that of original sin and collective guilt, which have underpinned religious dogmas of the past and can give way so easily to such heresies as the ‘blood libel’ familiar to anti- Semitism”. It was also suggested that by acknowledging the subliminal racist within me, I could be encouraging McCarthy-style witch-hunts and even ”hysteria and demonisation”. I never imagined that a rather personal, painful and difficult acknowledgement of the subliminal racist within me could evoke such a verbally violent reaction from the custodians of democracy and human rights at the M&G.
Firstly, you incorrectly assume that the Independent Group’s view of racism and the media is reflected by the submission of The Sunday Independent.
Having been a member of the committee which negotiated with the HRC about the issuing of subpoenas by the HRC, the editor of the M&G should know better. Independent Newspapers took a very firm position throughout the negotiations that it would not prescribe to editors how to respond to the commission and acknowledged the right of each editor to respond according to their own conscience. I am proud to belong to a group which adopted such a correct and sensible position on the issue. The Sunday Independent’s submission was, therefore, the editor responding to the commission guided by his own conscience. Secondly, nowhere in my submission do I purport to be ”talking on behalf of white people”. I did, indeed, make some observations in my verbal testimony about the mood of white people but never spoke on their behalf. I suspect most of what I said would have horrified many white people as it seems to have done to the editor of the M&G.
Thirdly, the reference to my assertion that the media is ”the voice of society” is taken totally out of context even in terms of the South African Press Association (Sapa) report on which the editorial is based and the accuracy of which I do not contest. My definition of the media is clearly stated in my written submission and I stand by it. But even in terms of the Sapa report on my verbal submission, the remark was made in the context of the media being a starting-point for a broader investigation into racism in the society because the media was a mirror of society – albeit a skewed mirror – because its transformation was incomplete and unsatisfactory.
To accuse The Sunday Independent of arguing that press freedom should be delayed until racism has been eradicated is disingenuous to say the least. Both in the written and verbal submissions – and in an editorial published (March 12) – I have made the point that press freedom and the eradication of racism are two sides of the same coin. You cannot fully achieve one without the other.
Press freedom is a current reality of the society and freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution. I, for my part, will continue to emphasise at every opportunity the co-responsibility of white people in this country for the apartheid era and the legacy of racism which we now have to deal with. As I said at the commission hearings: this society is in denial over the issue of race and it will be very difficult to realise the goals that most South Africans aspire to until we have conquered racism as a dominant factor in this society. In 1996, when I tendered a public apology to my black colleagues in the media for the way they were treated during the apartheid years, it evoked the same kind of ire in the editor of the M&G. I make no apology for making that apology and I make no apology for acknowledging the subliminal racist within me. It is my right under the Constitution to do so.
For the record, I have never thought the M&G should be burned. In fact, I was one of the very first individuals to support it when it was founded in 1985 by taking shares in the venture. I have continued to support the spirit of the M&G and was both impressed and proud of the submission by its editor and political editor at the HRC which I listened to and read. – John Battersby, Editor, The Sunday Independent
n The editor replies: Blurred though the line might be, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the editor’s chair and the individual who occupies it. With respect, your letter – in its reference, for example, to your submission to the HRC as ”a rather personal, painful and difficult acknowledgement of the subliminal racist within me” – suggests that your appearance before the HRC was more by way of a visit to the confessional. Nevertheless I assume your submission to the HRC was made on behalf of The Sunday Independent – the ”quality” newspaper in the Independent Group – and was not a personal statement of spiritual belief, which of course enjoys particular constitutional safeguard.
I am publishing, on this page, the Sapa summary of your evidence to the HRC on which last week’s editorial was based, for the consideration of readers as regards the substance of your letter.
Your assertion that Independent Newspapers ”would not prescribe to editors how to respond to the commission” strikes me as loyal, but either nave or tendentious, and justifies specific rebuttal. It has long been recognised as a truism of our profession that proprietors having powers to hire and fire have no need to ”prescribe” to editors – they appoint editors who they believe will further their interests and, if only with time, sack those who fail to do so. – The Editor, M&G
n Racism and freedom of expression were not mutually exclusive, but two sides of the same coin, The Sunday Independent editor John Battersby said on Monday.
But given South Africa’s past, one of the issues had to be dealt with before the other, he said in a submission to the South African Human Rights Commission’s hearings into racism in the media.
”… There cannot be a meaningful debate around freedom of expression (and press freedom) in South Africa until the issue of racism has been satisfactorily addressed.
”There is clearly little future in debating freedom of expression in a society where the dice is still loaded against the majority because of racist attitudes among the economically empowered [white] majority.”
Human rights, like the right to freedom of expression and association and equality before the law, needed to be weighed in relation to the right to shelter, a job, basic healthcare and education.
”Once these issues have been addressed South Africans need to be exposed to a culture of freedom of expression and how it relates to press freedom and democracy.”
Battersby said South Africans of all races and ethnic groups had been collectively damaged by the apartheid legacy. It would take some generations to completely dispel that legacy.
”But the goal must always remain an immediate and total transformation.”
The media was the voice of society, and the problem of racism lay with society as a whole.
The media was an important starting point though. If it worked properly, it would be a mirror of society. Yet because its transformation was regarded as unsatisfactory, that mirror was still skewed, Battersby said.
South Africans (and he could only talk on behalf of white people) were still so subjective that they found it difficult to stand back and view the issue of racism clearly.
”For them the norm is having it as good as they had it in the apartheid years.” Moving to less than that, in material terms, got mixed up with transformation and democracy.
The fact that they perceived standards as going down, including the surge in crime, prevented them from being able to see the historical perspectives.
”We all looked down the same abyss at Bisho and Boipatong … If we go on as we do now we will look down at the same abyss.”
The socio-economic side of transformation had hardly begun, Battersby said.
In a certain sense, in the definition that only white people could be racists, he was a racist, Battersby said – not a conscious racist or because he believed in racism, but because it had been internalised. ”I had to ‘unbecome’ being a racist, but I’m not there yet.”
He proposed that diversity workshops be made compulsory for all media employees. The Press Ombudsman and all complaints procedures should prioritise the issue of racism in the media.
”Radio and television should initiate more programmes that critically analyse the media and provoke visible public discussion about how the media is reporting on issues in relation to race and on forging a broader South African identity.”
Forums and support systems should be established for people who could not cope with the new realities of South Africa, he said. – From Sapa, April 3 2000
Keep pissing them off!
I am so pleased to read that both the ANC and the South African Farmers’ Union accuse the M&G of racism. It gratifies me no end to see you pissing everybody off, just like in the old days …
Keep up the good work. – Tim Ledgerwood, Cape Town