/ 9 February 2001

The media should give credit where it’s due

Jack Mokobi

CROSSFIRE

I read with trepidation two opinion columns by Sipho Seepe in the Mail & Guardian, ”Treat Mbeki’s overtures with caution” (January 12 to 18) and ”We are searching for the truth” (January 26 to February 1). As I went through them I was reminded of an incident with the SABC (hopefully the old SABC) in 1995.

While I was working for the Northern Province government, I received a request for an interview with Premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi on his reflections of his first year in office. The local SABC crew was to put together some background visuals as part of the package. They went out to villages without roads, water, clinics, a school and the like. They were apparently building a case that in the previous year the government had failed to deliver.

We previewed the footage and asked: where are images of villages where the government has provided schools, clinics, roads, electricity, water and houses, fundamentally changing the lives of people in areas where no such services and facilities had existed before?

The question shocked them. Presumably, to be a good journalist you must take up an adversarial position in relation to the government, reflecting on its failures and looking the other way when it makes progress.

This characterises the public dialogue shaping the country’s national mood. It creates in South Africans’ minds unbalanced perceptions not only of the government but, tragically, also of the politics of the country. It is not always a black and white thing, but there should be great concern about the state of the national psyche. What does it mean to be patriotic, to contribute to our country’s development and to defend its constitutional democracy? Given where we come from there are no easy answers.

Reading Seepe’s two pieces, I could not help but think that this is the mental framework within which some sections of the media and intellectuals engage the government. Intellectualising is not value-free; instead it is drenched in moral and ideological values.

For an intellectual, Seepe makes many unsubstantiated assertions. He says, for instance, about the African National Congress’s perceived political crisis: ”The significantly decreased voter turnout bears testimony to a growing dissatisfaction with the ruling party’s failure to deliver on promises.”

There is sufficient consensus in the academic community that global commercial media have depoliticised society and created in its place a materialistic society of spectacle. The space in the media (which is increasingly becoming South Africa’s contemporary public sphere) for rational public debates has drastically declined. Moreover, there are a plethora of other, secondary factors that academics identify for poor voter turnout throughout the world. South Africa is not among the worst on this ask the United States and Britain.

It is corruption, sex, violence and entertainment that see the light of day in the media. But the Seepes of this world feed the frenzy in their zealous commentary on alleged corruption and cover-ups. Then, having induced public apathy, they turn around and blame others for it without taking their own share of responsibility.

I am not suggesting that there are no shortcomings in the government. Instead, my concern is the consistent bias that highlights these failures. There are cases in which the media and community members have exposed corruption and the government has not hesitated to act decisively. The media should be giving credit where it is due. The media could also count the Heath unit’s successes among the government’s successes. For the unit is, after all, a government-created institution that tends to be delinked from the government by the latter’s detractors.

Tell us which promises the government has not kept and tell us what explains the lack of foreign direct investment, job creation and economic growth in South Africa rather than moaning about the lack of them.

Insightful and critical reflections on these and other key socio-economic questions, and suggested solutions, would constitute a job well done in the service of the country.

I find the insinuation that the intellectual’s role in society must be reduced to asking ”embarrassing” questions somewhat amusing. Journalists and opposition politicians can do this much better.

Society expects a bit more from its intellectuals. We need rigorous analysis. For example, tell us why the National Directorate for Public Prosecutions, the Office of the Public Protector and the auditor general cannot properly investigate the arms procurement package without Judge Willem Heath. Tell us which country in the world has effectively eliminated corruption and how, without moaning about our government’s failure to do so.

It is strange that Seepe has problems with people who speak out about issues such as HIV/Aids without medical credentials. Yet Seepe arrogates to himself the right to speak on areas in which he has no academic expertise. He has become the ”brave” black voice of reason against a government run, in his view, by incompetent, corrupt and uneducated people.

Seepe wants us to believe that he is an independent, impartial and objective observer of the South African society, and that he has no other motivation than to ”speak truth to power”. I would like to believe him.

I only hope that we can raise the level of intellectual engagement in our country and move beyond merely scratching the surface of the real, practical and substantive challenges facing our country. We have a great future but only if all of us take a constructive approach.

Seepe does not need to become part of Presi-dent Thabo Mbeki’s think tank, but he can make a constructive intellectual contribution. He could use the space given him in the M&G to come up with creative solutions to the challenges before the country.

Call me one of Mbeki’s ”minions” and blind followers, if you wish. I can take it, I have a thick skin. The question is: can you?

Jack Mokobi is communications director of the Northern Province government and an MA candidate in media and cultural theory and communication at the University of Central England in Birmingham. He writes here in his personal capacity