As a journalist for 40 years and editor for some of them, I am concerned about the stated intentions of the new owner of the Mail & Guardian, Trevor Ncube (“Africa’s best read charges into the future,” July 26). There is no argument that the paper needs to be commercially viable, but his editorial ideas are another matter.
He says the M&G will (under his ownership) “strive to be balanced and fair in its handling of public affairs and public figures,” implying that it is not now. What does he mean?
That it is going to soft-peddle corruption and arms procurement deals that impact hugely on the public purse? That it will deal gently with the government’s intransigent stand on HIV/Aids? That it will be only mildly disapproving of political expedience that undermines the Constitution by allowing floor-crossing in Parliament so the government can win another province or two?
This would appear to be the direction. While praising the M&G’s commitment to independent journalism, he refers inter alia to “widely and deeply held perceptions” that the paper is “out to get President Thabo Mbeki, that it is anti-African National Congress and generally anti-black business”, and he says these perceptions need to be addressed.
Forgetting for the moment that, amusingly, these perceptions may also be said to apply to the South African Communist Party and the Congress of SouthAfrican Trade Unions, which are hardly M&G bed-mates, and that contrary perceptions also exist, how does he intend to do this?
By talking nicely to the editor and staff? They work for the paper because they share an ethos and a unity of purpose, namely to monitor and report boldly on the issues of the day. If they wanted to do it differently they would leave.
Unlike the position in the United States, it is not normal practice in South Africa for publishers to tell editors what to do. Here it is done by firing or promoting the editor to a position of (editorial) impotence and letting go those journalists who are not amenable to instruction. Over a period of time, the fire that drives the paper is quenched.
Let the new owner be warned. Readers pay a premium price for the M&G because we know it will give us the facts, whatever the personal cost. It will do so fearlessly, thoroughly and efficiently and we don’t give a damn about “perceptions”.
The paper is an institution. Tamper with it to the detriment of its editorial independence and we the readers will disappear in droves. — Graham Etherington, Port Elizabeth
In the penultimate paragraph of your editorial (“Not different, just better”, July 19), you state that “praise … should never — and will never — involve us in toadying to the rich or powerful”. And yet, the whole editorial leaves an aftertaste of “toadying to the new owner”. I had such high hopes when the present editor took over the running of the M&G recently. Now I feel let down. — JP Fleuriot, KwaZulu-Natal
I was ploughing through Ncube’s laboured homily (July 26) to the virtues of his new acquisition. Halfway through I paused: methinks he protesteth too much, where is the sting in the tail? And indeed: there it was, a few plodding paragraphs further down. “There are some who argue that the paper is out to get President Thabo Mbeki, that the paper is decidedly anti-African National Congress and generally anti-black business”.
Later we are reassured that, under his caring ownership, the paper — “will not pander to power”. He knows “from the Zimbabwean experience that governments faced with an indulgent media become complacent and corrupt”. Such as the government of Robert Mugabe, Mbeki’s protégé, confronted by Ncube’s own newspapers The Standard and the Zimbabwe Independent?
This reader is not reassured by these blandishments. He lived through the assassination of the Rand Daily Mail through National Party government pressure on its owners; the paper’s courageous resurrection as the Weekly Mail and renewed attempts by the establishment to stifle it as it was out to get President PW Botha. These attempts failed, the paper going on to contribute no little to South Africa’s liberation in 1994, continuing as the M&G its independence and critique of the status quo under the new dispensation.
In fact, Ncube, this faithful reader is deeply disturbed by your article. He prays that there are no grounds for his misgivings, that the M&G’s “ownership in black hands” will indeed keep it “independent from undue political influence”. But then follows your warning about the paper “deliberately alienating [itself] from any section of the South African population”, which flies in the face of what the M&G has always stood for: fearless journalism even at the risk of alienating sectional, and at the time powerful, interests — such as Afrikaner Nationalism of old.
I will be looking with interest — and trepidation — at what you will make of my essential read. It would be too ghastly to contemplate were a new-found indulgence to lead to a parting of our ways after more than three momentous and illustrious decades. — Balt Th Verhagen, Bramley
If it’s true that the M&G’s new boss plans to get the weekly to toe the government line, Sipho Seepe’s going to have to consider getting another job.
I’m two-minded about this: the M&G has a long history of speaking truth to power, and has helped put a check on corruption in the corridors of power.
On the other hand, the honourable physicist’s rants are quite a bore. He might be a great physicist, but in journalism he falls flat on his face. –Veli Msimang, Mowbray
Cheap shots at a society fighting for its life
How quickly your standards have slipped. First, in your main editorial (“Will the real ANC stand up? July 26), you ignore the correction that was provided by Helena Sheehan (and printed on the letters page) and maintain that the interview with Jeremy Cronin, deputy general secretary of the South African Communist Party, was not meant for publication. But you plumb even murkier depths in the next section of your editorial (“A shame on Israel”).
In a rant on the subject of Israel you display a double standard that is truly grotesque. You vilify Israel’s “monstrous” prime minister in an attack that can only be sustained by ignoring the facts of the matter.
In case some of your readers are more interested in facts than you apparently are, here are a few to ponder: Salah Shehada, the Hamas military leader, was a man who set out to kill large numbers of Israeli civilians — and succeeded.
One of his methods was to recruit Palestinian youths, fill their minds with hatred and their pockets with explosives, and then send them to massacre Jewish men, women and children. His death has saved the lives of many people in the future.
The bomb that killed him, his lieutenant and his family also killed several civilians being used as a human shield. That it was not effective on this occasion may cause us to wonder about Ariel Sharon’s judgement, but this much is certain — the target of the attack was Shehada and not the civilians he was hiding among.
You are deceiving your readers when you suggest Sharon intended to “kill many more than one man”. If Sharon wished to exterminate large numbers of civilians, do you imagine that he does not have the means to do so?
The shame is not on Sharon; it is on you for distorting evidence in order to take cheap shots at a society that is fighting for its life.–Alice Theron, Glenwood
Killing the aspirations of the disabled
The issues Mandla Mabila raises in his letter (“Our society doesn’t give a damn about the disabled”, July 26) echo other concerns experienced by the disabled. Rightly so, the essence of his letter is that “we don’t even have the language to talk about our experiences positively”.
I agree with the sentiments he expresses, but I would like to highlight two factors internal to the disability movement that act as stumbling blocks to equitable and dignified life experiences for the disabled.
Firstly, the leadership within civil society formations of the disabled has deteriorated to the point of extinction. This has resulted in the interests of the disabled being pushed to the furthest margins of policy-making.
Related to the weakening leadership is the rising multiplicity of organisations “of” and “for” persons with disabilities. The latter being the primary contributing aspect that allows the non-disabled worldview to be imposed on the disabled. Hence there is no clearly defined approach to the interpretation of the Integrated National Disability Strategy (INDS).
The growth of an assertive leadership would create a language through which the objectives of the INDS can be realised. There is presently a misreading of the INDS that results in the civil movement leadership being unable to match this policy document with the population’s desires.
Secondly, the absence of a disability self-expressive language is a result of the disabled allowing the non-disabled to define the former in the latter’s day-to-day articulation.
It is long overdue that the disabled community define itself in academic journals and other writings. There is no doubt the disabled can best convey a definition of disability with pride as soon as the civil movement of the disabled claims educational and academic empowerment for the disabled.
Disability empowerment will allow the disabled to invalidate current theories and views on disability. Through research and the writing and teaching of literature the disabled will have a greater impression on policy-making because they will be speaking through their own language.
I suggest that empowerment policies, backed by implementation mechanisms, be founded in well-placed institutions like the National Research Foundation and this will trigger disability-pragmatic processes in corporate South Africa. However, the lack of focused leadership in South Africa’s disability movement is killing the aspirations of many of us who live with disabilities. –MI Papi Nkoli, projects’ officer in human resources and transformation and employment equity, University of the Witwatersrand. He writes in his personal capacity
Africa needs people like Seepe
I am a white South African expat, now actually an American citizen who has lived in the United States for more than 20 years, who follows South African news and often browses the Mail & Guardian website to catch up on events.
More often than not I find myself shaking my head and despairing over what I read. Not, you understand, because of the M&G reporters, but because of the unrelenting message of stupidity, sycophantic partisanship and political correctness that seems to be a requirement in public life in South Africa these days.
Then I read someone like Sipho Seepe, who clearly has a perspective on South Africa that I don’t, but manages to maintain such a clarity of insight and such a balanced, reasonable analysis that I am humbled.
Minds like his give me hope for the country. Thank you, M&G, for providing a venue for voices like his to be heard. And, Seepe, please do stand up and make sure your voice is heard in as wide a forum as possible. Africa desperately needs people like you. — Peter Haines
I have not done a count but it seems to me that more letters of criticism about Seepe have been printed than of praise.
Well, I enjoy his column nearly every week and long may it continue. Freedom, justice and truth are as rare a commodity in the new South Africa as in the old. The struggle continues! Amandla! — Daniel Reinecke, Cape Town
Practical advice
Thank you for Margaret Legum’s brilliant series, “Economics for Humans”.
“How to make money debt-free” (July 19) is clear and practical. Our government can rightfully reclaim its right to create money. Retaking this power would put real strength into the “African renaissance”.
It would make the Basic Income Grant feasible without huge tax increases. Further possibilities abound.
It is not capitalism per se that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Rather, it is the flawed banking system and partly other financial institutions.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund must not be obeyed in fear. They must function as servants of society and not its masters. — Hockly Buys, Crestview, near Durban
In brief
Some weeks ago, the M&G promised the end of the world. Could you investigate and find out what the delay is? — Peter Darley
Is there a connection between your announcement (July 19) of new ownership, your disappearance from the shelves of CNA a week later, and the absence of Robert Kirby in the same edition? I think we should be told. — Mark Colley, Johannesburg CNA went bust; Kirby was on holiday — Ed
This is just a note to applaud Zapiro’s cartoons. Even when they’re offensive, they’re a cut above 99% of editorial cartooning here in the United States. The one in the July 26 issue is an absolute gem! Keep up the good work here as elsewhere in M&G’s terrific website! Now for the cranky hectoring. I noticed that you have no venue for “idiotic enquiries”. Is that fair? After all, does not true open-mindedness require a mind to be open at both ends? — Rev John Weaver-Hudson We have Notes and Queries — Ed
Just a small correction to the article “Still no go-ahead for Aids grant” (July 26). You quote me as saying the biggest recipients of the Global Fund are Malawi and Thailand. Actually it’s Malawi and Zambia. The amounts are: Malawi: $284110722; Zambia: $191967000; South Africa: $165278018 (the South African National Aids Council and KwaZulu-Natal proposals added together). I’d appreciate it if you printed a small correction. This was probably my fault, as I was quite tired when you spoke to me. Many thanks. –Nathan Geffen
Please include your name and address. Letters must be received by 5pm Monday. Be as brief as possible. The editor reserves the right to edit letters and to withhold from publication any letter which he believes contains factual inaccuracies, or is based on misrepresentation.