Although the local media’s adrenaline levels were raised high as Bush’s visit drew closer – with reports characterised by anticipation as much as speculation – it now transpires that South African journalists were treated with disdain and actually censored by the Americans. By way of example, one prominent senior editor from a large local newspaper group had to be ´smuggled´ into a White House Press Corps briefing by Colin Powell, and was then held incommunicado by being refused the right to ask a question by an American embassy official. This despite the fact that the senior editor and media house in question were seemingly supportive of the American led invasion of Iraq.
There are two possible explanations for Uncle Sam’s meanness. Either the Americans consciously failed to return the favour of awed admiration granted by our media, or they expected it and therefore saw no favour to return. Fact is, before his arrival the local media eulogised Bush as the most powerful man in the world and repeatedly mentioned the size of his entourage. Readers were bombarded with details of Bush’s plane, Airforce One. Two large circulation newspapers even produced near full-page stories with comprehensive graphics, one paper comparing the massive Boeing to President Mbeki´s much smaller jet.
What our media did not question enough however, either during or after the visit, was how the large entourage and security component would disrupt life in those places Bush called upon. To the best of my knowledge, American presidents have never been shot or assassinated off American soil. Maybe the magnitude of their paranoia during overseas jaunts is a reason, and it could be argued from recent events that the dangers are more acute for the world’s only superpower, but it will be remembered that the South African media ridiculed Libyan leader Gaddafi for bringing a similar number of aircraft and security personnel.
More significantly, local media did not question the timing of Bush’s visit; coinciding, as it did, with the African Union Summit. Due to the US administration’s whistle stop tour, President Mbeki could not be present at the start of the important Summit (which would be expected, as he was going to be handing over the chair) and President Obasanjo of Nigeria had to leave early. Could an African President go to Washington on the eve of and during a G8 meeting and be received at the White House?
Still, to be fair to the South African media, they did give coverage to the organisations and individuals who protested Bush’s visit and raised the question of his invading Iraq illegally. One large circulation daily newspaper admirably interviewed prominent individuals, including ANC and alliance leaders, who were so opposed to Bush’s visit that they declined his lunch invitation.
As for President Mbeki, he again confounded the media and came out of the visit better than expected. There was much speculation (in part fuelled by Collin Powell´s piece in the New York Times) that Mbeki would be ordered by Bush to take stronger action against Zimbabwe. Instead, in the apparent absence of such pressure, the media had to report that Bush had endorsed Mbeki´s approach.
Ultimately, the media had no option but to praise the manner in which Mbeki handled the visit. But perhaps they had underestimated him in the first place, and overestimated the power of ´the most powerful man in the world´. They forget that it was Bush who came with a huge deficit of credibility as a world-class statesman.
Dr. Tawana Kupe is head of media studies at Wits University’s School of Literature and Language Studies.