First prize for South Africa in the Hefer commission enquiry is that our journalists be left alone to restore the damaged integrity of gathering and publishing information in the public interest.
It’s an entirely secondary matter whether the enquiry finds Bulelani Ngcuka innocent of being an apartheid spy or abusing his office. (These are, incidentally, two distinct issues and they are not necessarily interdependent.)
It’s a tertiary issue whether Mac Maharaj and his cohorts will find themselves with egg-plastered faces, in the likely event that Ngcuka is cleared by the commission. In fact, it would serve them right for trying to shift the spotlight away from the serious allegations about untoward business dealings.
Of primary concern should be the long-term potential damage that the commission can cause to the media and their role in our democracy. That’s why exempting journalists from the Hefer process is so important.
There are four press people wanted for evidence at present: ex-Sunday Times reporter Ranjeni Munusamy; her former boss and Sunday Times editor Mathatha Tsedu; Elias Maluleke, who writes for City Press; and his editor, Vusi Mona.
Munusamy was fed the story that alleged Ngcuka was a spy; Tsedu refused to publish it. Maluleke was given it by Munusamy; Mona agreed to run it in City Press.
There are good reasons given to date for why Hefer should lay off the journalists:
- The people involved have only second-hand knowledge of the spy allegations;
- There has been a threat against the safety of at least one of them in the event of testifying;
- What three of the four know has anyway been publicised;
- They will lose public confidence if they reveal confidential sources or come to be seen as ”coppers’ narks”;
- The result will be an impediment of the free flow of information;
- Their professional standing will be compromised.
Together, these make for a compelling case in favour of excusing them from going before Hefer when the High Court reviews the commission’s recent decision that Munusamy, at least, must testify.
What should be added to these points is another, and even stronger, reason.
This additional argument is based on a simple but fundamental premise: it is not, in a democracy, the job of journalists to become bit players in a political bunfight.
As it is, the largely uncritical publishing of leaks born of secret political machinations has tarnished the media as an institution. Now, by being asked to take part in the commission, the risk is of the press being pulled deeper into the mire. The already compromised media could be irreversibly discredited.
At heart, the issue is the independence of the media as a credible pillar of our democracy. If the metaphor of a Fourth Estate is to mean anything, then journalists have to be — and be seen to be — as politically disinterested as the judiciary (including the director of public prosecutions) is supposed to be.
This is not to call for anaemic political coverage, nor is it to rule out editors endorsing a political party. Rather, it is to highlight the basic principle that there can be no place for hidden political agendas as backseat drivers.
Of course, political factions will find ways to generate coverage to the advantage of one side or another. Back-stabbing politicians will always feed journalists with irresistibly juicy stories that play to their own interests.
But the most important thing in this game is that media people in a democracy ought not, even unwillingly, play political games with their audiences. This means a resounding rebuttal of press people who want to make common cause with behind-the-scenes political allegiances. It requires reporters and editors to deal straight cards. Showing respect for readers, listeners and viewers is the way for the media to earn respect.
Unfortunately, our record in the current political melee is not above question.
- It is a moot point whether Munusamy touted her story to City Press as a journalist, or as a supporter of the anti-Ngcuka camp.
- The question still persists whether the Sunday Times sat on her ”story” because editor Tsedu sympathised with the director of public prosecutions after attending his now infamous ”confidential briefing” for African editors.
- Suspicions exist that City Press editor Vusi Mona has been systematically running anti-Ngcuka articles in a vendetta that goes way beyond accuracy, proof and newsworthiness.
- And, had The Star, in then printing discrediting stories about Mona’s moonlighting activities, thereby lent its pages to information supplied to it, in secret, by pro-Ngcuka people?
There have been scores of stories that dish the dirt throughout this saga, and all too few that tell whose interests brought them to media attention.
In short, no one knows if media people have kept their noses clean in the whole murky business. Certainly, there has not been sufficient public distance put between the press and its manipulative information sources.
The result endangers public confidence in the media as a whole.
Naturally, each journalistic party in the current crisis claims to be acting through purely professional motivation. But despite such protestations, the doubt continues. In this context, by now getting dragged into the imbroglio of the Hefer commission, even greater risk to the reputation of journalism lies ahead.
Though the media should not have gotten themselves in so deep, it is now time to call a halt to developments than could further undermine confidence in their credibility. This is why the demand that journalists testify to Hefer has to be resisted.
The point is that if our media are already suspected of overly flirting with factionalism in politics, can the country now afford to see journalists getting directly into bed with a politically initiated judicial process? We have yet to recover from the first blow, but the knock-out punch is on its way.
At stake here is whether media independence from politics is forfeited completely.
The gravity of this scenario needs to be recognised. Accordingly, and for the sake of preserving a shred of the media’s democratic status, the High Court must clearly and unequivocally exempt the journalists from the whole process.
A consolation prize from the court would be that, if the journalists are still required to appear, they receive blanket exemption from disclosing unpublished information or the identity of sources. Another prize is that journalists be put last on the list of witnesses to be called, by which time their presence may be redundant.
Such steps would be valuable acknowledgement of the principle of keeping the media’s role as a Fourth Estate that is distinct and separate from the other ”estates”.
But in the context of current political conflict, such gains would still be a very poor second to prize number one. We need nothing less than help to extricate the media from the current political shenanigans altogether which begins with journalists not featuring in the commission’s enquiry.
There is already a huge challenge for South Africa’s bruised journalists to recover and redeem themselves. They have to take stock and start restoring — through practical work — the media’s role as trusted and independent representatives of the public interest. Forced involvement with the Hefer process will only make this that much more difficult.
Democracy needs media that enjoy the state’s respect for their special role as honest brokers in political information. It needs media that are allowed to preserve their privilege as an independent component of the whole system.
But even more, we need media that start convincing us that they do, indeed, play things straight with the public. Because who else can we trust?
E-mail Guy Berger directly if you have a question about this article.
Guy Berger is head of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University and deputy chair of the South African National Editors Forum (Sanef). He was recently nominated for the World Technology Awards.