‘Eish, America”, was the headline after George W Bush won a second term in the White House. “Eish, M&G“, was the headline over a clutch of readers’ letters, some of which complained about the paper’s coverage.
“Why didn’t your editorial just state: ‘We in South Africa do not think Bush has the right to give the aid we definitely will not refuse’ — and get the hypocrisy out into the open? We can only dream of the effective democratic choices the Americans have,” wrote J Anderson.
Tsepiso Hove felt that: “It is high time the Mail & Guardian and other media sources gave us both sides of the story on American politics. In the run-up to the US elections, we were fed news reports and opinion from a liberal viewpoint.”
And another reader, who preferred to remain anonymous, said the paper had become a holy text for the “cult” of anti-Americanism, which he called “a creed for pamphleteers with brains too small to hold nuances, or competing ideas”.
The editions before and after the election left little doubt about the paper’s view. The “Eish” headline was accompanied by a Steve Bell cartoon that made Bush look like an American Kortbroek, perched atop an imperial throne several sizes too large. The editorial was headed “Bonehead power”. The Institute for Democracy in South Africa’s Richard Calland declared: “The world is less safe.”
The M&G has always taken strong positions. Readers pay for a paper with attitude — sometimes they agree with it, sometimes they don’t. There are always some who are outraged, but the editorial philosophy is that debate, even intense disagreement, is better than lukewarm silence.
In this case, a clear majority of the published letters shared the paper’s views. And these views were not unique to the M&G and its readers. Surveys conducted in nine countries reportedly showed that John Kerry would have won the election without difficulty if it had been held worldwide. Only in Israel and Russia did Bush prove more popular than his rival.
In the South African context, Bush’s positions on many issues, from climate change to Iraq and abortion, would be seen as fringe. He certainly would not have moved into Tuynhuys on the strength of that campaign.
So can the M&G be accused of anti-Americanism? Did criticism of Bush turn into criticism of the country as a whole? After all, not everybody in the US voted Republican.
The paper took some trouble to make the distinction. In its “bonehead” editorial, for instance, it addressed “progressive Americans”, outlining what it believed they should do to recover from their setback.
True, the “Eish, America” cover addressed the country as a whole, but the light, slightly sorrowful and distinctly South African tone was appropriate to a paper that often uses its covers to comment, rather than just report.
However, I do think coverage as a whole would have been improved by the inclusion of a wider range of voices. A paper can take a clear position, while still offering readers a chance to look at other views.
As would be expected from a weekly, the paper concentrated on analysis and commentary, focusing particularly on two areas: attempts to explain the rightward shift in US politics, and examinations of the implications of the Bush victory for the world, particularly Africa.
Some excellent insights were on offer. But here and there, writing became invective. It may be very tempting to swear at Bush and the social movement he represents, but it is not very illuminating.
The paper’s own Drew Forrest set out to explain how a “murderous clown” like Bush could seriously contend for the presidency. Cleverly constructed to shadow the text of a Randy Newman song, the piece offered some good analysis. But it was marred by some simplistic typecasting of what Forrest called “the freak parade of the hard-core Republican vote, which includes the most dangerous and backward elements of American society”.
Good polemic has its place, but analysis needs a different tone. And it should be clear what genre a particular piece falls into.
Increasingly, the borders between reportage, analysis and commentary are blurring. The M&G is among the papers that does not keep them rigorously in separate sections. I think that’s a pity, but even if commentary finds its way into the general news pages, it should be very clearly labelled as such.
It is not easy to balance advocacy with fairness. One of the tricks is to make a clear distinction between fact and opinion, says the press code.
It’s a good principle. Readers like to know exactly what they are being offered.
l One reader, Professor Johannes Grosskopf, wrote to ask two questions about my appointment. First, he wanted to know what guaranteed my independence of the paper. Second, he wanted to know a little more about me. Both are fair questions.
My terms of reference guarantee my independence. I play this role on a part-time basis, and operate from outside the M&G’s offices. I am not involved in any editorial decisions. Most importantly, perhaps, I believe the paper understands that an ombud is worthless if he or she is not independent. I intend to remain so.
As for my background, I have been a journalist for more than 20 years, working in print and broadcasting in South Africa, Namibia and the United Kingdom. I now teach journalism at Wits University, and my book on journalism ethics, Black, White and Grey, will be published shortly. For those with access to the Internet, further details can be found at http://www.journalism.co.za/ modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=29