The response by the editor of The Economist, Bill Emmott, to criticism levelled against the publication in the African National Congress’s newsletter recently is an interesting illustration of how the media can claim to provide balanced (sometimes even called “objective”) coverage of issues while still setting a particular agenda.
Emmott denied harbouring “any special hostility” towards Mbeki: “We often praise his macroeconomic policies, and recently suggested, in an editorial, that his efforts at peacemaking in Africa made him worthy of consideration for a Nobel Prize.”
Emmott points out that his publication was more critical of other issues, such as Mbeki’s statements on HIV/Aids and his policy towards Zimbabwe. Emmott argued along the same lines as did the Mail & Guardian‘s recent report (“SA’s sweetheart media”, February 4), on a Media Tenor study, which found that, quantitatively speaking, the South African media are more positive about the government than in most other countries.
But only looking at the percentage, positivity versus negativity does not really bring us much closer to answering questions about what role the media plays in the “sociology of public discourse in post-apartheid South Africa”, as the ANC puts it.
In his doctoral dissertation, media analyst Sean Jacobs argues that the news media was an important actor in helping shape the outcome of the transition to democracy in the country and to a certain kind of transformation: liberal democracy and limited economic transformation, with the social structure largely intact. The reaction of the editor of The Economist seems to suggest that this position also informs their coverage of Mbeki’s term in office.
When the role of the media in public debates gets assessed, the question is not as simple as the quantitative one: “Does the media give the government good coverage?” The question should rather be: “On which issues is the media positive of government?”
This question would begin to touch on the other relations of power — such as economic power — within which the media is also enmeshed. This would then lead to the question of agenda-setting: “What issues are the media telling people to be concerned about?” And conversely: “What issues are the media not putting up for discussion?”
The media may claim to work in the “public interest”, but it also has its own interests at heart and is a politico-economic role-player in its own right. While its role as a check and balance on political power should obviously not be underestimated, critical questions should also be asked about whether the same vigilance is applied in other matters.
For instance, is the media also a watchdog over the public interest when it comes to the effect media conglomeration and tabloidisation have on the “free flow of information”? Has the media made up its mind about macroeconomic policies, or does it also genuinely strive for the same balance and fairness in its coverage of opposing views in this arena than it claims to do in political coverage?
Dr Herman Wasserman is a senior lecturer in the Department of Journalism, University of Stellenbosch