A Citizen lead story entitled “Documentary claims Zuma was plot victim”, written by executive editor Martin Williams and published on July 4, has elicited a range of animated responses from the media industry.
The piece, which refers to “an explosive TV documentary alleging former deputy president Jacob Zuma is the victim of a trial by media orchestrated by people within the African National Congress”, maintains that filmed interviews with high-profile politicians, journalists and businessmen point to intense political interference at the top levels of the ruling party.
Among the figures that appear in the four-part documentary series are Zuma himself, who according to the promotional website undergoes “an independently verified polygraph test”; former president Nelson Mandela, who allegedly touches on the subject of “irresponsible speculation”; and chief executive of Thales Pierre Moynet, who allegedly says “these leaks that have happened were meant to start a trial against Zuma in the media”.
Two journalists approached by eMedia, who are listed as interviewees but have not yet watched any part of the documentary, were cautiously curious.
“These interviews were done nearly two years ago,” says Sam Sole, investigative reporter for the Mail & Guardian. “It makes me a bit nervous. Even at the time it was clear it was a pro-Zuma initiative. To quote Mandela long before the Shaik trial is a little unfair.”
Barry Sergeant, investigations editor at Moneyweb, is interested in the documentary’s framing of his responses.
“The gist of the questions,” says Sergeant, “focused on South African media’s treatment of Zuma. My basic response was that the media handled it in a bloodthirsty way. For the broader media to be baying for the blood of Zuma seemed entirely inappropriate at the time.”
Nevertheless, Sergeant also recalls a “pro-Zuma bias”.
The director and sole funder of the production, Liesl Gottert, denies any agenda going into the project.
“I’m not in the “Zuma camp’,” says Gottert. “I saw something that made good television and I’m exposing that. When it comes to accusations about the media, editorially I don’t say anything that hasn’t been corroborated by other journalists that have not been interviewed.”
However, Gottert adds, she has “hardly found anyone in the making of the documentary that was not flying the flag for someone. There was only one person who sat back and took an objective view, Tim Cohen from Business Day.”
Aside from the list above, other journalists (or former media workers) interviewed include Mondli Makhanya, Anton Harber, Jeremy Gordin, Martin Williams, Ranjeni Munusamy, Vusi Mona, Elias Maluleke and Snuki Zikalala.
Wadim Schreiner, MD of analytical institute Media Tenor South Africa and an interviewee who has seen the first two parts of the documentary, expresses regret at his agreement to appear on camera.
“The documentary should not be aired. Quotes are pulled out of context. The sources [Gottert] uses are one-sided. Would Zuma’s daughter, Mo Shaik, Judge Willem Heath or Brett Kebble say something against Zuma? I don’t think so … I distance myself from this documentary. If I could withdraw my quotes, I would.”
Again, Gottert denies the implication.
“[Schreiner] was used the least, so the things he says could not have been taken out of context. I don’t make claims about the media unless they are corroborated by at least three or four sources. People have said stuff like the media are gullible, that they were manipulated. I summarised it without prompting. Most of them had answers which supported the same theme.”
Gottert also denies questions raised about her former involvement with African Media University, a broadcast training institute that had an office at the South African Broadcasting Corporation during the 1990s.
“Nobody closed us down,” she says. “A few individuals at Sanef [the South African National Editors’ Forum] had a problem, but Sanef as a body never sent a letter [criticising our qualifications].”
She says she “left journalism and reporting” because of the incident.
“All the money I made from it went into a development project. Nobody ever wrote about that.”
Hoping to recover R1-million through the sale and distribution of the documentary against an R800Â 000 personal investment, Gottert says interest has been expressed by Carl Fischer of M-Net as well as agents in Europe.
Dominic Ntsele, media strategist for Kebble, says of the documentary: “I didn’t participate in it, I wasn’t interviewed and I didn’t arrange it.”
Distribution of the four-part documentary series, called The Zuma Media Trial, has been suspended pending legal advice.
“Some aspects may be construed as defamatory,” says Gottert.
It is believed, however, that she will be given the “green light to screen and sell” the series by Friday this week.
Wag the Dog Publishers intends to follow up this story in a forthcoming issue of The Media magazine
This report Â