First, a journalist on the trawl constructs a story about something. Second, it is repeated and annotated by other media in the pack. Third, unless it’s rebutted, it turns into established fact. In this way, interpretations and even errors are confirmed as historical realities.
The problem has become a bugbear for David O’Sullivan of 702 Talk Radio, who voiced his concerns during a speech in Johannesburg last week.
He described how a rugby coach once told sports journalists that South Africa had won 30% of matches played in Australia (in contrast to the Ozzies winning 70% when they played here). The statistic, said O’Sullivan, was picked up and recycled in story after story, until journalist Mark Keohane checked and found the figure to be even worse for South Africa — 15%.
O’Sullivan also spoke about last week’s reports that a brother of Minister of Safety and Security Charles Nqakula was possibly implicated in a hit-an-run accident involving the minister’s official car.
He quoted Nqakula’s amused response: ”I have three brothers. One is 76 in Nelspruit in hospital; the other fellow is 79, he is in Cradock. Have I ever seen them drive a car? I don’t think so. My younger brother is also in Cradock, so couldn’t have been in Johannesburg on the weekend.”
O’Sullivan’s point is that the media made a monkey of themselves with the Nqakula brother ”story”. Indeed they did.
I tracked the tale, and found that the original report was in The Citizen, although there’s no version on the paper’s website. According to Business Day, however, The Citizen reported that the driver ”who is believed to be related to Nqakula” had collided with a minibus taxi, and then sped away (my italics). The South African Press Association (Sapa) described The Citizen as quoting ”a source as saying the car was driven by the minister’s brother, who allegedly fled the scene of the crash”.
Fled, sped — same thing perhaps, but they conjure different visual images. As the story rolled, further graphic elements were added. News24 wrote: ”Nqakula’s brother was apparently behind the wheel when the accident happened.” The writer went on to state that a ”thick veil of secrecy” was drawn over the affair.
The Star used the same cliché to connote a mounting conspiracy: ”A veil of secrecy has been thrown over an incident involving the minister of safety and security’s official vehicle, which was allegedly involved in a hit-and-run accident.” Beating a similar drum, Sapa reported that comment was being ”withheld” from ”all official quarters”.
So, was there a cover-up? Nope. The Citizen‘s story was published on Monday October 31; the police statement putting the record straight that it was not Nqakula’s car came out the next day.
The ‘booing’ of the deputy president
The Nqakula-brother untruth was put to rest. But other instances also entailing questionable readings of reality do become canonised as eternal facts. Take the case of reporting the protest by Jacob Zuma supporters at the August Women’s Day rally attended by Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka.
The first and agenda-setting interpretation was by e.tv and it stuck. The framing here had two elements: Mlambo-Ngcuka had been ”booed”, and she had rushed her speech as a result.
The ”booing” descriptor was picked up in many subsequent reports, including by Sapa and the Sunday Independent. It had currency even in the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s own infamous ”apology” for TV not covering the story.
However, not without significance, the Mail & Guardian and Business Day used the term ”jeering” rather than the b-word.
A mere nuance? Or is this not a politically significant difference between a protest that is more of a pro-Zuma affair than an anti-Mlambo-Ngcuka one?
The second aspect of e.tv’s framing deals with the effect on Mlambo-Ngcuka’s speech. As this issue echoed in later coverage, it took on several constructions — all of them slightly different.
- Media24 reported that the deputy president ”had to deviate from her prepared speech”.
- The Mercury wrote that an ”eight-page speech was replaced by hurried, off-the-cuff comments that barely took a few minutes to deliver”.
- One Sapa report gave it the spin that ”pro-Jacob Zuma slogans almost drowned out Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka’s speech”, and another report said that she was unable to complete her remarks.
These interpretations, each with a slightly different twist, were all presented as equivalent and unequivocal facts. Going beyond the e.tv rendition issues, however, a third theme also gained momentum as coverage evolved: we were further given to believe that she was even driven off the platform.
- Media24 reported that ”she eventually had to leave the podium”.
- Sapa repeated several times the interpretation that she ”was booed off stage”.
- The Mercury used the phrase ”shouted off the podium”, adding that Mlambo-Ngcuka became steadily ”embarrassed at the crowd’s stubborn refusal to listen to her”, and that soon after this she ”abandoned the podium”, appearing ”shaken by the ordeal”.
- It went further for the Daily News, which said she ”did not even finish the first page of her speech as Jacob Zuma supporters heckled and shouted her down, forcing a premature end to the province’s Women’s Day celebrations”.
In yet more perspective on what transpired, an opinion published in the Independent on Saturday said the deputy president ”was prevented from delivering a speech”. Business Day implied the same by writing: ”She was shouted off … before she could deliver her keynote address.”
Such ”facts” were subsequently analysed in commentaries, such as in the Daily News where we learn that Mlambo-Ngcuka was ”muzzled” and South Africa has ”a deputy president who cannot speak in certain areas”. Another Daily News commentary states: ”A South African deputy head of state was chased from a function by supporters of her own political party.”
In contrast to these renditions, video clips I’ve seen of the incident show a small section of a crowd chanting Zuma’s name in a tent that contains screens of the deputy president (speaking in an adjacent tent). After her remarks, she sits down and the rally continues. A different representation of the same story.
Established in the public mind, however, is the image of an unpopular Mlambo-Ngcuka being run out of town by Zuma supporters. It is a narrative, that like most others, is based on a particular interpretation and pack mentality, and which becomes synonymous with reality.
O’Sullivan reminded his audience in Johannesburg of the aphorism that journalism ought to be ”the best available approximation of the truth”. The coverage of Nqakula and Mlambo-Ngcuka shows some of our journalism to be approximating the child’s game of broken telephone.