When one reads a tabloid, you do so suspending credulity because, after all, its core business is “sex, scandal and skinder”. It has to be different with a publication like the Mail & Guardian, founded in the cauldron of the struggle and espousing fundamentally different values.
From the M&G you expect robust measurement against that set of values.
It was personally demeaning for me to read the M&G‘s January 26 article and lead feature “Did Rasool oil hospital deal?” offering “new evidence” that would prove I “facilitated the sale” of the lucrative Somerset Hospital site “without a tender process”. In your questions to me and in a radio interview with one of the authors, this “new evidence” was touted to be minutes of the meeting. Yet, in the article “minutes” became “notes”.
The entire attack on me rests on a so-called unnamed official, whose word became so powerful that it overrode three people who were willing to go on the record to refute the unnamed official’s information. Yet, he shaped the headline, the story and the attack.
How does one defend oneself against such a scurrilous and unethical piece of journalism?
Litigation doesn’t work because the judiciary has set a precedent that public figures are fair game by virtue of the fact that they put themselves out there and are, therefore, at the mercy of anyone, including the media.
We turned to the paper’s ombud so that the paper is judged against the finest standards of journalism. It is heartening that the ombud has suggested that I be given a right to reply. Our central criticism was that the journalism lacked ethics, that the journalists had preconceived outcomes to which the story had to be tailored and that, in the process, they attempted to impugn my integrity.
Our complaint was based on the fact that the story was untrue, inaccurate, unfair and unethical in stating that: the premier was selling the land without a tender process (a legal impossibility given the Public Finance Management Act); that a deal on the land was made in Dubai (provincial Finance Minister Lynne Brown will attest to the fact that I squashed any such discussion); and that the Cape Grace meeting was at my behest (the convener, Dennis Lillie, has gone on record denying that).
This entire episode is unsavoury. It is personally demeaning but, more importantly, the architects of this attack are feeding into the oldest stereotype about Africa — that we are all corrupt. At a point when Dubai World has put its money (R14-billion) where its mouth is, why are we trying to send that message that is essentially unfriendly to them and all other investors? Increasingly the Cape, South Africa and Africa are winning the confidence of global investors, especially ahead of World Cup 2010.
Some among us are doing their best to sabotage this confidence, and journalism should be particularly careful about complicity in this.
In the case of the article in question, I cannot help feeling that the M&G allowed itself to be used either by competitors for the hospital trying to knock Dubai World out of the race, by faceless factionalists fighting cold wars or by a publicity-seeking opposition spokesperson who cannot see any virtue in the ANC, or a combination of the above.
I am sincerely thankful that justice has been done and I have been given this right to reply. It allows me to continue my work without a cloud over my head and, very importantly, allows the M&G to enjoy the freedom of the press with the requisite responsibility.
We stand by our story and granted this right to reply as part of our commitment to fairness. — The Editor