There are times and places when being brave should not be a good sign. Take journalism, for instance.
Unlike with, say the Nobel Prize, a country whose journalists are renowned for their courageous journalism should feel ashamed of itself.
If you don’t know who is the holder of any of the numerous awards that reward courageous journalism, take heart. It probably means that you live in a country where journalists need normal toolkits, such as knowledge of their subject and competency in the language, to come through. Everything else is detail. Brave journalists are indicative of oppressive societies.
They are a bit like the woman in the African proverb praised for holding the knife by the sharp end (to protect her child). All it means is that the child is under threat. Mothers should never have to hold knives at that end.
It is common to hear certain newspapers and journalists being called brave. It is meant as a compliment and it often is.
An important requirement of a newspaper is to challenge its readers to think beyond their normal ”truths”. We are meant to provoke discussion and be the avenue for new ideas, which demands we get out of our comfortable spaces.
In a free society we should be able to do that without needing to be brave. I’d be happier if journalists were treated as plumbers or car mechanics, known as either good or bad at their trade, rather than for their bravado.
Courage is a virtue that is often forced on its holders by circumstance. I have never heard of anyone who, on the strength of what they see in a youngster, predicts that he or she will grow up to be a courageous journalist.
As journalists and as a society we should be damn scared once it becomes normal to praise our own for being courageous.
According to Reporters Without Borders, ”135 journalists were in prison around the world on January 1 2008 and the figure has hardly shrunk for several years. Those freed are immediately replaced by new journalist prisoners. At least 887 were arrested in 2007, mostly in Pakistan (195), Cuba (55) and Iran (54).”
To continue working in such countries requires courage. Our bragging rights (that we have the best Constitution in the world) will be lost once we start competing with colleagues in those countries.
Having said that, courage should not be limited to the tendency to stand in the line of fire. It might mean something as mundane as knowingly writing reports or opinions that could be a career-limiting exercise because you believe it is in the interest of greater societal good.
The allegation (as made by, among others, Sandile Memela, who insists that he is a journalist who now works as a government department spokesperson, as opposed to being a former journalist) that senior journalists, particularly black ones, tow the ideological line of their proprietors just to better their careers, speaks to whether we have this kind of courage in our industry.
One need not agree with Memela about whether hacks are simply keeping to the straight and narrow. I don’t.
But, similarly, we cannot simply think of courage as knowing that you could be thrown into prison (or worse) for writing the things you write. It could mean falling out of favour with an employer and thus limiting career prospects.
Media owners, when motivated by the bottom line, can also be figures to be feared and dreaded. Some colleagues see ominous signs that we are headed in the direction of ever-limited rights for journalists and newspapers to operate effectively. In other words, the days of the need for courageous journalism are before us.
They point to the rising number of cases where prominent political figures have taken newspapers to court. Robert McBride, the Ekurhuleni police chief and former ANC military wing operative, won his case against the Citizen, which argued that he is not fit for his office.
Talk in newsrooms is that the resolution by the ANC conference in Polokwane to have government set up a media tribunal is proof that the ANC/government is up to no good.
And Zuma’s court visits have not been limited to ensuring that he does not have his day in court. He is seeking millions in lawsuits from cartoonist Zapiro and various media he says did not always portray him in a positive light.
In a constitutional democracy Zuma, as all of us, has a right to take matters to court if he feels that is the best place to resolve them. It is double standards to expect that his desire to be the next president means that he should surrender that right.
If you think future presidents should not do such things then don’t vote for the guy. Otherwise, the old adage about societies getting the governments they deserve holds true.
Clearly the threat to ”normal” journalism does not necessarily or exclusively lie with those who control state power. Essop Pahad demonstrated the power of the confluence of state and advertiser when he threatened to withhold ads from the Sunday Times because of what he deemed an anti-government agenda.
So if ever there needs to be a courageous cadre, it should be you, dear reader. You buy newspapers, vote for governments and buy wares that the advertisers peddle. You are the bulwark against forces that cause society to require brave journalists. Do your part and we in newspapers will try to do ours.