The Tanzanian government recently closed down the newspaper Mwanahalisi for three months over a report alleging a plot to prevent the president from standing for a second term.
The plot allegedly involved the son of President Jakaya Kikwete. Announcing the ban, the information minister said the story was seditious and caused disharmony in the country’s first family.
The country’s media were outraged. In an unusual and inventive response, the editors’ forum imposed a tit-for-tat blackout on the minister. He wouldn’t get any coverage for the duration of the ban on Mwanahalisi, the forum said.
What was surprising about the incident was that the country has an effective and well-respected system of self-regulation through the Media Council of Tanzania. The council has been widely used by people from all sectors, including MPs, a provincial government and a former prime minister.
It is useful to see pressure on South Africa’s media in its regional context. Here we have a Polokwane resolution that seeks to establish a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal. Nothing much has been heard about this plan for the past year.
Instead, the ANC has focused considerable energy on the SABC, laboriously pushing the necessary legislation through Parliament that will enable it to change the SABC’s board.
Control of the media is what is at stake in South Africa, Tanzania and other countries. In Botswana, the new administration of Ian Khama is drawing praise for the forthright tone it is adopting with regard to Zimbabwe, but is pushing ahead with a law that will set up a statutory media council and compel journalists to register.
The Kenyan government has pushed through a similar law in the face of strong opposition by the media, while the Namibian government has signalled its intention to do the same. Angola and Mozambique have institutions of this kind, while Zimbabwe’s media have been under particularly harsh control for some time.
And the list goes on. As political temperatures rise, pressure on the media increases.
In defending themselves against state attempts at control, the media rely on the idea of self-regulation. This takes many forms, including examples like this office, where a newspaper appoints an ombud as in-house critic. Most prominently, some countries have an industry-wide media council, run and financed by the media themselves, where aggrieved members of the public can lodge complaints. South Africa is one of just five countries in SADC to have such a body.
The fundamental argument for self-regulation is simply that it is the only way to ensure accountability without jeopardising media freedom. As soon as the state gets involved, it’s in control.
There are other arguments, too. The system is cheaper and quicker than the courts, for instance, and usually tries to find solutions to disputes through arbitration. And the involvement by media people themselves ensures their expertise in the field is brought to bear on the issue.
In any event, self-regulation is never the only check on the media. People can still sue for defamation and a range of laws exist in all jurisdictions to deal with particular situations.
The danger of self-regulation is that the media will simply look after their own. Many critics say that media councils routinely find against the complainant. In the SA case, such arguments are usually expedient, but they do highlight the point that the media’s credibility depends on taking problems seriously.
Complaints need to be dealt with quickly and efficiently, and the rulings need to be well-publicised and persuasive.
South Africa is part of a region where pressure on the media seems set to increase. Therefore it is critical for journalists to show that self-regulation works.
On its front page, the M&G recently ran the headline: ”Dear Comrade Zuma — Thabo Mbeki’s letter in full (p2).” On that page there was a report about the letter, as well as some extracts. For the full version, readers were referred to the paper’s website.
A reader, Case Rijsdijk, wrote to say this had been misleading. He wrote ”I feel sorry for those of us who are not wealthy and who cannot afford or do not have access to the internet, who spent nearly R20 to read something that wasn’t there as promised. I had been misled by a newspaper that I thought was an honest broker of news.”
When I discussed the issue with people at the paper, I was told that headlines were approximations of news reports — the letter itself did not begin ”Dear Comrade Zuma” either. In addition, I was told that the M&G now sees itself as existing both in print and online, so the headline should be seen as referring to the website.
I don’t buy either argument. It’s true that there is some latitude in headlining, but this one made a promise it didn’t keep. It said readers would find the full text on page 2 Âclearly referring to the printed product, not the M&G Online.
o The Mail & Guardian‘s ombud provides an independent view of the paper’s journalism. If you have any complaints you would like addressed, you can contact me at [email protected]. You can also phone the paper on 011 250 7300 and leave a message