Readers weigh in on the press code, Zapiro and more.
Report violates press code
Ilham Rawoot’s article “The conundrum that is Lumko Mtimde” (June 17) is misleading, unfair, dishonest and amounts to bad reporting under the South African Press Code, clause 5.1, which states that headlines and captions shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report.
The headline declares me a “conundrum”, which means a riddle in which a fanciful question is answered by a play of words or is anything that puzzles. Rawoot and the Mail & Guardian sub-editor have not explained which fanciful question was answered by me by a play of words or whether I am anything that puzzles.
Instead Rawoot says: “Lumko Mtimde, chief executive of the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA), has been consistently outspoken in his support for a media appeals tribunal. And this contradiction was no less jarring when, late on Wednesday night, the organisation distanced itself from his views.”
The statement to which this refers reads: “The Board of the Media Development and Diversity Agency is satisfied that Mr Lumko Mtimde, the chief executive officer of the MDDA, has consistently emphasised that his views on the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal are his own and not those of the MDDA. Mr Mtimde comments in his own capacity as a citizen of South Africa who is guaranteed the right to express his personal views. This is in line with the rights espoused in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
There is no indication here that the MDDA “distanced itself” from my views. The agency has not expressed its view on the matter of a tribunal.
Rawoot says my past as an activist fighting for media freedom and the freeing of the airwaves is overshadowed by my “notoriety as the man behind the tribunal that threatens the very essence of freedom of expression”. Yet she cannot show how media freedom is threatened by a call for South Africa to discuss media-accountability mechanisms through (among others) a proposal by the ANC to discuss a media appeals tribunal intended to provide an independent appeal mechanism for all if one is not satisfied with the existing self-regulatory system, or by strengthening the self-regulatory system.
Rawoot also interviews Jane Duncan and Anton Harber about me and the MDDA. The press code says a publication should seek the views of the subject of serious critical reportage in advance of publication. Duncan speaks of the challenges faced by print media (specifically small commercial and community media) and asks: “What measures has the MDDA put in place to stem the bloodbath?” Rawoot never asked me or the MDDA these questions. Instead, she leaves the impression that the MDDA does nothing about these matters or that I have my priorities all wrong.
Without knowing Duncan’s questions, however, I explained the MDDA’s mandate to Rawoot and its programmes, including its interaction with Parliament on small commercial and community media. She could have sought direct answers to these questions, or at least used what was provided. But none of this is in her article. Had Rawoot been fair in her reporting, she would have outlined the “energy” (as required by Duncan) used by the MDDA to lobby for better conditions for community and small commercial media (see the MDDA’s annual reports, strategic and business plan, as well as its Facebook wall).
Clearly, the article is non-compliant with the press code, including clause 1.2 regarding balanced reporting. Presumably, at the core of this is a difference of opinion about a needed dialogue on media-accountability mechanisms. Whatever views we hold on this, we should always endeavour to preserve the noble principles on which journalism is founded.
— Lumko Mtimde, chief executive, MDDA
Obsession with race distracts readers from real story
I am the senior technical adviser for the Simon Nkoli Clinic as well as the clinic manager and one of the doctors quoted in the article “Saved by township treatment” (Health, June 10). Health4Men is a project funded through the Anova Health Institute by USAid and the US President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief.
We appreciate the extensive coverage by your paper, but we felt that the emphasis on race was disconcerting and a distraction from what the clinic is endeavouring to achieve in terms of service design and delivery.
The story covered the experiences of two white, gay men attempting to access antiretroviral medication for HIV. Their efforts to access public health services had been met with inefficiency and homophobia, compounded by their own anxiety about how they would be perceived.
At the Simon Nkoli Clinic, it appears, they were “surprised” to discover that there were public services out there (we are actually a nongovernmental organisation) that not only met their needs, but also exceeded their expectations.
The article appears well intended but, on deeper analysis, seems to perpetuate the notion that public health services are inaccessible to white people and that they do not feel safe among black workers or other patients. How “reassuring” to find that the perceived black threat was fictitious and the services received superior to any previously encountered in the private sector. Frankly, the clinic’s staff and patients have more important concerns than the paranoia of white people. The project has no interest in the racial grouping of its clients. It aims to serve all in a respectful, efficient and customer-focused manner.
Please, South Africa, let’s stop this racial perception of difference and instead focus on the basic principles of human rights, dignity and respect. It is not okay to keep people waiting for hours. It is not okay to design services to suit nurses and doctors. It is not okay to demand gratitude and deference from clients and it is not okay to treat individuals in need of our services with disrespect. — Dr Michael Laurino, Soweto
Ngcobo term extension not in SA’s best interests
The argument in favour of extending the chief justice’s term (“It is in SA’s interest that Ngcobo stays“, June 17) holds no water. If the president can extend the chief justice’s term, he effectively has the ability to reappoint him/her, which would give the chief justice an incentive to remain in government’s good books. This could undermine the independence of the judiciary.
The fact that the extension is currently restricted to five years is irrelevant, as is the fact that Ngcobo, apparently, is a man of vision and high integrity. The extension sets a precedent that could be built upon. A fixed term is imperative. — Terence Grant, Cape Town
Zapiro’s rapetoonism is insidiously sexist
Aside from Zapiro’s increasingly unimaginative use of cheap shock tactics to make his increasingly predictable points, in his latest venture in rapetoonism (June 10) he quite shockingly reveals himself as a sexist of the most insidious kind.
Sure, we could have Jacob Zuma preparing to rape Lady Justice because the symbol is traditionally a female one, but why is free speech also a poor, defenceless woman at the mercy of her male aggressors? There is no precedent for freedom of speech being represented symbolically in female form, so why could free speech not be a strong, strapping male fighting against a legion of inferior minions?
Would it be too much to ask Zapiro to consider, once in a while, deploying the scalpel of subtlety in his toolbox instead of constantly bashing us over the brow with the blunt brick of obviousness? — Gordon Scott, Kloof
Michelle Solomon’s Body Language article (“Rape is no metaphor“, June 17) takes Zapiro to task for his recent cartoon. Let me say I find Zapiro’s cartoons, including his “rape” cartoons, highly effective. That means he challenges our everyday thinking patterns and causes us to question and reassess these.
Now for Solomon’s problem. She is a rape survivor, as are many South African women. This puts her in a special position vis-à-vis these rape-metaphor cartoons. But we don’t have to join her there, although of course we will sympathise — who wouldn’t? Remember the point of these cartoons — they are metaphors. It is justice and free speech we are fighting for. And rape is a hugely effective metaphor. All power to your pen, Zapiro. You are a wake-up call to us all. — Anne Welsh, Cape Town
Solomon challenges Zapiro’s use of the rape of women to symbolise the violation of democratic principles. As a rape survivor herself, Solomon bravely points to Zapiro’s own role in perpetuating the acceptability of the rape of women in images. Ironically, he uses this image to make a point about an abuse of power, but not about the rape of women per se.
Wittingly or not, journalists such as Zapiro play a role in shaping public discourse on sexual violence against women. But Zapiro has a choice. He can reproduce existing power relations that render the rape of women possible, or he can be an agent in prompting the public to think about how we can change the very power relations on which rape is based.
Rape, as an act of power, is also made possible through discourses and imagery of women’s bodies as objects that are symbolically acted on by men. Where are Zapiro’s cartoons against endemic violence against women — not as metaphor but as critique of the reality that faces one in three women? This would demand a cartoon that does not repeat the violation of women’s bodies as a means to talk about institutional abuses of power.
Interestingly, in invoking the rape metaphor Zapiro doesn’t depict the rape of the male body. Is this because it is unthinkable to show men’s bodies in such a violated and demeaned manner? And what does that say about how women’s bodies can be imagined? Does Zapiro have the imagination to go beyond the obvious? — Melanie Judge, Cape Town
How is the Zapiro cartoon in question metaphorical? In it I see political satire sending a strong message against a disgusting ploy to hide corruption using the Protection of Information Bill. We, the citizens, are actually the ones being raped, with our hands tied behind our backs, nogal.
Our politicians personalise issues so much that I am asking the editor to let me use an assumed name here. If Solomon could take this cartoon so personally, imagine the politicians’ reaction. What shocks in this cartoon is the message, not the “metaphor” you see and I, frankly, don’t see. These shock tactics are necessary to crush the Protection of Information Bill to smithereens, and I hope they succeed. — Democracy Motaung, Soweto
Memories of the Stone Age
I was fascinated by your article about the statues and busts of past apartheid leaders, now crowded together in a dusty warehouse like a mournful display at a political Lourdes (June 17). So that’s where all the aikonas have gone!
I’m sorry your reporter didn’t notice our Boerassic Park at Evita se Perron in Darling (www.evita.co.za), where we have a unique collection of apartheid artefacts in our museum, which some call a nauseum.
The one thing we don’t tolerate is nostalgia. The apartheid we all knew will never come back again under the same name. But don’t let us underestimate the inventiveness of evil politics. It will find its way back under a bland name and trick us into calling it democracy. Let us remember where we come from, so we can celebrate where we are going. — Evita Bezuidenhout, Darling