To really discuss media freedom, we have to first scrutinise what we mean by freedom. Philosophy is important because it should inform practice. Take your time to think, Aristotle sagely advised, before you act.
Unfortunately journalists are always on a deadline treadmill, so there isn’t too much time to stop and think. The concept “media freedom” begs the questions freedom from whom and from what?
Let’s take philosopher Isaiah Berlin’s definition of freedom. Why consider a liberal philosopher? He’s appropriate, given the nature of our liberal cum social democratic Constitution.
Freedom can never be an unqualified absolute as this could translate into anarchy, not what media freedom proponents desire. Berlin theorised two freedoms: negative and positive. ”Freedom from” would be the negative, as in the absence of constraint and unnecessary interference from the State in our lives.
”Freedom to” would be the positive, as in freedom to gain opportunities, such as education and economic freedom, which would then give one time to think and to express — a privilege of the elite when they engage in debates in newspapers.
In his famous treatise on the Two Concepts of Liberty Berlin wrote: “for the positive sense of liberty (which he used interchangeably with freedom) comes to light if we try to answer the question, not ‘What am I free to do or be? but ‘By whom am I ruled?’ or ‘Who is to say what I am, and what I am not, to be or do? Let us apply this to the media and freedom, with the background context of responsibility, accountability, as well as plurality and diversity.
Criticisms of the media
Criticism of the print media emanate from a few angles. The ANC accuses newspapers of inaccurate and negative reporting and of inadequate-if any-coverage on the good programmes of government. To the SACP, the media are “capitalist bastards” (see Blade Nzimande in Red Alert last year) just interested in sensational headlines which sell papers.
There is considerable sympathy from some NGOs and sections of left-wing academe the government critiques: that there is a “class bias” and that rural struggles are ignored, that there is a focus on the elite, that generally the press is not terribly relevant to the majority of South Africans and that it is a sector controlled and constrained by commercial interests. There is also the widespread misconception that owners and publishers tell journalists what to write.
Fact and fiction
The fact that is there is a concentration of ownership with four big companies dominating the media landscape: Independent, Caxton, Avusa and Media24. While the concentration ought to be dismantled, ideally, it does not translate into just a few views in the media. There is a separation between editorial and ownership. But we have knee jerk, ill-informed reactions that black journalists are slaves to white capital, that there is a conspiracy, and even that journalists club together to share information.
There is a substantial array of views, voices and perspectives in commercial and community newspapers in South Africa, but there is always room for more. It could also be argued that the reason for the focus on these elites is because they are the culprits who have to be held to account for the public’s money. The media does also highlight struggles of the poor, for example classrooms with no desks and books, xenophobic attacks on vulnerable people, and service delivery protests. But the problem is that we move on too quickly to the next sexy news item and tend not to go back to the community we covered.
What’s to be done?
Some reflection is needed on how to solve the impasse between antagonists of the press and the press itself, but, first we must accept that given the nature of democracy constant contestations and tensions — it is never going to be a comfortable, intimate in-bed relationship.
Accepting tensions does not entail using the state security state apparatus to tape or bug journalists phones, nor arrest them for no reason, as in the case last year of Sunday Times investigative reporter Mzilikazi wa Afrika. The tensions in society are reflected in the press, not created as figments of imagination of journalists. The media need to help government and the public understand what happens in newsrooms and how the news production process works.
News is news, and the public is entitled to hear about the shenanigans of the powerful. Regarding access to the media: is it the media itself that is preventing the majority of South Africans from having access to the media and media products? When a journalist writes it is his or her wish for as many people as possible to read that article, but newspapers are expensive when families have other priorities.
Journalists can engage in good journalism to push the government to deliver on education, can continue to expose corruption and to encourage the private sector to invest in education and social development instead of on profits. Then more people could enter the newspaper reading market and engage in debates which affect their lives.
Lastly, journalists could become more vigilant and concerned. In the main, they seem rather disengaged about the media freedom space being whittled away, quite at odds with the ANC’s accusation of “hysteria” about their freedom. This is no time to be complacent. We need to reflect, link up with civil society organisations and take action to show we treasure the freedom that we have.
Glenda Daniels serves on the national working group of Right2Know.