PRESS FREEDOM IN SOUTH AFRICA

[SandyB]

I have just written to Avaaz.org    ,   they do online  campaigns ,,
The new campaign i have suggested  is to  oppose the  by Ruling ANC party  proposed   media tribunal , a veiled attempt to stifle the media as it appears this bunch cannot handle the way the press is continually  airing their  steady stream of cock ups  and  air of  feeling totally unaccountable , if this  bill gets passed it will be worse than in the old nat regime  protetcion  of information act ,, this country has come so far and now seems they want it  to regress into a Zimbabwe ,,,
Really all they got  to do is pull up their socks and do their damm jobs ...  if this campaign is accepted   you will all be asked to  vote  against this proposed bill  ...

[Michael Alexander]

Following this also....seen today on news24 that Tokyo Sexwale is against any curbs on the media....so the anc camp not all in the same bed then?

[SandyB]

Mmm seems  so ,,,,  I know for fact that the  press will take it  to constitutional court ...  these  Poephols in govt  just cant stand  anymore  press exposure ,,,,

[toonfandangl]

When you say freedom for the press Sandy err, I was wondering doe's that mean the government has some control over your Internet. .....Frank.

[SandyB]

@ Frank .. internet   to all extents free ..  this Media Tribunal Bill they want  pushed through will mean they can declare anything  secret in the interests of the country and the  penalties for any journalist   publishing   said  " secret info "  would mean stiff  jail sentence  etc  ..  it would mean the  end of  investigative journalism  ,, a tame press  and that they can carry on with corruption  etc  unhindered .. 
the  very press  freedom they damanded years ago when they  the  ANC  were  in the "struggle " they  now  want  to reverse back to   pre  1994  again cos they getting embarresed  too much as  the end  of their  corruption and bungling   seems nowhere in sight

[Bob Molloy]

Here is a point of view from within the media. A bit lengthy but worth ploughing through.



Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media - are they the same thing?
By Steuart Pennington of www.sagoodnews.co.za

This is a difficult newsletter to write.
Firstly, there has been an unprecedented outpouring of anger in media circles regarding the proposed Access to Information Bill and the proposed statutory Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT). Unless one joins the chorus of media critics one is seen as pro the introduction of "Nazi-style apartheid government" muzzling measures!
Secondly, I think there is a distinction to be made on the question of the "free flow of information" and the "role of the media". I will deal with this later.
Thirdly there is the issue of who controls the media and what their agenda is.
Fourth, there is you and I, ordinary citizens who have a need to know the truth of our country and the ability to challenge distortions of the truth when they appear in the media in an inexpensive, immediate manner.
And lastly, this is a complex subject, and needs to be dealt with at length.
This newsletter needs to be read in conjunction with the ANC Concept Document www.anc.org.za/show.php?doc=ancdocs/ngcouncils/2010/media.pdf and the Freedom of Expression Institute's response http://www.fxi.org.za/content/view/146/52/.
Pope John Paul 11 said, "There cannot be forgotten the great possibilities of mass media in promoting dialogue, becoming vehicles for reciprocal knowledge, of solidarity and of peace. They become a powerful resource for good if used to foster understanding between peoples, a destructive 'weapon' if used to foster injustice and conflicts."
"He who controls the media controls the mind," Jim Morrison once said. This is a comment to be taken seriously because the media does exercise considerable control over our perceptions of the reality. (By way of example - isn't it odd that by far the most complimentary articles, videos, powerpoint presentations on our hosting of the World Cup came overwhelmingly from foreign journalists?)
As the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) of Australia in their "Recommended Revised Journalist Code of Ethics" say:
•   "Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities."
•   "They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable."
•   "Accountability engenders trust."
•   "Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities."
If letters to the press and the conversation on talk shows are anything to go by there is a public perception that the print media, in particular, have neglected the issue of accountability more than they should have. As one caller on the SAfm after8 debate said "The printed media in this country think they are a law unto themselves". Maybe that is too strong a sentiment.
But the question it poses is profound, "do journalists fulfil their public responsibilities?"
Our democracy is young, our transformation is poor in some areas and remarkable in others, our healing as a nation is improved on a personal level but floundering regarding some of our big structural challenges (poverty, education, health, safety). We are a developing country which is ranked "exceptionally" in the area of economic performance, "well" in the area of political performance and "poorly" in the area of social performance. Our psyche as a nation is not good. We lament the brain drain, we are saddened by the fact that 80% of our youth have no confidence in our future and we wonder why we beat up on ourselves so much! We are surprised at the extent to which the hundreds of thousands visitors who came to our shores during June fell in love with our country and our people.
Why?
I think the answer has to do with the role of our media. Let me say at the outset that I will fight tooth and nail any attempt to control the free flow of information, that is censorship by any other name. In my experience across Africa many governments still hide behind archaic colonial "Secrets Act" type legislation as an excuse for muzzling the media. We must be a society where transparency is the order of the day, and we must fight any attempt to curb it.
But that does not mean the media can say what they like. It does not mean that the media can distort the truth and get away with it under the guise of what is currently ineffectual self-regulation (ombudsman). It does not mean that the media have no role to play in our transformation or healing challenges. It does not mean that irresponsible, unaccountable journalism can be simply apologised for by recalcitrant editors. It does not mean that the truth can be distorted to serve some other agenda.
And...why is there such an aversion to "good news"? Why do we need to hear about bus accidents in Bangladesh and hardly ever about positive developments in our own country? Is this just a media habit "Good News is no news" or is it deliberate? "Bad News is what sells newspapers" is in today's world an outdated paradigm. Our www.sagoodnews.co.za website is used in 190 countries around the world by thousands of users who spend on average 30 minutes a month on the site. The media has a profound influence on the narrative of a country, and in our case there is as much good to celebrate as there is bad to confront. I can sympathise why government and the public at large are frustrated by this "bad news obsession" and sensationalist reporting to boot!
And there is another question, it may be unpopular, but it needs to be asked. "Are we not mimicking the Euro-centric media model in many (not all) of our printed news publications?" The refuge of "we print what we know our readers like to read" or the grandiose "we serve our readership" is often just an excuse for lazy journalism. I say this because I am struck by the different views African media intellectuals have on the role of the media.
The words of Chief Anyaoku of Nigeria ring so very true. He says, "I must reflect on a further ingredient that facilitates an overcoming of the challenge of divisive pluralism. I refer here to the role of the media. This instrument has time and again proved to be a facilitator of integration and healing in divided and traumatised societies. In times of oppression, it served the cause of division.
As the world grapples with the challenge of developing plural democracy, the experience of different regions of the world has shown that the media can become instruments for intensifying the sense of otherness, hence, impede the process of integration and cooperation in divided societies."
The distinction made by Robert Kabushenga, Editor-in-Chief of New Vision in Uganda, at the Highway Africa Conference 2009 (a gathering of 500 African journalists) where he talked of "shallow" and "deep" journalism is instructive. "Shallow journalism is a concoction of cheap and nasty sensationalism combined with a heavy dose of cynicism, whereas "deep" journalism is investigative, interrogative, sensitive and profound. I'm not expecting either "shallow" or "deep" journalism to focus on just the positive, I am arguing for balance."
Cedrick Ngalande, writing from Los Angeles, California, reminds us, "Remember that negative perceptions are easy to plant in people's minds but it takes years, even generations, to eradicate them. The South African media may yet regret the perceptions they are creating about South Africa in the minds of many across the world".
I think this is the motivation behind the 20 page Media Transformation, Ownership and Diversity discussion document produced by the ANC in which they state:
"Freedom of expression needs to be defended but freedom of expression can also be a refuge for journalist scoundrels, to hide mediocrity and glorify truly unprofessional conduct. Freedom of expression means that there should be objective reporting and analysis which is not coloured by prejudice and self interest. Freedom of expression means that we should all try to ensure diversity: diversity of content, diversity of sources of information, diversity of ownership and diversity of outlook and responses in our advertising industry. If the media occupies such a hallowed position as a contributor to the evolution of nations, what frames of reference should it define for itself?"
This is a question about the role of the media, not about the free flow of information. I think much of the comment in our printed media and on our talk shows is confusing the two. I think the frenzy of media accusations that the Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) is an attempt to muzzle the media is because there is a realisation that the media has, too often, overstepped the mark in terms of accountability and accuracy. I don't think the government's MAT proposal would have seen the light of day were this not the case.
The media and the public must fight any attempt to curb the flow of information.
Our media editors must dissuade the government from implementing the MAT by introducing a more vigorous form of regulatory control. This body should take the form of an independent media tribunal, comprising representatives from the media, big business, civil society and government. Journalists should fear for their jobs if they are brought before this tribunal. Editors should have to pay hefty fines if they are found guilty of unaccountable, irresponsible journalism. And people like you and me should have easy, quick access with confidence that our case will be heard inexpensively and fairly.
Our truth as a country will then take on a different reality!

[Paul Alexander]

No tribunal staffed or initiated by a single party can be considered independent. The issue at hand here is fairness and representation in reporting. The problem with the proposed bill and subsequent tribunal is in effect (or at least in my mind) the severity of the penalty coupled with the ease at which it would be applied (i.e.: the right of any government section to declare something 'secret'). I have to admit that the quality of my favorite Sunday rag's reporting has degraded somewhat in the past 5 to 10 years, the cover stories are way more sensationalist than they need to be and there appear to be quite a few more retractions that there were in the past. I can quite easily see how there would be concern that an incorrectly reported article would launch an immediate public backlash before a retraction was ever printed and even then, the human mind is a fickle one and tends to remember the negatives (regardless of the retractions or positives) and so our perceptions are molded. I would suggest that the penalties be more practical and more geared toward effecting behavioral change than punitive. The papers should be forced to print retractions in bold print on their subsequent front pages, thereby enabling the public (whether purchasing the paper or not) to form an opinion on the quality of reporting for that particular periodical. After all, the courts and press ombudsman exist for the handling of defamation charges do they not? Why would you need an additional body?

[SandyB]

All well put  points ...  in some  respects and at times  .. yes the media sensationalist --
The  crux of the matter is the " secrets act "  and  the  representation  on the tribunal  and  who is initiating it ?? To say  that in SA  there is a growing  suspicion  of ANC agenda is  true  ,  the attempts  to " centralise " power ..  reduce the amount of provinces  , by amalgamating   they could change the  political demographic of  new province ...  change  the voting  system ... put  it simply they dont like opposition .. they dont  like seeing a viable opposition  grow ..   dont like being  held accountable ...   basic  gut  viewpoint  but  yes   living here  in SA one sees  every day  the  results of broken promises  to the electorate ,  bungling  and corruption ..  its injustice ... I dont like injustice ...
I  ,  we   and all would like to  see more positivity flow  consistently .. but  it requires a caring  and listening Govt  to  make it happen  consistently

[Michael Alexander]

@Sandy, that being the only way that the ANC can get their grubby paws on the Cape....

[SandyB]

AN INTERESTING CLIP  OF QUESTION AND ANSWER WITH THE SA NATIONAL EDITORS FORUM ,,, HE IS NOT  A  SETTLED COLONIALIST OR  EUROCENTRIC .. JUST A SOUTH AFRICAN ,,THE QUESTION BE WHY??  HE HAS SOME ANSWERS  I THINK ...
THE TITLE OF THE CLIP IS  " THE MEDIA IS FIGHTING FORCES   WHO  PREFER  DARKNESS ...

[Bob Molloy]

The latest from Helen Zille shows that the Democratic Alliance is not letting the grass grow under their feet.


"Those of us who value our hard-won Constitution are gearing up to defend it against an all-out attack on media freedom. The Protection of Information Bill (which effectively criminalises investigative journalism), the proposed media tribunal (to make the press accountable to politicians) and the arrest and detention of journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika form part of a dangerous pattern.
But these attempts to curtail the independent press tell only half the story. Targeting the print media is part of the ANC's "ground war."
The other half is the "air war." The ANC has been waging a stealthy campaign to co-opt the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). The air war and the ground war are part of a two-pronged assault on media freedom.
The ANC hopes to pull of a coup de grace in the form of the Public Service Broadcasting Bill soon to be tabled in Parliament. It is the final plank in the ANC's plan to ensure that the SABC reflects the values of the ANC.
If this Bill becomes law, it will put the SABC under the direct de jure control of the Minister of Communications by giving him authority over its finances, allowing him to issue directives to the SABC Board, the authority to appoint the Local Content Advisory Board and the power to exert a great deal of influence over appointments to the SABC Board. All this means is that the SABC will effectively be accountable to the Minister, instead of to Parliament and the SABC Board as it is currently.
Like the Protection of Information Bill, we will fight this legislation with all we have. We cannot allow the ANC to take us back to the dark days when everything you saw on television and heard on the radio was decided by the ruling party. Those were the bad old days. We have come too far to go backwards."

[SandyB]

Thanks for  that  article Bob ,, could  not find it on  search to post here  ,, it was in the papers ...

[SandyB]

In saturdays Argus ,, Zuma  savages press ,,, Mmm a well written  script  for him to publish  let alone  read out  ,,  methinks he secretly got the dishonorable  Mr Carl Niehaus  to write  it , while the man is not a decent  of ethics  person  he has a silver tongue and pen ,, the  ultimate spin doctor , ,,  wont even go into the content , but yes  go back to the ANC  selective memory re  ,,  Ebrahim Rasool ( the fool )    ,, they quick enough to pillory the press because of a couple of  journos that were on  his ( ie the ANC payroll ) as dodgy and using that as one of the sticks to now  try  beat the press .. ...  meanwhile Mr  Thefool   has presented his credentials  to  Mr  Obama to be US ambassodor to SA ... If I was Obama  I would send him back home .. sorry there is a cloud  over your head ... In the sunday times , examples of  the various  sort of  always bubbling to the surface  stuff covering all sorts of bungling and result of corrupt actions  stuff that they could sumariily declare  off limits   " in the interests of the nation "  if the  information bill  is passed ,,  all investigative journo work would be frought with  threat of retribution ...  and then  add on the  the cherry to the cake the  ANC  backed media tribunal ... IF THIS  IS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN  ,,,  SAY GOOD BYE  SA ...

[toonfandangl]

Sandy!.... You seem to have more problems over there with your broad sheet than you do with the Internet.  Why I asked is that at the moment here in Australia our Internet is free from political interference. The Labour government announced a National Broadband Network awhile ago which will cost an estimated 43 billion dollars over a period of time yeah!! that means we will be paying a hell of a lot more for our connection.  The other problem is they wanted to introduce a Filter, and the Filter was to pacify parents "etc" worrying about child pornography and other such nasties!! as they explain in their political broadcasts.
like any interference's with media it is a form of censorship and once they install it then your information base has been compromised. There has been such an outcry here (we go to the polls on the 21st of August) and I might say its been from the general public that the Labour party has as they say kicked this Filter into the long grass were it should stay, for how long who knows.

You say that S/A Internet has not been compromised yet, if your Media Tribunal Bill is passed then your Internet will also be affected..........keep the fight going Sandy.        Frank.

[SandyB]

@ Frank ,,  more so  than the  media tribunal ,, its the  protection of secrets act  that will present a threat  to  interenet  cos  if they get that right in concert with the  Media  bill then the only free information ( thats  if one can  even get the info )  flow would be via internet ,, and their next step  ouwld be to hunt down the wistleblowers and sources via internet ,, this  is only the start ,,,  it wil be heavily opposed via the constitutional court ,,