20100814
ANC

A letter from the President of the African National Congress, Jacob Zuma, carried on the party's website:

Sixteen years after freedom, South Africa's young and fragile democracy continues to mature and has surpassed that of some of the world's most developed democracies. The features and strength of any democracy is amongst others, robust and open debate, without fear and prejudice.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, (Act 108 of 1996), has a Bill of Rights, which amongst others guarantees the freedom of the media and expression.

As the ANC, we worked hard to get this clause into the Constitution and with good reason. We firmly believe that the media must be allowed to do its work freely and without fear or prejudice, within the context of the Constitution and the law. Nothing must be done by government or any authority to undermine or erode these fundamental rights.

While recognising the role that the media plays in a democracy such as ours, this role must be understood within the context of strengthening our country's human rights culture and promoting the values enshrined in our Constitution. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law of the land, and serves as a guide to all of us, including the media. We must all operate and function within its letter and spirit.

The critical question to ask is what is the role of the media in the promotion of our country's human rights culture and the Bill of Rights? Does it have a role in promoting nation building? Does it have a role to play in the promotion of the country's prosperity, stability and the well-being of its people? Is it a spectator, or does it have vested interests and an agenda, political and commercial, that it cherishes and promotes?

I have observed and have been following the debate on the ANC proposal to have parliament investigate the desirability of establishing the Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) with keen interest. I must state from the onset that I am astounded by the commentaries and opinion pieces written by some within the media fraternity and within the society broadly, in reaction to this important debate. Some suggest that the establishment of the MAT is meant to settle scores. Others still suggest that this is an attempt by the ruling party to control and bulldoze the media using the tactics of apartheid regime.

To even suggest that the ANC and its government could have any similarities to the apartheid regime is not only preposterous, it is also disingenuous and an unbearable insult. Arguments that the ANC wants to muzzle the print media is premised on a falsehood that the ruling party, the ANC has no ethics, morals and values and that it does not want the media to expose some of its cadres when they are in trouble with the law, including corruption.

We will not dwell on refuting these arguments. All right thinking and properly informed people know that it is the ANC democratic government that has made it fashionable to fight corruption, and even to talk about fighting corruption. We have a big arsenal of instruments to fight corruption within the State, and these are performing their functions very effectively and the positive results of these are there for all who are willing to see them to see.

Other than law enforcement agencies, we have Chapter 9 institutions such as the Public Protector, South African Human Rights Commission, Auditor General and others, managed by highly capable and distinguished men and women. We are very proud of their work.

Unfortunately, it is the misleading and over-defensive arguments by some media practitioners and their supporters that have muddied what would have ordinarily been a productive and a necessary debate within the context of our Constitution.

The time has come for the real debate to begin. Let us move away from the hysteria and dwelling on individual experiences. Let us look at the issues and the state of the media in South Africa as an institution that claims to be the watchdog of South African society.

The media has put itself on the pedestal of being the guardian. We therefore have the right to ask, who is guarding the guardian? All institutions, even parliament has mechanisms in place to keep them in check. Almost all professions have similar mechanisms from teachers to architects, doctors, engineers, politicians, lawyers and others.

This is based on the principle that in practising their rights and doing their jobs, these professionals may trample on the rights of others and the victims must have recourse through legitimate institutions. The starting point is that media owners and media practitioners cannot claim that this institution is totally snow white and without fault. They cannot claim that the media products we have in our country today, adequately reflect the lives and aspirations of all South Africans, especially the poor.

Can a guardian be a proper guardian when it does not reflect the society it claims to protect and represent?

They cannot claim that there is a diversity of ownership, content and staffing within the newsrooms. When a person from ku-Qumbu in the Transkei opens a newspaper in the morning, does he or she see himself or herself in it? Is it a mirror of his or her life - past, present and future.

For instance, South Africans rebelled against the media in June-July this year, united in their diversity. When the gloom and doom dominated news reportage over many months, they decided to defy the chorus of division and negativity and projected the type of society they want to be, and how they want to be viewed by the world. That is one 2010 FIFA World Cup tournament lesson that the media has not yet realised or that they are choosing to pretend it did not happen.

Let us move beyond the hysteria, let the real debate begin. Our first point is that before looking at what they regard as external threats and perceived external threats, the media should conduct introspection first. During our State visit to Russia a week ago, Russian television was running a promotional jingle saying: "How dependent is the independent media? Who pays for the news?"

We also have every right to look at other pressures facing journalists, which make them compromise quality of their stories. The media is a business enterprise. Its primary issue is to make a profit. The media products must make money and be commercially viable. Press freedom and the like are noble principles, but we all know that what drives the media is money, like all businesses.

There is fierce competition to increase circulation figures in order to boost advertising. This puts many editors under constant pressure from media owners. They do not talk about this in public. They talk about press freedom and perceived potential external threats to it from government, the ruling party and not threats from commercial interests.

Therefore, the debate about "who pays for the news" must also be opened, in a constructive manner. Are editors under pressure to sell their papers and to increase their circulation figures at whatever cost, including at times relying on unchecked and unverified smears in order to boost sales and circulation?

What protection does an ordinary citizen who cannot afford lawyers have when their rights have been violated? How can they compete with powerful business interests who control the media either through ownership or advertising spend?

The ANC cannot and will not pose any threat to the media. It is not in its interests to do so. Not when it is working so hard to consolidate and protect this hard-won democracy and freedom. We would never do anything to jeopardise the gains we have made. But we have a responsibility to democratise every aspect of South African society including the media. It is our historical duty.

The ANC has for many decades led struggles to liberate the masses of our people, both black and white, from the repressive system of apartheid. As early as the 1950's, the ANC defined the kind of South Africa it wants. This culminated in the adoption of the Freedom Charter, which forms the basis of our work and programme of action since 1994.