Debate on media tribunal hots up

In the days since the ANC published its working paper discussing the proposal for a Media Appeals Tribunal, the debate has become dizzying, with members of the media, government and civil society all weighing in, writes Jackie Bischof for journalism.co.za.

The proposal for a tribunal was first raised at the ANC’s 2007 conference in Polokwane and quickly disappeared amidst concerns that a tribunal could potentially allow for political control of the media.

Three years later, it reappears in the form of a working paper for the party’s National General Council, planned for September. The working paper appeared after a series of hard-hitting reports about misdeeds on the part of government and party officials, and on the flip side, the discovery that Cape Argus journalist Ashley Smith took money from Western Cape Premier Ebrahim Rasool in return for positive coverage.

The ANC is proposing that a tribunal oversee complaints brought against the press instead of continuing with the industry’s practice of self-regulation. The party has reassured the media that the tribunal would be independent from government and would respect constitutional guarantees of media freedom.

The ANC wants the media tribunal to deter journalists from sensational and careless reporting, a low regard for accuracy, privacy and a lack of commitment to facts, an ineffectual complaints process and a “toothless” ombudsman.

Members of the press and civil organizations are opposed to the idea of a tribunal and are incensed that the ANC has so carelessly disregarded entrenched methods of self-regulation set out by the South African Press Council and the Press Ombudsman. In the context of other legislation that has raised concerns – particularly the Protection of Information Bill, the media feels this is part of a worrying trend to make the industry vulnerable to political control, thus whittling away at the constitutional right of freedom of expression.

Both the media and the ANC recognize the need for direct engagement and will meet in the coming weeks. But it is hard to imagine how well talks will play out with each side expressing such distaste for the views of the other.

Reassurance attempted

Jeff Radebe, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, first responded to fears about the tribunal in a speech at the Nat Nakasa Awards  during the AGM of the South African National Editor’s Forum over the weekend of July 24. He reassured the audience of the ANC’s commitment to constitutional guarantees of media freedom. Any laws affecting the media would be done with “full cooperation and in the formulation with your full participation as one of the important stakeholders.”

However, Radebe said the government was intent on guarding against “conduct that could amount to sheer criminality and compromise national security interests carried out under the guise of media freedom.”

The following day the SA National Editors Forum (Sanef) issued a statement rejecting the proposal for a media tribunal as well as other legislation it deemed “hostile” to media freedom. On August 4 the forum hosted a meeting with journalists and editors at the Avusa Media building in Rosebank, deciding that a core group of people would formally oppose the media tribunal and other pieces of legislation. While the meeting took place, Sunday Times journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika was arrested outside the building, raising concerns over the manner of the arrest, which wa Afrika’s editor, Ray Heartley decried as overly aggressive and “designed to intimidate.”

Butting heads

On August 1, South African Communist Party chairperson Blade Nzimande discussed the tribunal in an address to party members. Nzimande protested the lack of media diversity and transformation in South Africa and the preponderance of what he described as sensationalist news. Saying that the SACP supports media freedom, Nzimande also drew an ideological line in the sand. A tribunal would help “protect members of the public from sensationalist and ideologically inspired libel. And it will help to protect genuine journalists from profit-squeezing Irish bosses, from market-driven media accountants and advertising departments, from unscrupulous media-preneurs of all shapes and sizes.”

Chairperson of the SA Press Council, Raymond Louw, responded directly to criticisms of the council and its ombudsman with a column that attacked the suppositions put forward by the ANC, saying they were a thin disguise for the ANC’s dislike of criticism.

“[The tribunal] has nothing to do with promoting press freedom but everything to do with the way the press reports on the conduct of governance including the conduct of cabinet ministers and other senior officials of the party,” wrote Louw. “They want the press to report the African National Congress’s version of what is happening.”

Louw specifically criticized a sentence in the ANC’s working paper on the tribunal which described the ANC’s objectives desire “to vigorously communicate the ANC's outlook and values … versus the current mainstream media's ideological outlook.’’

SACP Deputy General-Secretary Jeremy Cronin and Reg Rumney, journalist and head of the Centre for Economics Journalism in Africa, butted heads over Cronin’s support of the tribunal in the SACP’s newsletter Umsebenzi Online. Cronin spotlighted a number of newspaper apologies that had recently appeared, arguing that self-regulation was not ensuring responsible journalism. He also argued that the media was blatantly negative in its coverage of the ANC compared to opposition parties.

“Related to this oppositionist inclination is the media's view that it is a watch-dog over those in power … The media certainly needs to play a watch-dog role,” writes Cronin. “However, there are times when watch-dog zealotry displaces other roles of the media - like helping ordinary citizens with accurate information on matters that affect their daily lives. But, again, the question of getting this balance right is not really a matter for a tribunal - except where there are spurious and ungrounded allegations masquerading as blowing the whistle.”

“Let’s call the media tribunal by its proper name, censorship, and not sanitise it with terms like ‘independent regulation of the news media’ or other euphemisms,” wrote Rumney in a response to Cronin’s column. “Together with other proposed protection of information legislation it is a worrying development.”

“Why is a media tribunal necessary when laws already exist to discipline journalists and non-journalists?” Rumney asked.

The right kind of regulation

Head of the Media Diversity and Development Agency, Lumko Mtimde, wrote in the ruling party’s newspaper, ANC Today, that the successful regulation of broadcasters was an example of how a parliament-sanctioned regulatory body could be successful.

Disputing this in an article for the South African Civil Society Information Service, Prof. Jane Duncan of Rhodes University pointed out the weaknesses of the broadcasting regulator and other independent institutions which report to parliament, which she argued become “subjected to repeated attempts by the executive arm of government to reclaim control.”

Describing the paper as ‘media freedom double-speak,’ Duncan wrote: “…for self-serving reasons, the ANC fails to acknowledge its own agency in frustrating media transformation as a precondition for freedom of expression.”

Head of journalism at Rhodes University Prof Guy Berger also criticized the ANC for what he described as several “flawed assumptions” in the working paper that ignored the complexity of the print industry.

On August 7, in a speech to the ANC Youth League in Bloemfontein, ANCYL president Julius Malema, described the media as “dangerous” and said there would be no debate over the tribunal. The ANC would put the proposal to Parliament to be made law, said Malema, according to a report by the Mail & Guardian.

Times columnist Abdul Milazi described the ANC’s proposal as remarkably close to repressive media laws in Zimbabwe and Zambia, and of legislature under apartheid. Addressing Blade Nzimande’s remarks over the minimal transformation and the lack of diversity in the industry, Milazi writes: “What [Nzimande] forgets is that the apartheid regime felt exactly the same way the ANC and its alliance are feeling now i.e that the ‘truth’ the independent media are telling is not the same as the government/ANC “truth’ – therefore it has to be silenced.”

Most recently, the country’s title editors released their Auckland Park declaration, expressing their strong opposition to the information bill and the MAT plan.  The declaration, which was published prominently in Sunday papers on August 8, said: "We appeal to the South African Government and the ruling ANC to abide by the founding principles of our democracy, and to abandon these proposed measures."

In a mark of the depth of their concern at these measures, the declaration was signed by 37 editors from all sectors of the print media. It was the greatest show of unity ever from South Africa’s media.