The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Yesterday the Democratic Alliance (DA) held a press conference in which we revealed that the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) is in an advanced state of disarray and, partly as a consequence of this, that South Africa has been selling or attempting to sell arms to a number of fundamentally undemocratic countries, including Iran, Libya, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

The press conference received a substantial amount of coverage across the board (see below). It was covered on eTV's 7pm news bulletin as the lead item; on radio, numerous internet news sites and in some 13 newspapers, three of which ran it on their front page and one as a front page banner headline.

Yet, despite almost every other news outlet in the country identifying this story as significant and worthy of substantial coverage, SABC News refused to run the story.

The public broadcaster's refusal to cover the story is an indictment of the SABC's journalistic principles in general, and its political judgment in particular: it failed to understand the importance of the story and cited a series of sham reasons in trying to justify its decision not to cover it.

The SABC cited three reasons (each one changing as it was disproved) for not running the story. First, it argued that, because the DA could not provide the names of the NCACC members who met to improperly authorise a number of the deals, it would not run the story; then it argued that, because the DA would not reveal its sources, it would not run the story; finally it argued that the SABC would need more details (specifically the quantity of the arms sold in each case) and, because the DA would not provide those, it would not run the story.

All of these reasons were spurious:

First, the DA provided a full list of NCACC members to the media; not being able to identify those specific members responsible for authorising a particular deal is neither here nor there; the fact is, the deals were authorised. At the very least, having been given that information, the SABC was obliged to contact the NCACC and get an explanation from them;
Second, any journalist should understand the principle that one protects one's sources; for the SABC to lay that down as a condition for running a story is outrageous; and
Third, the specific quantities of arms sold have absolutely nothing to do with the core issue: that South Africa is arming dictators - an issue that they refused to engage or understand.

That none of the SABC's excuses stand up to scrutiny is further attested to by the extent of the coverage given by the other media, and the fact that no major media group or media outlet in South Africa failed to run this important story.

Further, the deals themselves were not the only story. In some detail the DA set out how the NCACC was in an advanced state of disarray - the SABC chose to ignore that too.

The SABC seemed incapable of understanding that, by making such serious allegations, the DA WAS the news and the very least a media outlet should do, when presented with such powerful leads, is to put the requisite questions to those implicated and follow-up. Everyone else did that or reported the allegations AS allegations, why not the SABC? Was it trying to protect the Department of Defence? Or are its key journalists unable to indentify the news? Either way, it is a deeply problematic state of affairs.

The full coverage generated by the DA's press conference was as follows:

Newspapers:

Citizen: Front page banner headline: "SA exports arms illegally, says DA"
Cape Times: Front page: "Arms sales not properly authorised, alleges DA"
The Star: Front page: "DA slams dodgy arms deal"
Mercury: Page 2: "DA blows whistle on SA arms exports"
Die Burger: Page 2: "Nuwe vrae oor wapens"
Die Burger (Oos Kaap): Page 2: "Nuwe vrae duik op oor wapens"
Pretoria News: Page 2: "DA slams sale of arms to Libya, other"
Volksblad: Page 2: "Regering moet se oor wapentransaksies"
Business Day: Page 4: "DA claims watchdog approved ‘suspect' arms deals"
Beeld: Page 4: "Regering moet we se oor talle wapenstransaksies"
Daily Dispatch: "DA uncovers dodgy arms deals"
EP Herald: "Permit delay has arms committee in costly crisis"
The Times: "Arms committee in crisis"

Radio news:

Cape Talk: (2 August) 13.01.58 (3 August) 06.00.34 - lead story; 07.01.03; 08.01.39, 09.00.18 - lead story
702 Talk Radio: (3 August) 06.23.23; 06.24.51
SAfm*: (3 August) 06.17.41; 06.18.13; 07.05.51; 07.06.32
Good Hope FM*: (3 August) 11:01:47
Kfm: (3 August) 06.02.56; 07.00.36 - lead story; 08.02.31;
RSG*: (3 August) 11.00.22 - lead story; 12.00.51 - lead story
5FM*: (3 August) 11.59.30 - lead story
Radio2000*: (3 August) 12.00.30 - lead story
Ligwalagwala FM*: (3 August) 12.00.22 - lead story

* The ultimate indictment of the SABC's decision is the fact that its own radio stations, including Good Hope FM, RSG, Radio2000, 5FM, Ligwalagwala and SAfm, picked up on this story this morning in response to its prominence in the August 3rd press.

Television news:

eTV (2 August): 18.59.52 - lead story (3 August): 06.00.53 - lead story; 06.29.04 - lead story; 06.59.22 - lead story; 07.29.12 - lead story
eNewsChannel (3 August): 07.01.06; 08.00.52 - lead story; 09.00.55 - lead story; 10.01.20; 11.01.38

Internet news:

Independent online: "DA slams dodgy arms deals"
Politicsweb: "SA's dodgy arms sales to dictators"
News24: "DA: govt arming dictators"
AFP: "S.Africa opposition accuses govt of arming dictators"
SAPA: "Arms committee in crisis: DA"

No doubt, poor planning also played a role - while the SABC television reporter arrived for the press conference, the political editor forgot to tell their cameraman, who was "at home" when the event started; so the SABC failed to record the conference. Unwilling to put in the effort to do a subsequent interview, the political editor pulled the plug.

As a consequence the SABC failed to report a significant news event to the South African public. It is nothing short of embarrassing for the SABC.