The proposed media appeals tribunal (MAT) - as put forward in the African National Congress (ANC) National General Council discussion document on media diversity and ownership - should be abandoned, a panel of experts said on Wednesday.
"The MAT is an affront to democracy, and we are giving it too much of our time," said Alternative Information Development Centre representative Mark Weinberg, who added that because of this, less emphasis was being put on the issue of transformation in the media.
City Press editor in chief Ferial Haffajee said that the recent furor over press freedom has started important introspection and conversation about the media in South Africa, but added that the media could not speak freely and confidently until the MAT was off the table, and the Protection of Information Bill had been slimmed down.
University of Witwatersrand journalism and media studies professor Anton Harber added that the MAT was a diversion, which should be taken out of the discussion document, as it would "never" pass through the Constitutional Court.
Defending the idea, ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu reiterated that the MAT was not meant to introduce prepublication censorship, or to be a threat to journalists. "Why should we as a country not discuss whether or not we have a need for an appeals tribunal for print media?" he questioned.
Mthembu was frustrated that the MAT was dominating the discussion, while other elements of the discussion paper such media ownership, and diversification were to a large extent excluded from debate.
The panelists were speaking at a Mail & Guardian ‘critical thinking' series debate, which was supported by Heinrich Boll Stiftung and Amandla Publishing.
Mthembu said that the ANC was investigating mechanisms that could add value, and that decisions on who would sit on that body could be discussed by all. He added that all media representatives were free to make inputs to Parliament.
"You must come up with alternatives [to the MAT], rather than just saying no no no," Mthembu reiterated.
He further stated that there were examples of malicious, defaming and irresponsible reporting by the print media, and the "self regulation that we have now has not curbed these excesses".
He added that there should be stronger deterring mechanisms for journalists, as it often took people years to be cleared from "malicious reporting".
The ANC discussion document suggested that "Parliament should consider the mandate of the media appeals tribunal and its powers to adjudicate over matters or complaints expressed by citizens against print media, in terms of decisions and rulings made by the existing self-regulatory institutions, in the same way as it happens in the case of broadcasting through the Complaints and Compliance Committee of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa."
Press ombudsman Joe Thloloe said that he believed that it was possible to engage with the ANC, but also said that if there were to be any improvements in the print media, these should not take place because the ANC demands it. "It must be an open dialogue that does not point us in the direction of a media appeals tribunal," Thloloe added.
Weinberg highlighted that the press ombudsman was weak and needed to be strengthened, adding that it should be properly funded and given the power to adequately impose fines. That way a statutory body would not be required.
Harber said that it was "a big leap from saying there are concerns in the print media, to saying that a statutory media council is the best option". He added that this statutory council would give the government the power to decide what its critics could and couldn't publish.
"The moment is worrying. This talk is hardening attitudes," said Haffajee.
|