Issued by: Gauteng Provincial Government
19 October 1995
It is now 17 months since the April 1994 elections that ushered in a new era in South Africa - the era of democracy, a democracy based on constitutionality. Constitutionality underpinned by the rule of law, with a legal sysratic rights of our citizens as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
In short, we have experienced a new dawn - a dawn heralded by the new rainbow nation, a nation whose conscience, for the first time, has been unchained to utilise to the full its intellectual capacities, unchained to think freely, to speak freely, to articulate and to write freely, where the media in general has been freed to continue to remain the focal point of the nation's conscience.
Our successes have not been achieved without social hiccups, manifest problems, a crisis here and there. But then that is the nature of a fundamental social transformation. That is the nature of human experience in the historical process of development.
But of all the associated problems around our numerous successes that enabled us as a new nation to come this far, we can, on this 18th anniversary of Press Freedom Day, proudly proclaim thus:
- Whereas in the past, journalists were detained, tortured and imprisoned, today this is no longer so. - Whereas under the previous system, journalists were murdered in the line of duty, this is no longer the case. - And, whereas the previous regime banned and silenced publications - such as happened on that fateful day on October 19, 1977 - today publishers and media workers enjoy constitutional protection in the course of their duties.
Having said that, it needs to be pointed out that the need has arisen for the media to re-examine its role in the current changing socio-economic status quo in South Africa.
However, it would be a folly to contemplate that such an analysis can be conducted from the bylines as spectators. The media is a critical material component of the environment which it seeks out to report upon, or to analyse.
The challenge is that of abstracting yourself from the environment in which you exist, and to consequently make the correct analysis of that environment.
Our observation points to the fact that not many in the media have been able to live up to that challenge - in concrete terms, the challenge of understanding the new and rapidly changing South African story. The story of millions of Mandela's children who in the past were sure victims of child mortality, but who today enjoy the benefit of free milk and bread at primary school to prepare a solid foundation for better matric results; the story of opening the doors of learning to one and sundry, with no consideration for colour or class; the story of free health care for mothers and kids who used to die in the scorching sun or the winter chill; the story of the tears of joy as kinsmen and women retrace their footsteps back to their ancestral lands; in a word, the story which is encapsulated in a positive growth rate in a country which experienced negative growth for over ten years.
Are we sure that we all understand this story from the same point of view? Or are we sitting on different sides of the fire, where we see a country that does not work, a country that slides into chaos, where cynicism has overtaken the intellect in a country where seemingly nothing works.
For those of us who slave away at the rock-face of change, sometimes when we read such cynicism we wonder if people are writing about the same country in which we live, the same country in which we work, the same country which we are working so hard to change.
Millions of our countrymen seem to share our view. Sadly to note, in all honesty, the popularity ratings of some of South Africa's mass media is at an all-time low - not only among political parties but also among the ordinary people of our rainbow nation. It is our estimation that if an election was held tomorrow for South Africa's journalists, most of you would lose your deposits.
This is evident in the falling circulations of many newspapers. It is evident in the declining listenerships on many radio stations, and in the "missing million" TV viewers who have stopped watching what SABC produces. Some call it the Big Yawn; others call it the Big Turn-Off.
In cancelling their subscriptions and switching off, the people of South Africa are sending a crucial message to our mass media owners and those who work in the mass media, a message which the media shall ignore at its own peril.
Consequently, it is true that journalists live or die by the support of their followers. Publications thrive or whither upon the altar of their critical readers.
Nevertheless, the rainbow of our nation instructs us that not all is gloom. There are many exceptions within the media industry; there are excellent products out there, such as the Sunday Independent, which make a vital, independent contribution to intelligent thought in our country. We wish them well in their strive to maintain the silk quality of independence. We also experience some fine documentary programmes on radio and TV, both by black and white journalists, particularly those on NNTV. And it is no coincidence that the readership and viewership of these products continues to increase.
There are also, in our view, numerous quality journalist who write, record and film in newsrooms in various parts of the country - people who carry forth the tradition of the heroes of 19 October 1977, such as Percy Qoboza.
The challenge is to have these excellent journalists being the rule rather than the exception. Currently, the converse applies. In our interaction with many media workers, for in our public positions they haunt us like shadows, one hears the same story over and over: the story of frustrated journalists, be it in the newsroom of a conservative Afrikaans newspaper, the editor's office of a psuedo-liberal English weekly which masquerades as a progressive paper, or in the production seat of an SABC new programme - all are battling with the frustrations of reflecting the "new South African story" against some of their editors, sorry sights who have been left way down the road.
Take the shame of Rapport, an apartheid monument, still visualises Mandela the black terrorist, and not Mandela the non-racial president. As far as this publication is concerned, nothing that is done by the President, let alone by the government, can ever be appreciated. This is an example of a conservative sorry sight, swimming in the cesspool of neo-fascist and neo-racist confusion, hankering for the days of baasskap. We wish to remind them of a simple message from their previous leaders: "Adapt or die."
As for the other English weekly, very bulky with emptiness: it is a poor excuse for curious neo-liberal sentiments which is slowly - if not rapidly - rendering itself irrelevant on serious matters of national debate. In this publication, we the dark-skinned people of this country - the overwhelming majority of us, coloured, African and Indian, over 80% of the nation - are still referred to as "Extra", as they continue to produce "Extra" covers around their white supremacist main publication.
In the past, when we heard of the departure of the like of Allister Sparks and Richard Steyn from the newspaper scene, knowing their commitment to this country, we were tempted to lower our flags in salute. However, with the departure of some of the editors of our famous weeklies, although we may miss their wit, many of us are tempted to say: It's about time.
Similarly, our advice to the Sunday Times' owners is as follows: Until you reflect the nation as the main content of your publication, and not as a wraparound "Extra", there is no future for you in South Africa.
To the general media, in 1995 and beyond, hard-working journalists strive to write feature stories which document the real pain - and joy - of life in the new South Africa. Photographers and camerapeople wish to capture the texture of South African society. TV producers want to go beyond the confines of a 30-second soundbite. Often they are unable to - blocked by the older, more conservative controlmen at the top who, like many journalists of old, seem to have embraced the culture of cynicism and negativity as if it is a lifebelt for surviving the excitement, the challenge and the passion of Mandela's South Africa.
This situation is obviously of great concern to anyone committed to the development of a free press in South Africa, as it is having a profound impact on the next generation of media workers - those who will be the Kaizer Nyatsumbas and Mathatha Tsedus of the 21st Century.
The young journalists we meet say, almost unanimously, that some of their employers are not geared towards the new South Africa. They seem to be more terrified than ordinary people, because some of the stories of hope which they come across never reach the "news in brief" section.
Some of those in decision-making positions are not yet ready to accept change. They refuse to accept that things are in fact better: that the economy is growing at the rate of 3% per annum, and promises to improve; that investors confidence is at all all-time high in South Africa; that the growth rate is private-sector driving, with high capital investments reflected in fixed domestic investment; that although we are still haemorrhaging in Natal, by and large political violence is under control; that the crime rate, although troublesome, has got its roots in the past and did not come with the inauguration of Mandela as some false prophets would like us to believe; that water is being pumped into informal settlements, where in the past 1 000 families survived around one tap.
In a word, some of the decision-makers in media boardrooms cannot accept that post-apartheid South Africa not only exists, but it is much better than apartheid South Africa ever was, notwithstanding the current problems.
It is ironic that the major changes we have seen in South African mass print media have been in the field of design and packaging, rather than content. We have seen millions of rands spent on building new facades for the conservative or neo-liberal media institutions of old - and inside, the same old racists tick away, blocking change and entrenched in their belief that black people cannot rule, that ordinary people are stupid and incapable of making sound judgements.
Concerning the SABC: change has arrived here and is coming slowly but surely to the rest of the electronic media. But the SABC still has to manage change at middle management level. Change is still desperately needed in the boardrooms of South Africa's print media - at Naspers, Perskor, TML, and Independent Newspapers.
A parting shot on ownership: the current debate - particularly on foreign ownership of local media - has revealed what is seemingly a dichotomous situation. We from government and other quarters have made passionate calls for foreign investment in order to grow our economy. Yet we are portrayed as being critical of foreign investment, and consequently ownership, of the South African media.
Briefly, our position is as follows: We urge foreign investors of all kinds to invest in South Africa, by saying: Buy with us, don't buy us. Let's be good partners. Or, put another way: "Buy South African. Don't buy South Africa." If you still don't understand: "Own with us, don't own us."
Earlier, I stated that the South African media is not in a healthy state. But there are beacons of hope, particularly among the newly-emerging media whose owners and workers are tuned in to the needs of the small communities they serve.
Earlier today, I held a round-table meeting with representatives of some of our province's new community radio stations and newspapers. They are enthusiastic, and have a real desire to help the people of South Africa to speak out, to reach out, to find out. They have opened the doors of their new community initiatives and created a platform for the people of their township or suburb.
The potential of these new media ventures is exciting. It is the kind of development we need if we are to meet the objective, enshrined in the Constitution, of ensuring freedom of expression in our country. On this special day, we invite them to be aggressive in their quest to reflect a rapidly-changing society with its pillars of reconstruction, growth and development.
But we note that their success can be much enhanced when the traditional mainstream media passes on its positive experiences to these alternative voices.
As we reflect on this, we cannot escape from asking the question: Whither the alternative media of the 80s, which is so critical for today, when far-flung communities, programmes and projects from water to brick-making, reconstruction heroes and heroines who are forgotten by the traditional media, need to be reflected? We pose this question to those individuals, organisations, institutions and NGOs that used to produce those remarkable publications.
I conclude by taking this opportunity to remind all of us our responsibilities towards one another. As government, we expect you to continue to keep us on our toes, as you are the conscience of our society. We expect you to do so critically, with a bit of intellectual aggression, with gusto, tongue-in-cheek if you prefer, and as hard-hitting as the media is worldwide, like the Ted Koppels, Leslie Mashokwes and Joseph Lelyvelds of our media world.
But nevertheless society at large - which you constantly have to mirror, and which in turn also reflects on you - expects you to do all these things constructively, with honesty and fairness, with equality, with dignity, with impeccable intellectual finesse, and as Aggrey Klaaste once said, with the understanding that, after all, you are the South African media, writing about a South African story - a changing story, a changing environment, and inevitably a changing media.
Don't let change leave you behind.
Tokyo Sexwale.