4 June 2001
It is always invidious - though necessary - for governments to comment on the state and performance of the media, in any country. If comments are too critical, they can be viewed as threatening the press. If too congratulatory, they are seen to be toadying. If too bland, they are boring. If there is silence about the media, this might seem very proper, but can be viewed as harbouring undemocratic thoughts.
So, in the free and open debate which we have built into our new constitutional order, I shall attempt a brief commentary which avoids a lecturing or hectoring tone - for you editors and journalists know enough about the subject to do all the lecturing, and at least some of the hectoring.
I shall try to look, in non-accusatory terms, at issues that concern not only the media but, equally, the nation.
I stress that my remarks are made in an environment in which the state will not - indeed cannot - interfere with the right of newspapers to publish whatever news they deem fit to print. I am, for the purpose of this input, leaving on one side the electronic media, a complex subject on its own - for which, among other things, an advanced qualification in technology is a recommendation. But please do not hesitate, in the discussion stage tonight, to raise whatever questions you might have about broadcast media.
What, then, is the state of newspapers in South Africa?
One specific question to ask is this: To what extent does the senior management, in the broadest sense, accurately reflect the makeup of the population of South Africa? No one can suggest that this is not a very legitimate area of interest for a government returned by the majority of voters on a platform of transformation.
We have an irrevocable commitment to black empowerment and the establishment of a non-racial, non-sexist society. We are determined to field the full team of South Africans, after we have had such truncated teams on uneven playing fields in the past. That way, we shall be a winning nation, for all.
It is in no sense interference in the media to ask such questions. It is the direct responsibility of government. And it is the responsibility of the media to strive, jointly with government and civil society, for the establishment of norms that accord with our population makeup. No one is suggesting that, after the ravages of apartheid and specifically Bantu education, this can be done in a day. Indeed, many sectors of society and the economy remain unreconstructed.
But we must keep asking the questions, and we must take stock every now and then. Such as now.
If one looks objectively at newspapers, and owners and senior managers should do this constantly, the question that arises is why there are so few black editors, as we enter our eighth year of democracy in South Africa - in stark contrast, if I may bring broadcasting in briefly, with what has happened over the air waves, not to mention the parastatal world, where black hands at the controls are so evident. Government is undeniably black-led and the racial, gender and disability makeup has changed substantially in the past seven years, though there is much still to be done.
It is true that blacks and women do hold some key newspaper posts, but the top editorships tend, with very few exceptions, to remain in male white hands. The disabled, incidentally, are unsighted in the top echelons of newspapers, as far as I know; and please let me know if I am wrong.
Often statistics tell fibs, particularly when one is regaled with the number of blacks who edit in South Africa. It should be accepted that there are editorships and editorships. In the corporate pecking order of newspaper companies - eg the dishing out of benefits including lucrative share options - this can be of importance.
My question is this. Out of the major newspapers - viz. the powerful regional ones or those distributed nationally - how many have black editors? If one keeps out of the calculation papers aimed specifically at blacks, the answer is: hardly any have Africans at the helm. A number of coloureds, Indians and Moslems, and a few women, yes, but how many Africans? In fact, some recent events have seen Africans, for whatever reason, moving on from editorships or not making it right to the top when widely expected to do so.
And representivity does not just apply to editorships. It applies to all departments - management, editorial, circulation, advertising, promotions etc. Some spheres are more ahead than others in achieving representivity. Some, which deal with the public, simply have to. But, yes, much remains to be done.
Newsrooms, specifically, which do regularly deal directly with a largely black public, have become pretty representative, for obvious reasons. The bylines on stories will confirm this. But there are other, deeper recesses in newspapers. As pivotal as newsrooms are the sub-editors' rooms, the "boiler-rooms" where newspapers are made. They, equally, need transformation - probably more than any other part of newspapers because of the "final eye" role they play, and therefore the influence they have over what people actually read - subject to top editorial supervision, which can vary from paper to paper, depending on commitment or cocktail round.
The old argument that Bantu education wrought havoc on literary and literacy standards, and therefore there are not enough trained blacks in the pool for this meticulous "final eye" function in subs' rooms, is wearing thin now. What is needed is proper mentoring and training, and known targets to achieve representivity, rather than a defeatist or buck-passing attitude.
I am, frankly, not aware of how representative subs' rooms are. But I simply ask, or, as the Afrikaners put it: Ek vra net. Maybe someone will be able to tell us. There's a fruitful project for the ever-digging media, and for the journalism schools, if not the newspaper houses themselves.
Any debate about the state of the media in South Africa must touch on the almost total lack of a public culture in SA. This is largely because of our wretched past and the newness of our democracy. There is much disagreement over what, in fact, constitutes "public opinion". There is also a need for some measure of consensus in the political and media worlds over what constitutes the national interest. That, I suggest, should extend to our domestic politics, too.
Can there be a measure of agreement on fundamental issues, as happens in many strong democracies? Can certain areas of agreed national interest be excluded from party-political infighting and hectoring? For instance, rights of the child, rights of the disabled and the empowerment of women? Can we move away from pointless, scurrilous personal attacks on people in authority? You be the judge of this. You as journalists and editors are free. But it would be interesting to know, on occasions like we have tonight, what working journalists think of the propositions I have raised.
The media should surely, at least, disclose the terms of the ethical codes by which they live and work. Some have already done this. But there should be no mystery about knowing how media judge themselves.
For, in the final analysis, the media are part of the South African citizenry, and of the evolution of public opinion. If they think they are special to the point of being precious, of having a monopoly of playing mirror to society, then they should let us all know. For, it is equally valid to argue that other institutions, eg the NGOs, political parties, business, the professions, academia, and the government itself, are equally mirrors of what people think and feel, and aspire to.
And, to earn the title of being an important part of the mirror on SA, the media should extend their interest beyond the concrete jungle, away from the urban concentrations of populations, and into the poor, remote, rural regions.
Where I have my designated Parliamentary constituency, the North West, there is practically no media attention worth speaking about, except when there is some row concerning the ANC. Yet the area abounds with problems, those of poverty, diversity, disease, lack of development, farm exploitation, and so on. These problems should be engaged by a media in "listening mode" - in much the same way that our President has embarked on provincial imbizos.
The media can be adept at defining the issues, at writing the agenda, and creating public opinion which can, at times, bear little relation to reality on the ground. They could benefit by remaining closer to the grassroots, by absorbing what people are saying, and by sending their reporters to what they might view as the "backblocks" and seeing what is happening out there - however inconvenient this may be to the news-gatherers.
There is no doubt in my mind that things are vastly better in terms of our meeting people's needs in the new, democratic South Africa, but the media has an extended role to play in this.
You will permit me an afterthought.
I recall the situation in the 1950s when the white political establishment and its media were determined to set the national agenda, and, for instance, devoted enormous space to the conflict over the Coloured vote. Important as it was, it was eclipsed, in significance, by a whole range of other issues, which were ignored or downplayed in that media. It took the courage of the Guardian, Spark and New Age - and a few brave journalists elsewhere - to focus on the real issues in the country, which turned on race, class, poverty and repression, particularly in so far as they concerned Africans. Such papers paid the price in successive bannings, which were greeted with polite tut-tuts but little vociferous protest from the mainstream papers. In those days, the Congress of Democrats judged it a fluke if they got their members' letters into the columns of establishment newspapers. One Cape Town daily distinguished itself, in setting the scene for a major pass protest in Cape Town in 1960, by managing this tiny headline on a heavily-truncated report by its African affairs reporter after an exclusive interview with the march organiser: PEACE IS AIM, NATIVE SAYS.
It is a cause of great relief and happiness that those wretched days - and the media timidity that went with them - are gone. But it is necessary for the media now to move further along with the South African caravan as it seeks, in a democratic environment, to address new problems and challenges. For the state of the media to be healthy, it must not only give lip-service to representivity. It must demonstrate that it is reconstructed - in its staff makeup, in its columns and in the impact it makes for the development and success of our splendid country.