The Star TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 14 2010 11INSIDE

GOD BLESS THE MEDIAR

ATHER than discuss, dialogueand debate the merits and demer-its of the ANC-proposed mediaappeals tribunal, the mainstream

commercial media has decided to justlobby against it. Commercial media hasthus far camouflaged its unfettered inter-est in “commercial freedom” under theguise of “media or press freedom”.

In the process, it has sought to instilfear among media consumers rather thanproject balanced views.

Unfortunately for the commercialmedia, its misleading lobbying against theproposed media appeals tribunal is back-firing, because even the ANC andPresident Jacob Zuma appear more deter-mined to see the tribunal materialise. It isalmost guaranteed that the ANC’s nationalgeneral council next week will take a pos-itive resolution on the tribunal.

The commercially driven media havedeliberately underscored the fact thatevery human being is sane, fair and just,morally upright and fit and proper untilthey prove themselves otherwise.

When individuals fail in any of this,society has sanction mechanisms thatadjudicate and correct such behaviour.The sanctioning aspect of the natural jus-tice above also applies to erring institu-tions, including the media.

Authors of democracy have prudentlydetermined that those who exercise powermust be subjected to external institutionsand processes of accountability andresponsibility. Hence they established theprinciple of separation of powers, essen-tially to ensure that those who exercisepower are not actually the same ones thatvalidate such exercise of power.

The Fourth Estate is a powerful institu-tion in society. Like all segments constitut-ing society, its work is valuable but notunimpeachable. When it does well, it getsrecognition and rewarded. When it faltersit is, and rightly so, condemned.

Such has become normal in democraticsocieties. All institutions, such as themedia, which hold and apply power, aresubject to these rules of democraticengagement – checks and balances.

Checks and balances against the abuseof power are the cornerstone of democ-racy and all its manifestations.

Protestations by the Fourth Estateagainst attempts to establish a legal bodywith independent and autonomous powersactually undermine this elementaryessence of democracy.

In fact, media institutions that de-nounce being subjected to democratic prin-ciples of checks and balances are not muchdifferent from autocratic and dictatorialinstitutions and their leaders.

The difference is that rather than usingbrutal and naked physical force, they useinformation in the form of manipulationand character assassination.

The Mugabe of this country may actu-ally exist – in the form of the independentcommercially driven media.

While self-regulation and self-correc-

tion remain a critical societal feature, theexercise of power requires more than justconscience – a notion that journalistsalways know and remember to do what isjust when they cover a story.

For those who understand the jurispru-dence of the church, for example, the “sin-ner” often emerges triumphant (forgiven)for he/she has confessed and asked for theLord’s mercy, whereas the “sinned” carriesthe burden of not forgiving or lettingbygones be bygones. This, sadly, is theexperience of many people who have been

to the parish – the press ombudsman.Malicious journalists and their reputa-

tion-damaging stories are forgiven, fortheirs was not malice, but an act of patri-otism for the general good of the publicwhose constitutional right to know is infi-nite. The wronged are to forgive.

The media exercises massive powerover individuals, society, government, pri-vate-sector institutions and everythingelse. Just as in all exercises of power,media power can also be abused. Such anabuse of power may emanate internally

from the media, but may also come fromoutside the establishment.

Cases abound where politicians have(ab)used the media in dealing with theirrivals.

As a matter of principle, a well-institu-tionalised independent media appeals tri-bunal is a necessity for media integrity. Forone, it compels the media to be more accu-rate and factual in its stories. Thus, meet-ing the deadlines will be paralleled by thequest to get it right. Currently, “breakingnews” and meeting the deadlines weigh far

more than getting it right. An externalimpetus in the form of a tribunal is likelyto yield a better balance between the two:deadline and fact.

Whilst the institutions of the ombuds-man and the SA National Editors’ Forum(Sanef) are vital control mechanisms, they

remain conflicted, insufficient and com-promised due to being embedded in themedia.

It is a dictatorial behaviour for any insti-tution to appropriate for itself powers toinvestigate, prosecute and adjudicate. Themedia currently does this with a sense ofimpunity. President Jacob Zuma, who todayis lobbied by the commercial media to stopthe tribunal proposal, was found guiltythrough the media in the rape trial waybefore the judge pronounced on the matter.

He is still caricatured with a shower onhis head, despite holding the position ofhead of state. His current deputypresident, Kgalema Motlanthe, was sub-jected to sleazy innuendos, which ulti-mately proved to be nothing but mischief.

In both instances, there were noconsequences.

The profit-driven media claim a greatposition in the upholding of democraticvalues and practice. They claim for them-selves a moral high ground, and the statusof the champion of the democratic yard-stick in society.

The unfortunate part, though, is thatthe profit-inspired media claim all therights for themselves and yet abrogate allnecessary obligations that they must sub-mit to.

Grumblings over the tribunal proposalappear to be a fear of accountability andresponsibility, at least in the absence ofsound counter-arguments and alternativeproposals.

Independent watchdogs and law-enforcement agencies in democracies existprimarily to avert injustices and to rehabil-itate those that step out of democratic con-duct.

Discerning media institutions ought towelcome the media appeals tribunal as afurther impetus to good journalistic codesand values. The tribunal can be a dangeronly to sloppy journalism and the abuse ofmedia freedom and free speech. It does notendanger credible journalism.

Perhaps it is the word “tribunal” that isat issue here. It conjures up images of oldmen (most of the prosecutors and presid-ing officers in South Africa are men), ter-rorising journalists with ear-piercing ques-tions. What principled members of ademocratic institution like the FourthEstate should accept, though, is that a bodywith powers beyond those of the pressombudsman is urgently required in thiscountry, especially as a slide into gutterjournalism becomes too big to ignore.

Damage done by eye-catching and“sales-boosting” headlines can no longerbe “healed” by appeals to “conscience”,especially because, as Ndumiso Ngcoboquipped: “The media stopped reporting onthe news a while ago; these days everystory has an angle and an opinion. Godbless the media.”

Interestingly, all dictators, whether theyuse force or manipulation of information,claim to be champions of democracy!● Ngcaweni and Hlophe are public ser-

vants writing in their personal capacities.

Appeals to conscience and self-regulation don’t work in the mediaenvironment, write Busani Ngcaweni and Dumisani Hlophe

PERSPECTIVE: A media appeals tribunal would be a threat only to journalists of dubious ethic and intent, suggestthe writers. PICTURE: MICHAEL WALKER

’‘

When world’s Cinderella went to the Fifa ball

Six years ago the Fairy Godmother –in the guise of Sepp Blatter – waveda magic wand and announced thatSouth Africa had been chosen to

host the World Cup in 2010. For the firsttime in history, Africa – the Cinderella con-tinent – had been chosen to host the world’spremier sporting event.

Mind you, had it not been for a littlelegerdemain and the mysterious voting ofthe Fifa representative from Oceania,South Africa – and not Germany – wouldhave hosted the World Cup in 2006.

Then president Nelson Mandela, whohad attended the announcement in 1999with great expectations, remarked laconi-cally: “Ah well… there evidently were someaspects of the endgame that we SouthAfricans did not fully understand.”

So, in 2004, it was Africa’s turn. Blatterhad all but promised that no more uglyFirst World stepsisters would be permittedto jump the queue.

From that moment, the countdownstarted. Would South Africa be able tomake the grade? Would an African countrybe able to deliver a top-class world event?Would we be able to turn our Third Worldpumpkins and mice into the glittering sta-diums, airports and infrastructure that theevent would require?

The world was sceptical. We heardagain the old familiar choruses that pre-cede all major global sporting events, wher-ever they are held: the stadiums would notbe ready; security was inadequate; theinfrastructure of airports, railways androads would not be able to cope.

Despite all this, Danny Jordaan, thechairman of the local organising commit-tee, and his team made steady progress.

Magnificent new stadiums were built,and old ones were renovated and refur-bished. New highways and rapid transitsystems were constructed. South Africa’smajor airports were vastly expanded andmodernised.

After years of being cocooned in hoard-ings and scaffolding, Cape Town’s newinternational airport emerged just beforethe World Cup like a gigantic crystal but-terfly. In our major cities, large clocks

counted down the days to the openingmatch on June 11.

Our leading companies jumped on tothe bandwagon and helped to ramp upnational support. Government, opposition,religious and civil society leadersembraced one another and exhorted thenation to make a success of the event.

Unprecedented security arrangementswere made and special courts wereestablished to dispense swift justice tothose who broke the law.

In the process, South Africans alsolearned that the Fifa fairy godmother wasnot motivated solely by altruism. She made

it clear that she – and she alone – wouldchoose Cinderella’s ball gown and acces-sories. Apparently unconcerned about anypractical implications, Blatter insisted thatthe Cape Town Stadium should be built inGreen Point – because he thought it wouldlook pretty with Table Mountain as itsbackdrop.

The city would rather have upgradedthe existing Newlands Stadium – or built anew stadium at Culembourg, near existingrail and road routes. However, Fifa wasadamant that it would either be GreenPoint or there would be no games in CapeTown.

Nevertheless, it worked. For a glorious month, South Africans

laid down the burden of our divided his-tory and joined one another in a magnifi-cent national festival.

Once we had been knocked out, SouthAfricans switched their allegiance whole-heartedly and without reservation toAfrica’s best remaining hope, Ghana.

Black South Africans were surprisedthat nearly all white people identified withAfrica – with Baghana Baghana – ratherthan with England or some other Euro-pean country.

But as with all fairytales, the clock

struck 12. Cinderella had to scurry downthe palace steps and confront the harshrealities of our national life again. Theparty was over. The bunting was removed.

Our national attention shifted from theempty stadiums to the continuing povertyand inequality in which too many SouthAfricans continue to live.

The vuvuzelas were silent. Stridentvoices again began to dominate thenational discourse.

Nevertheless, during those four weekswe had successfully changed internationalperceptions of our country.

Unfortunately, since then we South

Africans have been attracting attention forall the wrong reasons. On the soccer fieldof international opinion we have been res-olutely scoring one own goal after another.

The situation is back to normal. Cinderella is back in the kitchen, sitting

on the ash heap. The Fifa fairy godmother has flown off

to her next assignment in Brazil – weigheddown by nearly $200 million (R1.4 billion)in profits.

The Afro-pessimists have returned instrength, confident that South Africa’sWorld Cup success was just a flash in thepan.

However, we South Africans havealways been much more realistic thanthat.

We did not expect that the World Cupwould change the underlying realities ofSouth Africa – and it did not.

Anyone who expected such outcomeswould really have to believe in fairytales.

However, by the same token, all thesedevelopments have not seriously under-mined the strengths that made the WorldCup success possible.

I am confident that we will once againprove the pessimists wrong.

The glorious weeks of the World Cupare receding further and further into ourcollective memory – but some things willremain:● Our ability to compete with the best inthe world.● The world-class infrastructure that wascreated for the event. ● The natural beauty and the warmth andhospitality of our people that the WorldCup has introduced to hundreds of mil-lions of potential tourists.

As we all know, Cinderella, in her head-long flight down the palace steps, left some-thing of her magic behind in the form ofthe crystal slipper that was retrieved byPrince Charming.

The World Cup left us with a similarmagic legacy: it is the shining vision of thebrilliant, multifaceted nation we can andwill become. ● This is an extract from a speech made by

FW de Klerk in London last week.

Our World Cup success has showed that South Africa can prove the pessimists wrong – and it will again, writes FW de Klerk

HORN OF HOPE: FW de Klerk says he is confident the magic of the World Cup will survive. PICTURE: SAM CLARK