Category Archives: Glenn Ashton

SACSIS: Murdoch, Mugabe, Malema and the Media

Leave a reply

http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/718.1

Murdoch, Mugabe, Malema and the Media

By Glenn Ashton

The media will always be a contested space. Some insist there should be no controls over the amorphous beast that is the media; others insist we cannot have a free-for-all. In South Africa we presently walk an uneasy middle road between a free press, a powerful public broadcaster as well as corporate and political oligopolies, which wish to place self-serving limits on our freedom of expression.

The sleazy British phone hacking scandal within the extensive Murdoch media empire poses a fascinating counterpoint to our situation. Our media is fairly broadly controlled and while there are some powerful media houses, we are apparently not as prone to the bias in the UK and USA.

Amongst most mainstream media outlets – print, newspaper, radio and television – corporate ownership is the rule rather than the exception. Yet the rise of citizen centred, Internet media has radically changed the playing field. Many credible news services have emerged over the past decade, forever changing the power dynamic.

Were it not for the emergence of this open web based media, scandals such as those exposed by Wikileaks may never have surfaced. The alternative media directly and constantly challenges the status quo of the mainstream media. This is highlighted in reactions to Wikileaks. Many mainstream media outlets have expressed outrage, while the Murdoch controlled Fox News stated that Wikileaks should be declared ‘enemy combatants’ and dealt with accordingly. The power of the corporate media has been diminished but is not yet dead.

Most South African media is corporate owned, with Avusa, Independent News Limited, News24 and Primedia the most prominent. Government accusations of media bias are primarily directed at this media bloc, which is not nearly as homogeneous as its critics claim.

Accusations of bias have led the ANC – more particularly a clique within the party – to initiate both a media tribunal and an ill-considered Access to Information Act. This has nothing to do with national security. Instead it is a rushed and clumsy attempt to control what are projected as critical, corporate friendly, conservative perceptions. History is being forgotten, only to be repeated.

The South African Broadcasting Commission (SABC), which should be assiduously objective, remains hamstrung by its historical state alliances. It shifted from being His Masters Voice for the old apartheid regime, to reinventing itself to become His Masters Voice for the ruling ANC, with a few examples of good, independent journalism occasionally slipping through the cracks.

At the other end of the spectrum is what has happened to press freedom in our northern neighbour, Zimbabwe. Objectivity has been replaced by sycophantic grovelling. The state has crushed, bombed and persecuted the independent media, with scattered remnants active in exile. This experience illustrates the dangers of state interference and control of the media.

While there is little in common between the UK and Zimbabwean media, some alarming parallels exist. No ruling UK government since Margaret Thatcher has come to power without the support of the Murdoch News International media empire. Mugabe too has relied on media control to entrench his power.

In the UK the media controls government; in Zimbabwe government controls the media. The chilling effect on democracy is the same. A compromised media clearly corrupts the democratic process. Mugabe is no less manipulative than Murdoch – each wishes only to centralise their control on power and profit.

In the UK public opinion and hence political policy has been shaped by Murdoch and his News Corporation with titles like The Times, The Sun and the News of the World and perhaps more importantly his TV holdings like Sky and BskyB. The Murdoch empire’s jingoistic support of wars in the Falklands, Yugoslavia, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan and most recently in Libya illustrate his malign influence. The situation in the UK has become so serious that journalism professor Karl Grossman has said that this “could go down as the greatest press scandal in the English-speaking world.” And so it should.

It was thought that the heyday of the imperialist press barons – Lords Rothermere, Beaverbrook and Northcliffe in the UK, “Citizen Kane” Randolph Hurst in the USA and more recently Cecil King and Robert Maxwell – were behind us. In reality the multinational influence of the Murdoch empire across the world, and particularly in the UK and USA, is unprecedented.

Grossman comments further that the “media machine built by Murdoch … is the most dishonest, unprincipled and corrupt of any media empire…and it is gargantuan, the largest…ever.” Bill Moyers, Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary commented that, “Rupert Murdoch is no saint. He is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was to chastity.”

What is important is not only that the Murdoch empire has undermined democratic processes, the objectivity and independence of the media, but also that it has actively sought to compromise legal institutions. Such influence over the executive, the legal system and the media is a toxic mix, as evident in the UK as it is in Zimbabwe. South Africa cannot afford, with its fragile new democracy, to permit such abuse of power.

A crucial point in all of this is that the sordid rot that permeates the Murdoch empire was exposed through the truly independent media, namely the UK’s Guardian Newspaper group. While it took more than five years of investigative slogging, it appears Murdoch’s power may be waning. Julian Assange has insurance against Murdoch, stating he has files implicating NewsCorp and Murdoch if they target him. Deniability can only go so far and no further. Murdoch’s empire must be dismantled.

There are many other examples of privately controlled media trumping the democratic process, just as there are of totalitarian states undermining democracy. Silvio Berlusconi would certainly not have nearly as much political clout and credibility were it not for his extensive media holdings throughout Italy. His is an almost unique example of self-serving corporate media ownership. Pravda and China’s news services illustrate the other extremes of media control.

The Murdochs have exploited their power across nations and continents, affecting global history for several decades. They have fought against curbs on global warming, against peace, covered up bribery and corruption with the Saudi regime and fought against taxation for the wealthy. In return they have entrenched their wealth and power.

Despite South Africa’s concentrated corporate ownership, a willingness remains to project diverse views. However the system does remain imperfect. There are sectors, particularly amongst the print media, where conservative and reactionary views are given inordinate coverage. The poor majority remain effectively voiceless. The government supporting New Age has provided little new insight. The Daily Maverick remains inaccessible to most and speaks to existing media consumers. How to open up the media?

Difficulties arise when irrational interest groups and vested interests demand preferential treatment. Just as reporting on the cause of Afrikaner rights is anachronistic, calls for nationalisation by tenderpreneurs like Malema, who flaunt their wealth in the face of grinding poverty, claiming to speak for the dispossessed while perpetuating the status quo, cannot seriously or honestly be accommodated.

How to deal with this media disjuncture? While the ruling party objects to media bias, it is equally guilty of the continued marginalisation of the voices of the truly dispossessed. Movements like Abahali baseMjondolo remain far more marginalised than those of faux pro-poor posers seeking to entrench their own power. Instead of speaking for the poor, the ruling party intentionally marginalises these and other disadvantaged groups, misrepresenting them as “ultra leftists” and “single issue NGOs.”

While the poor and dispossessed majority may not be overt media consumers – they have more pressing things to spend money on – it does not mean their voices should not be given equal weight. Despite some presence in the new media and being heard amongst themselves, where they live, their reality is hidden

Just as the voices of the powerful, the Murdochs, the Mugabes and Malemas, dominate the media, the true voices of the people are not heard. Neither the SABC nor the mainstream media cover the critical issues which give rise to democratic challenges, misrepresented as “service delivery protests” or “ultra leftist outbursts.” There is self-censorship within both corporate and state media. The cosy situation between media and power remains unchallenged, locally and internationally.

The solutions will never lie in media tribunals or secrecy acts, or implanting ideological watchdogs to oversee the media. These days, whatever happens, the truth will eventually get out. Apartheid was responsible for heinous media laws and regulations, many which remain in place today. Yet even then the people’s voices were heard through courageous journalism and publications like South and The Weekly Mail and through the political grapevine.

Today exposure is an SMS, a click or a tweet away. Social networking is in everyone’s hands given the spread of cell phone technology, as shown by the realities of the Arab Spring. The media will never be the same. Our world is increasingly interconnected. Wikileaks looms large. Keeping critical media under the jackboot of political oversight is no longer possible. The genie is out the bottle. Clumsy tribunals and limitations may impede the dissemination of information but they will eventually fail. It is the dictatorial Mugabe mindset and the repression that accompanies it, which must be rejected.

Even with the News of World gone and Murdoch’s News Corporation under investigation, Fox TV and other malign forces continue to intentionally polarise popular opinion – look no further than the US debt crisis. The ultra wealthy Murdoch’s, Koch’s and Berlusconi’s are so used to shaping the opinions of the proletariat that they will not go down without a scrap.

Our entire media and communication model has begun to change. We must enable it to shift away from a polarised model towards one that is open, inclusive and vibrant. Citizens’ control of the media is essential to protect ourselves and our children against an economically and ecologically uncertain future.

SACSIS: We Have a Way to Go to Achieve Justice for All

Leave a reply

http://sacsis.org.za/site/news/detail.asp?iData=541&iCat=1441&iChannel=1&nChannel=News

We Have a Way to Go to Achieve Justice for All

by Glen Ashton

Our constitution is clear about equal rights. It unambiguously says; “Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.” It goes further to clarify that there is to be no discrimination on any grounds – age, race, sex, religion, class and so on. Justice is meant to be blind to individual circumstance.

One can argue that equality is ensured through, say, the right to representation of anyone charged with a crime, or by the fact that everyone has the right to remain silent, and so on. These legal finesses miss a major point, by no means unique to South Africa, that the justice system inevitably provides greater benefits to those with the means to both access and exploit it, than to those without the means, the poor majority.

It has long been the case that not all are equal before the law. Australia would not be the nation it now is were it not for excessively punitive practices that targeted the poor of England. Even today in the USA a disproportionate number of the prisoners are from poor, minority communities.

Even our advanced constitution does not actively enable the poor sufficient access to the law. Disproportionate legal justice resources are engaged by wealthy private and corporate entities, seeking primarily to preserve and protect their interests. For this sector the law is simply a tool to maintain and entrench their wealth.

Representatives of poorer communities, such as housing rights group Abahlali baseMjondolo, struggle with access to legal recourse and justice. The justice system is perceived more as an obstacle to be negotiated than a tool to benefit them. This is supported by Abahlali’s open letter they sent President Zuma earlier this year, which states, amongst other things, that the poor are being forced out of meaningful citizenship, are becoming poorer and are being denied access to land.

In rural areas, workers on farms are generally isolated from access or recourse to law and rely upon the circumspect goodwill and generosity of employers to accede to the rule of law and transparent justice.

Neither are those living in the old apartheid “homeland” states, under tribal and customary law – especially women – able to freely access justice. They are blocked by layers of traditional protocol, often coupled to the vested interests of male-oriented social mores.

Rural communities remain isolated from meaningful access to legal recourse, information on labour laws, inheritance rulings handed down in the courts and other important developments toward the legislative and juristic realisation of the new South Africa.

There remains a fundamental disconnect between active, implemented rights and theoretical, passive rights. For instance, if the shack-dwellers movement wants action, they have shown that repeated appeals to the state are fruitless. They have to use their limited means to seek redress.

Similarly, immigrants remain marginalised even though they have the same rights as residents. Instead they are compromised by the double jeopardy of discrimination by authorities and the marginalisation within the communities they live in. Both shack-dwellers and foreigners have rights which remain largely in abeyance.

The justice system is structured in such a way that it places the onus on these, and other marginalised groups, to find access and to gain legal representation to realise their constitutional rights.

The legal fraternity realise that there are worthwhile cases to be taken up in the pursuit of social justice and there have been many invitations to lodge them. However this overlooks the practical difficulties of access to the law by poor, marginalised communities battling for entry in an already overburdened justice system.

There are presently two major players which occupy most of the space within the justice system. Firstly there is the state, which runs and manages both the legal and justice systems, together with its punitive and operational arms, the prisons and police. The state manifests its power and will through its operationalisation of the law.

Secondly, the law is exploited not so much by individuals as it is by private entities such as corporations and companies. These habitually push the limits of the law on the one hand and exploit it on the other so as to maximise profits and commercial gain. Commercial law occupies a vast field that covers everything related to the earning of money and profit and consumes an inordinate amount of the justice systems time, exacerbating pressure on the system.

However there is an increasingly important sector that has historically played an important part in the field of justice, law and jurisprudence. This is the increasingly organised group of NGOs that involve themselves in pursuing access to and equality before the law. South Africa has a rich heritage of both legal rights groups, often supported by members of the legal fraternity availing themselves to fight injustice.

Since 1994 this legacy has become more formalised and is broadening. We have seen organisations such as the Legal Resources Centre, the Foundation for Human Rights, Section 27 and the AIDS Law Project, Lawyers for Human Rights, the Centre for Environmental Justice and many more begin to fill some of the more obvious gaps in pursuit of a more equitable justice system.

Many landmark judgements have resulted from the work of these organisations, funded from diverse local and international sources. Additionally, members of the legal profession have been called upon to donate time and resources for the common good and the fruits of these efforts are trickling through.

Living as we do in the most unequal society in the world, and one that has become increasingly so since the new constitutional dispensation, it is obvious the vision laid out in the Freedom Charter cannot be achieved solely by political means.

While much has been achieved, many outstanding issues remain. Political focus has become distracted from its social responsibilities by bickering, infighting and the active pursuit of personal wealth by the political elite. It is not only political activism that is required but perhaps more urgently, legal activism. Careful consideration must be given to its manifestation.

While the justice system has produced some progressive gems such as the Grootboom case – where shack dwellers were granted security of not just tenure, but the state was forced to provide housing – the very principles of redistributive justice remain marginalised by the expediency of the dominance of the ‘business as usual’ neoliberal approach of the state.

The acquisition of fishing rights by artisinal and subsistence fishers through the courts has yet to be practically implemented but this was a long fought legal battle against the state and private industry. This victory promises a better life for those who have traditionally worked in that sector.

If we are to solve the vexing sense of isolation that the majority experience in failing to access justice around land tenure and redistribution, employment for all, safety and security, a clean environment, health, education and all of the related necessities that define a decent, dignified life, then we must clearly step up our pursuit of a more egalitarian justice system. Everyone needs to be able to seek redress and achieve their constitutional rights through open and transparent access to the legal system.

Women on farms and tribal lands, people continuing to suffer the ill effects of economic and environmental exploitation, those seeking access to land to grow food, are just a few of the powerful cases that have received insufficient legal attention.

Some victories have been won in the struggle to transform ourselves. Yet we still have a long journey to travel until we can collectively appreciate the practical fruits of freedom, not just theoretical constitutional concepts. We need to transform our passive constitutional rights into active, tangible benefits so that we can all stand equal before the law.