Category Archives: Press Freedom

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.

Kennedy 12 Trial: Five Nil to Abahlali baseMjondolo

Friday, 03 December 2010
Abahlali baseMjondolo Press Statement

Kennedy 12 Trial: Five Nil to Abahlali baseMjondolo

Today the first five days of the trial of the Kennedy 12 came to an end. The trial will resume in May next year and then, if more time is needed, it will continue again in July.

We wish to begin this statement by thanking all of those people and organisations that have stood by our movement in the difficult times that followed the attack and then this ongoing trial. Your solidarity is much appreciated. There is a saying that when days are dark friends are few. But in these dark times we still have many friends and the solidarity from all of you is deeply appreciated.

Continue reading →

Isolezwe: Abantu bafuna abezindaba babike ngenkululeko

http://www.isolezwe.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5705565

Abantu bafuna abezindaba babike ngenkululeko

October 28, 2010 Edition 1

NQOBILE MASIMULA

BASABISE ngokubuyela emgwaqeni bamashe zonke izinsuku uma izikhalo zabo zingezwakali abagqugquzeli |be-Right2Know, okuwumkhankaso okuhloswe ngawo ukuphikisa umthethosivivinywa wokufihlwa kolwazi.

Laba bantu abalinganiselwa emakhulwini amathathu bebegcwele izitaladi zeTheku izolo bebhikisha njengengxenye yalo mkhankaso osabalele ezweni lonke.

Omunye wabagqugquzeli balo mkhankaso, uMnuz Desmond D’sa, uthe imashi ihehe abantu abasemazingeni ahlukene empilo kwazise ukuthi kuzobathinta bonke abantu ukuphasiswa kwalo mthetho.

“Ukuphasiswa kwalo mthetho kuzobe kusho ukuthi asisophinde sizwe imibono yabantu abahlukene ngoba besaba ukuboshwa,” kusho uD’sa.

Uthe lokhu okuhlongozwayo akuhlukile kulokho okwakwenziwa nguhulumeni wobandlululo.

“Kumanje bakhona asebeqalile ukusebenza phezu kwalo mthetho nokuzoba lula kakhulu uma uphasa umthetho emakhanseleni njengoba esezofihla ukuthi izimali zisetshenziswe kanjani kube kunomthetho owavunayo,” kusachaza uD’sa.

Phakathi kwezinhlangano ebezizimazise le mashi kubalwa Abahlali Basemjondolo, abantu basemahostela, izakhamuzi zasemalokishini amakhulu akhele iTheku, osolwazi nabafundi bophiko lwezobuciko baseNyuvesi yaKwaZulu-Natal nabafundi benyuvesi yaseDenmark.

UNksz Zodwa Nsibande, ongumkhulumeli waBahlali Basemjondolo, uthe nabo babone ubathinta lo mthetho ngoba okusuke kubhalwe emaphepheni kusuke kuzosizakalisa bona njengomphakathi ekwazini ukuthi kwenzekani ezweni labo.

“Kubalulekile ukuthi sazi ngakho konke okuqhubekayo lapho sihlala khona kodwa uma sekuhlongozwa imithetho enje kuyobe sekuthuthukiswa isizwe esidwanguza ebumnyameni ngenxa yokufihlelwa ulwazi,” kusho uNksz Nsibande ohlala emjondolo yaku-Kennedy Road.

Le mashi eqale eBotha’s Park yaphelela eCity Hall ayibanga nazigigaba ezibikiwe kwazise ukuthi bekukhona nezingcithabuchopho kulaba abebemasha.

Uhlu lwezikhalazo lwamukelwe nguMnuz Bheki Nkwanyana, obevela ehhovisi likaNdunankulu waKwaZulu-Natal nothembise ukuludlulisela kuDkt Zweli Mkhize, uMengameli Jacob Zuma noNgqongqoshe wezobuNhloli kuleli, uDkt Siyabonga Cwele.

Business Day: Free but superficial media overlooks important stories

Leave a reply

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=122039

Press freedom: Free but superficial media overlooks important stories
Anxieties reached a fever pitch in the wake of the deplorable arrest of journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika.

JACKIE DUGARD
Published: 2010/09/27 09:44:47 AM

IN RECENT weeks, South African media institutions have, understandably, been vociferously opposing the proposed Protection of Information Bill and media appeals tribunal, pointing to the stifling effect such changes are likely to have on access to information and on the fight against corruption.

Anxieties reached a fever pitch in the wake of the deplorable arrest of journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika, following his exposure of an apparently irregular lease for new police headquarters in Pretoria.

Somewhat lost in the flurry has been an appreciation of the fact that every day poor people attempt to hold government accountable and every day they face the kind of treatment meted out to Wa Afrika.

The print media is partly to blame for this obscuring as, to date, it has not represented such local struggles as anything other than sporadic “service delivery” protests when, in fact, they are becoming so commonplace as to represent a fully fledged rebellion of the poor.

As local community after local community comes to the end of its tether with the government’s failure to deliver on post-apartheid promises and erupts into violent protest, we are facing a fundamental challenge to our vastly inegalitarian political economy that all of us should reflect on.

Yet, this has not yet become the major subject of mainstream media coverage, prompting columnist Steven Friedman to ask: “Why do the media not use their freedom to give us the information we need?”

Indeed, while the media is correct to be concerned about the proposed limitations on access to information, it is complicit in an already present, and self-imposed, crisis of censorship through not providing the whole picture. It is not so much that it doesn’t cover such stories, but rather that there is a paucity of in-depth exposure and examination.

What we need is an informed analysis of poor people’s struggles against unresponsive and remote local government, including systemic exposure of community attempts to hold municipalities accountable.

We need to know that poor communities are currently doing society’s dirty work by trying to entrench participatory democracy, but their battles are going largely unnoticed and have thus far not been very effective.

We should be paying attention because, if conditions continue to deteriorate, we could face an appalling intensification of violence.

Moreover, we can avert this if we connect the dots and combine our efforts to forge a meaningful democratic order.

If this were the case we might, for example, see solidarity between rich ratepayers associations and poor township communities seeking better living conditions.

We might also begin to understand that the only true security is through greater integration and equality.

Researchers at the University of Johannesburg have recently undertaken “rapid response research” into four continuing struggles, analysing local protests in Balfour, Diepsloot, Piet Retief and Thokoza.

The research identifies three common features across all four case studies.

First, there are high levels of poverty and unemployment in each case.

Second, there is inadequate service delivery in all localities including water, sanitation, electricity and housing, as well as allegations of corruption.

Third, in all instances, protests only occurred after multiple attempts to engage local government over relevant problems.

Clearly, what are often called service delivery protests are as much about unaccountable local government as delivery.

This is especially evident in the protests in Piet Retief, where the residents of Thandakukhanya township sent a memorandum to the office of the premier of Mpumalanga in which they asked for: a copy of the municipality’s supply chain policy, an investigation into all procurement above R10000, as well as list of who sits on the tender bid committee, who appointed contractors especially for road projects, and which officials have municipality credit cards.

Many of these requests had been previously communicated to local and provincial government officials.

With no response received, the residents staged a peaceful protest, marching to the Piet Retief town hall to deliver the memorandum to the municipal officials, and a copy was sent to the premier.

The premier undertook to respond to the community’s concerns in an open meeting.

However, he failed to attend the meeting as promised, instead sending the MECs for co-operative governance and traditional affairs, and for sports and recreation.

The premier’s no -show prompted a second march by residents, but this time property was destroyed and two people were shot dead, allegedly by a traffic police officer and a security guard.

Similarly, in Siyathemba township in Balfour, things turned nasty after the municipality failed to respond to a community memorandum that had called for “proper clean water”, street lights and storm- water drainage, as well as information on expenditure and recruitment processes.

The resultant protests prompted a police crackdown, including allegations of severe police brutality, and charges of public violence were brought against the community leaders who had attempted to hold their municipality to account.

In the same month that charges against Wa Afrika were “temporarily” dropped — presumably due to public pressure and extensive media exposure — Siyathemba community members appeared in court to face the charges of public violence, having already spent six months with the threat of conviction hanging over them.

The vast majority of these charges were dropped by the prosecutor as unsubstantiated, but only after last-minute intervention by the Legal Aid Board and the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA (Seri), as well as the continuing efforts of the University of Johannesburg researchers.

Yet, notwithstanding some local coverage of incidents such as those in Piet Retief and Balfour, our escalating crisis of local democracy has not featured as a major story in the national print media.

As Prof Friedman recently complained, the print media seems obsessed with the actions of a few political figures rather than with analysing the patterns that shape where SA is headed.

The mainstream media’s blind spot is fully understood by activists.

In the words of an Anti-Privatisation Forum member: “We have the freedom to speak, but nobody listens.”

Nevertheless, despite their reservations about the media’s sincerity, activists understand that media freedom is in fact everyone’s freedom and have been vocal in their condemnation of the proposed changes.

It is all the more tragic that the media does not defend this broader freedom by providing coherent analysis about the underlying challenges to our democracy. Without such information, as media expert Jane Duncan has warned, we remain dangerously blind to our most serious problems.

Constitutionally Speaking: In defense of the Internet

Leave a reply

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/in-defense-of-the-internet/

In defense of the Internet
Sep 9th, 2010
by Pierre De Vos

Which readers of this Blog (whom I assume are mostly relatively well informed) know the names of Mr Sbu Zikode, Mr Mzwakhe Mdlalose, Ms Bandile Mdlalose, Ms Zandile Nsibande or Mr Zodwa Nsibande? They are, of course the President, Vice President, Secretary General, Chairperson of the Women’s League and Chairperson of the Youth League of Abahlali baseMjondolo, the Durban Shack Dwellers Movement, one of the most influential and vibrant social movements in South Africa who, on its website, describes itself as the largest organization of the militant poor in South Africa.

These are not household names because the leaders of Abahlali baseMjondolo hardly ever appear on SABC TV or radio or ETV and are seldom quoted in the daily serious newspapers (media consumed by the elites of all races). Abahlali is hardly ever quoted exactly because they style themselves as an organization that represents the militant poor in opposition to elites of all races – including the elites who sit in our government and drive in R1 million cars in blue light convoys. These are the very elites who control the SABC, ETV and the printed media and produce news for other elites (like those who write and read this Blog).

Last year when Abahlali leaders and ordinary members were viscously attacked by thugs, allegedly in collusion with members of the police, some newspapers did report on the matter and when it successfully challenged the constitutionality of the apartheid-style Kwa-Zulu/Natal Slums Act it was also reported – scantily – in the media.

But as a general rule, both the ANC-aligned SABC and private independent media have not done a good job of reporting on the actions of this group. What motivates its members? What are the conditions that have produced this organisation representing the interests of the militant poor? What is it that motivates its members and what does the organisation wish to achieve? What does it mean for our democracy? One would be hard pressed to find any reporting or analysis on such pressing questions in our media.

I therefore agree with Steven Friedman that there is something seriously wrong with the way in which our media operates (although I suspect that the problem is even more complex than he suggests). Writing in Business Day, yesterday Friedman pointed out that:

Government attacks on the press have ensured that it is hard to question journalists’ priorities for fear of being seen to encourage censorship. But it should be possible both to defend the press’s right to tell us everything we need to know and to complain that, in the main, it does not tell us — to oppose not only the controls politicians place on papers but those journalists place on themselves….

The problem here is a pack journalism in which some decide what the story is and everyone follows — and reportage which is obsessed with the actions of a few political figures rather than the patterns which may shape where our country is headed; its practitioners are judged by how connected they are to politicians, not by whether they identify trends.

Our media – both the SABC and the independent media – has an inherent bias in favour of process stories focusing on the official political horse races: What happens in Parliament? Which leaders of the alliance are fighting with each other? Does President Jacob Zuma have any chance of being elected to a second term? Is the Alliance a dead horse or will it survive until Jesus comes back? Is Julius Malema’s fortunes rising or falling?

Our media also has ideological and class biases, reflecting the anxieties and the concerns of members of the middle and upper classes and political elites. The way in which the scandalous behaviour by some striking workers were reported recently (by both the SABC and the private media) served certain ideological and class interests. It focused very strongly (but admittedly not exclusively) on these excesses, and this served the ideological and class interests of the rulers. (No ANC leader complained about the way in which the media vilified the strikers, for example.)

Reporting is about making choices: about what to report and what to leave out, about what to highlight and what to underplay, about how to interpret what is being reported and how to structure the narrative of our daily lives in a way that would make often chaotic events understandable to the consumers of news. We have a tendency to want to fit events into a bigger story, a master narrative if you will, and when the media constructs such a narrative they do so to serve certain class and ideological interests.

The South African media is of course not unique in this regard. Noam Chomsky writes in Manufacturing Consent that it is the primary function of the mass media in the United States to mobilise public support for the special interests that dominate the government and the private sector in that country. The same argument could be applied locally.

This does not mean that the ANC proposal for a Media Appeals Tribunal would be a good thing either. Such a tribunal would merely attempt further to narrow the class and ideological focus of the media to prevent reporting that would be damaging to the governing party and those individuals who circle like hyenas around the party bosses in search of influence and money. If the Tribunal is to have any teeth, it would probably be unconstitutional in any case.

What is then to be done?

My answer would be that one has to accept that in a capitalist society with a free media, that media will always be biased in favour of the elites in and outside of government and will advance their interests. Luckily we live in the age of the Internet and with a little effort one can obtain news and analysis with a slightly broader perspective from the “interweb” (as Die Antwoord might say).

When the ANC discussion document talks about a diversification of the media, it does not take cognisance of this fact. If the ANC was really interested in creating a vibrant and ideologically diverse media, it would not pin its hopes on the Gupta-financed newspaper called New Age. Instead, it would focus on the ways in which citizen journalists and members of social movements can use the internet to disseminate news about its activities and ideas which are not often reflected in the mainstream media.

What is needed is a radical programme to make the internet cheaper and more accessible to ordinary people and to provide support for the kind of citizen journalism and analysis that would provide a far broader spectrum of news and ideas than is currently available in the mainstream media? But I guess this is not what the ANC has in mind, as the Internet is an unruly beast that cannot easily be controlled. The last thing the ANC wants is to give the militant poor (to use just one example) a platform that could be used to organise against the party and the government of the day.

But the internet is here to stay and even if the ANC manages to impose a Media Appeals Tribunal to censor the mainstream media, it will soon find out that this will not stop the bad news from coming out. Neither will it stifle dissent from those whom the governing party truly fears: the unemployed and militant poor.