Joel Netshitenzhe
Opening address: 'Meet the Media'
16 March 1997
Social transformation and media coverage
Engagement
between the estates
In
the past few years the media and government
have exchanged accusations on specific
issues or on general questions of social
change. In this engagement, the Fourth
Estate has not been lacking in bravery
behind the armour of collective self-defence.
In many instances, this has derived
from the perception that there is a
threat to the collective prize for which
many fought and died - media freedom
itself. Despite the constitution, despite
the fact that this freedom is part of
the totality of what constitutes South
Africa’s liberation, there is scepticism:
that even the best of democrats are
automatically turned into autocrats
by the fact of being in public office.
Another
interpretation of these skirmishes,
which most probably will be found among
those who do not belong to either government
or the media, is that the two are shadow
boxing; in the same vein as the conversation
between Tweedledee and Tweedledum in
Lewis Caroll’s Alice through
the Looking Glass: "We must
have a bit of a fight, but I don’t
much care about going on long",
said Tweedledum; "What is the time
now?" Tweedledee looked at his
watch and said, "Half-past four".
"Let’s fight till six, and
then have some dinner", said Tweedledum.
Others
have tried to examine the deeper roots
of this phenomenon. Such was the Communications
Task Group set up to examine the weaknesses
of government communications some two
years ago. Drawing from Paulo Frere,
Comtask asserts: "A society beginning
to move from one epoch to another requires
the development of an especially flexible
and critical spirit. Lacking such a
spirit, men cannot perceive the marked
contradictions that occur in society
as emerging values in search of affirmation
and fulfilment clash with earlier values
seeking self-preservation".
Some
assumptions
Personally
I subscribe to the latter interpretation.
One proceeds here from the premise that
South Africa is going through a process
of profound social transformation. In
such transformation, many ideas, empirical
perceptions and attitudes ingrained
in people’s thinking do come under
the spotlight. Mind-sets are challenged
and paradigms are put to the test. Thus
these skirmishes are not accidental;
nor are they entirely unwelcome.
Yet
it is critical all the time to keep
perspective; otherwise the essence is
lost in the cacophony of shrill accusations
and counter-accusations. In this respect,
some assumptions are useful, so as not
to speak past one another.
The
first of these, is that while journalism
is a distinct profession, the actors
in it are not homogeneous. Journalists
are first and foremost social beings.
As such, there is the danger that
addressing questions facing specific
social beings can be elevated to the
level of the universal, and become
a smoke-screen behind which unscrupulous
elements can hide.
Secondly,
precisely because the media, in terms
of print and electronic establishments,
are not the only means of social communications,
they do face the danger of being thoroughly
irrelevant: read, listened to and
watched; but not believed by the majority.
Some research (MMP Survey) indicates
that 80% of government information
reaches the public not via the media.
Therefore, one of the greatest challenges
for communicators in all spheres is
how to ensure that the media become
a reliable, dependable and fulsome
source of information and analysis
on important social developments.
Lastly,
and to paraphrase one media theorist
(Stuart Hall), the media cannot claim
that their role is merely to reflect
interests; rather they help to shape
those interests. In other words, print
and electronic journalists are not
passive transmitters - a clean slate
- on whom events imprint themselves.
The media are not merely reflective
of what readers, viewers and listeners
want. They do have values and choices
which help to shape social preferences.
Despite the media’s limited direct
reach, they occupy an important position
to facilitate or to serve as a break
on social transformation.
Communications
revolution
In
order fully to appreciate the challenges
of media coverage it is also critical
to understand the environment in which
the media have to operate. Indeed, South
African media face a rare opportunity
- the most exciting period in our history
- where we are called upon to record,
to interpret and even to influence the
evolution of a society whose pursuits
are unequalled anywhere in the world:
to create a harmonious and prosperous
society out of the disparate social,
racial, gender, religious and other
divisions of the past.
To
realise this, the constitution and Bill
of Rights provide communicators with
the perfect setting. It guarantees the
freedom of speech: the right of citizens
to information and comment; and themselves
to communicate information and views
about their activities and other social
developments. There is a recognition,
articulated in the RDP document that
for people to be involved in changing
their lives for the better, they should
be informed, educated and entertained.
Further,
the acceptance of the Comtask Report
and recommendations by the cabinet should
indeed release the energies of government
communicators and journalists alike,
to improve discourse among South Africans.
This is made the more exciting by the
technological changes that have also
reached our shores. The high-speed fibre-optic
network that is being laid out, complemented
by satellite; consolidation of the government
intranet; as well as public-private
partnerships in an industry growing
at the rate of about 15% per annum make
it possible for us to leapfrog many
stages onto the global communications
highway.
One
can therefore say that, all these developments
provide the constitutional, legislative,
executive and technological basis for
a South African Communications Revolution.
Thus South Africans can speak to one
another not past each other; thus they
can become active participants in the
process of change not passive recipients
of delivery or armchair critics. The
fact that foreigners often express surprise
at the reality in South Africa as against
the stories they are fed; the criticism
by one Indian diplomat that South Africans
report about their country as if they
were in a colonial metropolis willing
the country to fail; the many weaknesses
identified by Comtask: all these and
more demonstrate that, as communicators
- in government and in the media - we
are yet to meet our obligations to the
public.
Intellectual
horizons and resourcesI
would therefore submit that among the
most important challenges in addressing
the focus of South African media coverage
is the recognition that we are in the
midst of a titanic battle between old
and new ideas in the context of a society
in rebirth. Thus the most important
requirement in developing journalists
is first and foremost to broaden the
intellectual horizons in the profession
to appreciate this dynamic. Indeed,
one of the greatest crimes of apartheid
was the attempt to impoverish the intellect;
to stifle our vision such that we readily
see the black and white, and not the
grey, in our complex social life. So
fond are we of occupying trenches of
mutual ideological labelling, that,
in economics for instance, we have to
be reminded by a George Soros that there
is quite a great deal that is wrong
with global capitalism.
It
is therefore critical that, in addressing
the very approach to training of journalists,
we put the requisite premium on arming
trainees with the capacity to interpret
social historical movements in their
complexity. After all, in the choice
of news and analysis, in the angle and
content of a story and in the depth
of discourse, the final product cannot
be divorced from this social being called
a journalist. It is therefore not a
matter of accident that among the best
writers and producers on any subject
are people who master the content of
the issue that they are dealing with.
Quite a lot needs to be done about enriching
practitioners with the intellectual
tools to understand our society: its
contradictory political interests; its
business; its culture; its religion
and so on.
Related
to this is the question of resources
which are available to the journalists
themselves. What research back-up do
we have in the various media establishments?
Don’t we often, as news editors,
simply issue instructions about angles
to a story, and more often from "gut
feeling"? Should media houses not
beef up their teams of researchers,
and at the same time, comprehensively
arm journalists with the methodology
to use such resources? Those who interact
with news reporters often throw up their
hands in exasperation about the so-called
"short memories" of the media
establishment. Among them, those who
have mastered the trade fully, take
advantage of this, because they know
that this makes their colleagues in
the media susceptible to manipulation:
with bits of sensational information
that on the surface seem to make a good
story but have no relation to the bigger
picture.
National
consensus
This
bigger picture should be woven together
by a combination of many elements that
have the potential of propelling our
society forward or even of drawing it
back. As many have pointed out before,
a nation without a national consensus
is like a house destined to collapse
on the shifting sands of illusion.
As
to what should constitute such national
consensus, which should help shape media
reporting and analysis, is a question
that belongs elsewhere. But one found
quite fascinating the speech a few days
ago by Judge Richard Goldstone (extracts
published in Sunday Times, 15/03/98,
p25) where indirectly he identifies
elements of such a consensus. Among
these, he cites:
firstly,
the constitution, a vibrant form of
democracy, openness; and therefore
that we should not let difficulties
prevent us "…from experiencing
the joy of having been freed from
the chains of apartheid and as members
of one nation, being able to embrace
each other openly";
secondly,
the urgent need to deal with the disparities
that we have inherited; and to recognise
that "the reality that the ‘haves’
are white and the ‘have-nots’
are black carries with it a time bomb";
thirdly,
the need for all of us to take active
part in the process of change, and
more particularly, that those who
benefited from the apartheid system
cannot ignore our past and should
be "… willing to make a
meaningful contribution to restoring
[the] dignity…" of the majority
of the citizens;
fourthly,
that "appropriate corrective
action is not only morally and legally
justified, but is in the interest
of all South Africans".
One
can add to this the need for sustainable
economic growth and our sovereignty
as a nation-state, and the elements
of a national consensus start to form.
There will always be debate about such
a consensus and some, including journalists,
may not want to be part of it. That
is well and good. But we also need to
be aware of a tension of a different
kind which plays itself out in the party
political terrain. That is that attaining
this consensus in actual practice does,
in the immediate sense, seem to benefit
only the ruling party and its constituents.
Thus, those who do not appreciate the
benefit of this to the nation as a whole,
and even to their own parties, become
not only suspicious of the search for
a national consensus; but they also
see it as their mission to prevent its
realisation.
Some specific challenges
In
its report, Comtask identifies in detail
weaknesses in both government communications
and the media. The Institute for the
Advancement of Journalism, in its submission
makes the telling observation that these
"… weaknesses in both interact
upon each other with unfortunate consequences".
The report refers to issues of which
we are all aware and are striving to
attend to, including, "juniorisation",
under-staffing and under-resourcing
in the news rooms; separation between
political correspondents and beat reporters.
And one can add the unfortunate tradition
that, for experienced and good journalists,
promotion often means, being kicked
upstairs from actual writing and production.
One
is encouraged by the fact that both
the media and government have accepted
the essence of the Comtask report and
with regard to SANEF in particular,
many steps are being taken to introduce
corrective measures. One area which
will require a formal partnership among
SANEF and the media houses, training
institutes and the government is training
of government communicators and journalists.
We will need soon to harmonise approaches,
share resources and improve mutual understanding.
SANEF’s Corrective Action Committee
has made interesting proposals regarding
gender, racial, religious and other
balances; and one is confident that
the media executives support these initiatives.
Needless
to say, an institution such as the media
which deals with ideas can only be enriched
by diversity: including diversity of
ownership which will have to be addressed
creatively, as a matter of policy, by
the Government Communications and Information
System. While much progress is being
made in the electronic media, the situation
in the print media, from the mass circulation
newspapers to the knock-and-drops, leaves
much to be desired. So does the status
quo with regard to distribution companies
and printing resources. One hopes that
we have long passed the stage of debate
about the need to correct this. What
is required is collectively to work
out mechanisms to normalise the situation.
I
would also want to argue, that changing
the focus of South Africa’s media
coverage will also require addressing
our mind-sets about the calling of journalism.
One good instance reflecting this is
the nuance in documentation; and I should
admit that this may not be a very accurate
reflection of the situation. Examining
the codes and mission statements of
SANEF and the American Society of Newspaper
Editors one found a lot that is common,
including being a watchdog of those
who wield public power, defending and
extending the frontiers of media freedoms,
objective reporting and so on. But one
also found an abiding attitude of public
service in ASNE statements, such as
reference to diversity in news coverage,
complete news reports, and that those
who cover issues driven by "selfish
motives or unworthy purposes are faithless
to the public trust". Is journalism
a public service in this broad sense?
Is there an authority - "public
trust" - to which it should defer
and account? Or is the media industry
merely a commercial undertaking which
just happens to inform, educate and
entertain?
Conclusion
These
and others are some of the questions
that we need to keep in mind as we grapple
with how the media change their focus
as they change themselves in a changing
society.
Lest
we forget, the bulk of the Comtask report
and recommendations deals with the many
and varied weaknesses in government
communications. We have not gone into
these because they are not the direct
focus of this Conference. But what should
be emphasised is that, in content and
simplicity of message, in style of presentation,
in the availability or otherwise of
government communicators, in their training
and status, and in many other such prerogatives
resides a great part of the answer to
the question of how South Africa’s
media becomes part of the leading corps
in the efforts to change South Africa
for the better.
Joel
Netshitenzhe
CEO, GCIS
Issued by Government
Communication and
Information System
(GCIS)
top |
