Media commentators Ranjeni Munusamy and Anton Harber have recently called for change in the tense relations between president-to-be Jacob Zuma and the press.
Munusamy says journalists need to reassess their approach and ”migrate to a position of neutrality”. Harber urges the press to give the new president ”space” to prove what he can do.
Such calls come against a backdrop where some people believe editors backed ”the wrong horse”. That’s a view which erroneously believes that media need to align with political victors.
Indeed, as a result of the recent power shift, some media bosses seem to have decided that heads must roll — Snuki Zikalala’s being probably only the first. Repositioning is in the air.
While new realities do need to be adapted to, it depends on how you read the history behind them.
For Munusamy, there has been an ”unholy bond” between the media and those who ”conspired to destroy Zuma”.
Harber refers to Zuma’s ”chequered past” and further justifies what he calls ”probing” media coverage as having been appropriate to reporting on campaigns for political leadership.
There’s some truth in both observations:
- Munusamy is right: the media was manipulated, sometimes willingly, by anti-Zuma forces. But that didn’t mean the stories that appeared were generally inaccurate. (In fact, the most prominent false story was the pro-Zuma article by Munusamy herself — about Mbeki-man Bulelani Ngcuka being an ”apartheid spy”).
- Harber is correct that Zuma’s own record is responsible for much of the coverage. After all, no journalist invented the evidence at Schabir Shaik’s trial; nor did any concoct Zuma’s admission that his safe sex practice was a post-coital shower.
And expanding on Harber, the past four years have been a mega-campaign for political leadership, which naturally stimulated scrutiny of Zuma’s fitness for office.
In sum, the conduct of both the media and the man himself are responsible for negative coverage of the man.
But while the Zuma people don’t like this, the millions who voted for them would probably not have wanted their man to be media whitewashed. They voted, because publicised flaws and all, they nevertheless rated JZ and the African National Congress (ANC) as the best bet on offer.
In other words, the record of media coverage to date does not require journalistic remorse or fundamental editorial revision — let alone dismissals, ”neutrality” or — God forbid — a lovey-dovey new beginning.
That the press is out of kilter with the voting preferences of the majority of South Africans is not a bad thing for democracy. It’s when there’s a scarcity of information to challenge people’s choices, that South Africa really needs to worry.
In analysing the history of Zuma-media relations, what also need recalling are actions that were never likely to garner support from editors:
- The then-ascendant Zuma group in the ANC resolved in mid-2008, and confirmed at the later Polokwane conference, that they wanted statutory regulation of the press.
- Zuma’s bodyguards sent out a terrible signal by riding roughshod over journalists during his rape trial.
- Zuma has launched numerous court actions against the press. Like any citizen, he is entitled to do so. Yet just as the adage goes that ”editors should be sued and not sue”, so politicians are best advised to set an example by responding politically rather than seeking redress through the force of law.
At the same time, it can be noted that ANC leaders have recently said they are not pursuing statutory regulation. And Zuma did in fact speak out in favour of press freedom at the final ANC campaign rally.
In short, there are mixed signals from the ANC side as regards the media.
For many journalists, nonetheless, there is legitimate concern that the negatives could be revived the next time a political scandal breaks.
Harber argues that some coverage of Zuma has fed international stereotypes of African states, and he resorts to the cliché of ”time will tell” if such media criticism was justified or ”off the mark”.
It is the case that journalists need to avoid Afro-pessimistic prejudices. And they should certainly keep an open mind about what will happen under the Zuma presidency.
But at the same time, it would be naïve to forget whence we come. The Zuma record, albeit with contradictory signals, should continue as a warning to the media not to drop its vigilance.
A ”fresh start”, which Harber calls for, cannot ignore the history that brought relations to where they are.
Worryingly, Harber finds it necessary to appeal to ”ANC leaders” to give the media the space to find out if past criticism of Zuma was justified.
Munusamy writes that Zuma ”could possibly function — amid continued media hostility”. That sounds a lot like: ”Watch your step because he may just choose not to tolerate an adversarial media.”
This year, in long-standing democracy Botswana, the ruling party has just passed Zimbabwe-style draconian media laws. It is not alarmist to say that, step by step, the same could eventuate here.
Journalists have to jealously guard their right to be as hostile to Zuma as they see fit. Or to praise him when they feel it’s justified. It’s called freedom of expression.