The role of the media . . .

The importance of news media is one that can hardly be debated, less so doubted. So, when conduct less than professional and less than unbiased is attributed to the media, my heart just sinks. Allow me to say up front: hang your collective heads in shame honourable members of the 4th estate. It is with this disappointment that I invite you dear readers to have a look at the following post (which in all fairness is lengthy but not without cause), that seeks to show the bias of the media in the way it has dealt with Jacob Zuma and that only as an illustration. For that I can only say shame on the journalists and the editors concerned. As for the rest, I would like to try my hand at dealing with the implications raised by this post which we are told is the first in a series. Anyway, I implore you to read this post:

http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/politics/in-defense-of-jacob-zuma-part-1/

As if that was not enough, we now have a further retraction of a story relating to President Motlanthe. Apprently a woman who previously claimed to be the President's girlfriend has subsequently retracted the story claiming that she had lied on the prior occassion. This I must caution, is as reported in the very media so it may well be retracted before you finish reading this post. This is what it has come down to; one cannot trust the veracity of the news printed in our newspapers or reported on television and radio.

Where then can one access the information on which one may base the decision to vote for this or the other party. As you will see, if you decide to read the post I referred to above, not even the cartoonists are above this saga. I have argued that poems and cartoons are interpreted in and through the context in which they are published. I have argued further that there is a continuum of views ranging between two extremes (whatever those may be). The famous "rape of lady justice by Zuma and his fellow Pirates of Polokwane" is one that still sits uncomfortably with me and it probably was meant to do just that by its author. The author sets out a context in which the cartoon should be interpreted. He relies on certain individuals' views (with whom he apparently shared the cartoon prior to publication) on whether the cartoon carries the meaning he intended it to carry; and most importantly that it is not, reasonably considered, offensive. This seems to be one of those "how would a reasonable reader of the newspaper interpret the cartoon". Those individuals are probably reasonable newspaper readers - so, voila the cartoon passes the test of reasonable political commentary.

There is of course other contexts and other interpretations in the continuum of views. One context is one in which Mr Zuma was charged with a crime of rape of a certain woman. Much was made of the fact that this particular woman is HIV positive - I do not know whether this makes the rape any worse, if rape can indeed be better or worse. In my book, rape is the worse form of aggravated assault, it can't be made better or worse. Granted, I am biased, I am a father of 2 daughters. Be that as it may, a court found Mr Zuma NOT GUILTY of the crime of rape he was charged with. Mr Zuma entered that court innocent (as is the case with all accused persons) and in the absence of being proven guilty, he remained INNOCENT. That notwithstanding, he continued to be portrayed with a rapid firing machine in his pants. In this instance too, the cartoonist set out the context that justified this series of cartooons as reasonable and acceptable political commentary. But there is of course another context; one that would suggest that once the court had confirmed Mr Zuma's innocence insofar as coital rapid fire is concerned, there should be a sensitivity around all matters pelvic, where Mr Zuma is concerned. This, I must add, is separate from the question of whether there should or should not have been knowledge of the carnal kind between Mr Zuma and the complainant.

The basis on which "lady justice rape" cartoon is premised fails to justify the crass attack on the individuals concerned. Without the preceding rape charges against Mr Zuma, I fail to see how the satire would have had any poignancy. The ill-considered statements and charges made at and about the judiciary notwithstanding, Mr Zuma (as is the case with each citizen of this country - with the means) is quite within his rights to take whatever legal points he deems appropriate in his defence or delay of his trial. A quick look through the list of cases that have made their way through our courts will reveal that very fact. Defendants employ all manner of tactics to avoid judgement against them, whether in civil or criminal proceedings. Would someone then please explain to me why it is expected of Mr Zuma to behave any different to, let's say the Kebbles or the guy who apparently owes the receiver lots of tax money. Even the slippery Mr Mathe took his time getting to trial. The prosecution has a job to do and it is not for any accused person to assist them in doing that job. The right not to incriminate oneself is unequivocal. The conduct of Mr Zuma, regardless of what his supporters may shout does not in my view amount to the violation of lady justice's chastity. This too is separate from whether politicians should behave as recklessly as some of the ANC leadership has where the judges are concerned. That is a matter for the voting public to decide as they choose the leadership they deserve. I don't believe it is too much for the South African public to ask that journalists as opposed to social commentators, keep these issues distinct as they write their stories, draw their cartoons or write their op-eds. This of course is not new. Leading journos such as Prof. Anton Harber, among others, have written more poignantly and knowledgeably about these very matters. At the time Prof. Harber penned his views, there were retractions relating to the alleged sale of land by Transnet.

It has just struck me how in engaging in such less than admirable conduct, the media has become a campaigner for the very ANC they seek to vilify. I conclude that the media seeks to vilify the ANC because I do not see how I can reach any other conclusion. If there is cause to doubt the reports of the media about the ANC, why should the South African voting public or the majority of them, change their voting patterns?

The inaccuracies peddled by the media, both print and electronic are quickly becoming par for the course. One only has to watch television news broadcasts to see how low the standard of journalism has become. I believe that the journalist should report the events for the benefit of the citizens and leave "point-making" to the editorial. More than just reporting on the events of the day, as has been said by another more authoritative on these issues than I am, journalists are also curators of our history and for that reason alone they should approach their job with some respect.

I am however encouraged by the work of the likes of Prof. Anton Harber who still remembers what the role of the media is and should be . . .