|
The truth(s) about the
Press under Apartheid Summary of points from a working paper put to a seminar of the Journalism School at Rhodes University, Grahamstown, weekend of September 1 2, 1990
By Harvey Tyson,
Truth, as John Stuart Mill explained 150 years ago during a radical political transition on another continent, is not a single element. It is a gem of many faces, each capable of different even contradictory appearance. This statement is not only basic to any meaningful debate on the press, it also encapsulates the entire argument for a free press.
To summarise further Mill's logic:
It is impossible to grasp the whole truth from a single point of view; and conversely, every honest point of view achieves an aspect of truth.
With Mill's logic in mind, let us examine some contradictory versions of truth about the South African press:
TRUTH
The first set of opposing "truths" consists of the following:
On the one hand, some critics really believe that 95 percent of the press is controlled by a handful of people in Anglo American and Sanlam; that the capitalist press is the lackey of its masters who insist on using their monopoly on the press to ensure their own positions and their ideology; that the "mainstream" press is the creature of the regime; that the national and inter- national press have submitted to or have indirectly supported apartheid.
The contradictory truth is that there are far in excess of 100 daily and weekly newspapers in South Africa - apart from about 5000 currently registered publications - and that only 24 of the biggest are partly owned by the shareholders of major financial institutions. Most of the major English dailies and the overseas press have always been emphatically opposed to apartheid. Balanced reporting was made impossible by censorship, but it is true, that the mainstream press has been hugely "white oriented". This was part of an historical process, and there is extradordinarily rapid change.
There are dozens of contrary perceptions of truth about our press, but let me focus only on the perceptions I have gained of the SA press in a lifetime in journalism, overseas as well as here.
Editors I have known on three continents who work in certain
newspaper groups demand protection from commercial, shareholder, advertising and political pressure. They have astonishing
independence. This is mainly because newspaper chains, owning
papers with different audiences and policies, cannot operate
efficiently without divorcing ownership and editorial control.
In this country Anglo is often accused, especially by proponents
of nationalisation, of manipulating a monopoly press. Anglo's own perception is that it is being savaged simply for doing an
altruistic job. It sees its role as an entirely passive one of helping to shield some newspapers from take-overs by active
political interests (including Government agents). And it sees its only reward as attack or cold shouldering by the press whose
independence it tries to protect. From where I sit, I see Oppenheimer's only transgression as having been too inattentive and too late in trying to save the Rand Daily Mail from its own board. . .and botching it badly.
However, to my knowledge, no editor of The Star in the past half century has been lobbied by any person at Anglo or tolerated any lobbying from anyone else in the commercial world. Indeed, Argus boards, in my time, did not discuss individual newspaper editorial policy and editors never addressed the board. An Argus editor is in no way
beholden to any advertiser, simply because the advertiser has spent money in his newspaper.
The Argus Group is itself accused of having a monopoly on most of the country's press resources. It is said that this "monopoly" in capital, in printing, in skills, in distribution, prevents competition and allows no rival publications to grow.
The response from Argus, never yet publicly expressed, is
indignant. It finds itself accused of killing off the opposition through acquisition and close-down, when in fact it believes it is doing its best to rationalise (and pool) resources in order to keep several newspapers alive . . . even to the detriment of its own newspapers. There are other examples, the most famous being the fight to keep the "black press" alive. Argus believes it saved the old "Bantu World" from extinction and kept it alive for years despite its constant financial loss. When "The World" was shut down by the Government, Argus defiantly opened "Post", after keeping unemployed black journalists on full salary for nearly a year. When the Government then closed down Post, Argus went through the same costly process only this time having to promote an unknown weekly "freebie" into a national newspaper at some risk of government confiscation of presses and assets.
Talking of risks, The Star once defied a police warning and risked confiscation of the paper at an estimated cost of R500 000 a day.
It was a calculated risk, entrusted to the editor alone, but could have caused incalculable damage to much of the mainstream press had it gone wrong. Argus claims that it protects editorial independence better than any other publisher in the country ...
provided only that its editors give both sides and favour no single sector of the population.
That is one of the rarely expressed perceptions which make up what John Stuart Mill would have called "aspects of truth". It doesn 't matter which you chose to believe. It does matter
irrespective of anyone's political ideology, values or cultural beliefs that everyone should be able to expound any view and have access to all information in order to discover the truth.
In trying to build a future, therefore, the key element above all others has to be tolerance. The press has a serious role to play in healing the wounds that violence and oppression and counter violence have brought about. We need media, during this period of instability and transition, which will be constructive, not destructive. In a word, the press needs tolerance. The need to fight the evils of apartheid are almost over.
We must, at the same time guard against being blandly "positive", misleading, or worse, manipulative. It is essential that, from the beginning, all views whether extreme or moderate must be
allowed expression. But we all need to be aware that we can be hard hitting without being intolerant; critical without being
emotionally or misleadingly destructive. These are qualities that cannot be legislated for or against. It requires peer pressure; something journalists need to think more about. But there is a second form of tolerance required in our society if
we are to have a free press.
Tolerance is also required from opposing factions. Already black journalists are finding themselves worrying far less about State or proprietorial pressure, and much more about the possibility even of death at the hands of people in the community who disagree with their published views.
Tolerance is required from any government in power. We have had little of that from government in the past 40 years. . .and there are signs that some future government might emulate past practices against the press with mirror image arguments.
As John Stuart Mill wrote, tolerance must be seen, not as a
weakness, but as a creative force.
It is also necessary to restore fairness. The one issue on which there is nearly consensus in the press is recognition of the
imbalance of resources. The reasons for the imbalance; or the
blame; are of little consequence. What is of cardinal importance is HOW to ensure fairness without sacrificing democracy and freedom. I believe the economically independent press has a major responsibility in this regard. It has to take radical steps, immediately, to share what it has with those who have been deprived through discrimination, poverty, racism, and other historical factors. While those on the receiving end expect nothing less in "reparations", those in the capitalist system believe they will act out of a sense of fairness; to protect the principle of a free press, and to do normal, fair, business.
I believe the so-called commerical press is more than happy to share, willingly, a century and a half of effort, talent, sweat, investment and experience in order to ensure:
i) fairness and balance
ii) equal opportunity
iii) diversity of opinion and news analysis.
Simultaneously, why should a new Government not launch State funded newspapers? Years ago I was one of those who lifted my hands in horror at such dependence on the State and the consequent interference in the marketplace and the free flow of news. But study of the state subsidy systems in Sweden, and Netherlands, Switzerland and elsewhere suggests that the advantages from subsidised newspapers for the sake of freedom of information and diversity are great; the disadvantages can be overcome. But while the money comes from the State, it is vital that it be apportioned to independent publishers by an independent body apportioning funds to agreed and strict rules.
There could be one exception in the New South Africa: a series of government issue educational publications distributed in rural and under developed areas.
Finally, black owners should be strongly encouraged to set up
individual or co operative "neighbourhood" newspapers, whether free or paid for, but preferably supported by consumer advertising.
In order to ensure fairness as well as freedom, I believe current newspaper resources need to be shared, and every form of print media . . . mainstream; alternative; state subsidised; Party
sponsored; independent and propagandist . . . should be allowed to operate on equal terms as soon as possible.
Experience tells me that, given human nature and individual choice, the commercially independent press, paying attention to the real needs of readers rather than the perceptions of their rulers, will, quickly outclass all competition. . .and thus place themselves under the threat of any government which is allowed to be undemocratic.
The very existence of the so-called mainstream opposition press in South Africa allowed the so-called alternative press to come into being. No similar "protest' medium is allowed to exist in most of the Third World. From China to Zimbabwe; from the Soviet Union to Iraq; there is not a single publication which can be
hostile to the Government and live. In only a very few of these countries some so-called opposition newspapers are allowed to
criticise the Government. . .provided it is only "positive"
criticism, and does not hurt those in power. And where
nationalisation of the media is done in the name of freedom; there is no freedom.
Iran and South Africa make excellent contrasts in this respect.
When Iran exploded in revolution, it took the world, including international intelligence networks by surprise. Why? Because the Shah tolerated only an obedient, unquestioning press. In South Africa, from the moment the first apartheid law and the first detention without trial law were passed, this country was the focus of world attention, often in the most minute detail, often with far more exposure than the press of other countries gave even to their own affairs. This was not due entirely to the crime of apartheid...the crime of slavery still flourishes elsewhere in the world.
It was due mainly to the "walk through the minefield" which South African journalists, mainly the oft maligned mainstream
journalists, have been taking for 40 years.
If the press is to be free here, it has to earn that freedom. It must do so by demonstrating fairness;
by playing a part in building a fair and just society;
by being undivided and vigilant in its support of free
expression
by helping to protect the independence of the judiciary
by doing everything possible to help in normal education
- by rejecting fulltime hand outs and resisting political pressure in order to be independent
by ensuring that views opposed to our own are given a voice.
|
