
Over the past couple of months, many editors, journalists and analysts have been surprised, indeed taken aback by the effectiveness of the ANC's march towards what would effectively be criminalising the free media. Here's how they're doing it.
For many years now we've grown accustomed to just about anything touched by the ANC-dominated government wilting and dying. Government departments are in chaos, many of them without functioning directors general, with parastatals faring even worse. And yet it appears that the ANC just had a moment of shining clarity in its latest war against its über-enemy, the media. They are actually doing it well, very well.
Unity is a crucial element in doing anything of importance in an organisation as diverse as the ANC. Riven by divisions and run through with meetings dominated by “robust discussion”, the ANC was always at its best when mobilising against the common enemy. And this time, it’s facing one enemy that all its factions can heartily unite against - the media. The desire and, quite frankly, the need, to stop freedom of the media in this country runs so strongly, that it even managed to split previously unbreakable ties between SA’s communists and Cosatu, which is so far resisting calls to muzzle the media.
In its anti-media march, the ANC felt, or knew, that it would never be able to convince anyone else except its own ranks, that its moves were nothing other than extreme ways of protecting its own turf and extinguishing what it sees as its own enemy. And that's exactly where its campaign's brilliance lies.
In every campaign, and especially in one as tough as this is shaping up to be, it is important to understand what needs to be achieved. This time (and at this point, we need to clarify that we do not know if it was a conscious decision or a lucky fluke) the focus is, quite rightly, being put on convincing ANC members and voters that the party is right.
When you position your goal in that way, it is not about building the best argument anymore, but rather about building an entire eco-system in which all things ANC are good, and all things media are bad. It allows for statements that appear mind-bogglingly crazy and easily debunked by anyone with a triple-digit IQ and 30 seconds on Google. Because it is not about truth or lies. It is about the right; the ANC's right to set the rules in South Africa, and that is that.
The way the ANC officials update their thoughts and statements daily also smacks of the recipe taken from the US Republican party's handbook. It is an incredibly effective system of talking points that the GOPers developed, in which the notes are distributed daily to all the talking heads and spokespeople for the party. As a result, each and every newspaper, TV and radio station quotes the people singing from the same song sheet, amplifying the message of the day. And, more than anything, statements that are repeated all the time make people remember them. (We are reluctant to give the ANC that much credit though; it is possible that the mechanism of repeating the message could be just plain parroting, but the result is the same: Every time the position of the day is repeated, one more morsel is added to its audience's resolve.)
And the ANC leaders know their own audience. They know how to talk to them, they know what buttons to push to get the “down with media!” reaction. For Blade Nzimande it was even easier to convince his party members that the media is the root of all evils. Never in history has there been a communist party ruling a one-party state in which any kind of free media was allowed.
Here are the best examples of the campaign, its nature and its efficiency.
Use Lenin's old saying: Many times repeated a lie becomes the truth. Use it liberally.
When Blade Nzimande says the media is the greatest threat to South African democracy, it is obvious that the statement has nothing to do with reality. Quite the opposite, actually. No true democratic state can exist without a thriving free media, which has been proven all over the world. On one side, the good doctor probably genuinely believes that the USSR, China, Cuba, Libya, North Korea and, God bless them, the German Democratic Republic, were or are true genuine democracies. But to the rest of the world they are not. And yet, the same “media threatening our democracy” statements are repeated by so many officials that many people in South Africa will now readily repeat it as an absolute truth, regardless of its non-existing connection with truth. Lenin would have been proud of his little helper.
Use half-truths, reverse logical processes, but make sure your target market never bothers thinking about the whole truth:
Nzimande uses his favorite example (you could use 'whipping boy'), former Cape Argus reporter Ashley Smith, who was bribed by Ebrahim Rasool, as solid proof that every South African journalist has sold out.
The logic will say that the rules are always made by observing many events, measuring the elements of many experiments and then, after careful comparison, drawing a proper conclusion that would successfully predict the way other elements will behave. In the case of Argus journalist Ashley Smith’s bribing scandal, the good doctor Blade turns that principle upside down, using a sample of one to presume how thousands would behave.
The same logic is being used every time someone in the SA media makes a mistake, making it a good and properly scientific reason to deal with the entire media community. That logic has been enhanced somewhat of late by using, hold on to your hats, a mere possibility that someone's dignity could be hurt, as a good reason to stop free media from ever coming into position that might make it possible.
But that's not the doctor's only fallacy, of course. In an extraordinary somersault of logic, he avoids the principle he just established and fails to conclude that, if Ibrahim Rasool bribes a journalist, then every ANC official bribes journalists.
Of course, Julius Malema considerably added to the “robust media debate” by claiming that the media put his and his family's lives in danger during the days immediately after Eugene Terre-Blanche's death by claiming that him singing “kill the boer” song encouraged the murderers. Of course, he conveniently forgot to say that he did sing the incendiary song, many times, to start the race debate and make the media forget about his tenderprenurial woes at that moment. And by saying a half-truth, Malema knows that his target market forgot any inconvenient truths and would believe everything he said, no matter how remote its connection was to reality.
All these examples owe their effectiveness to the existence of this crucial ANC's eco-system: it is a double-standard system which makes it impossible for the “Greatest Liberation Movement” to ever be wrong. In that system, it becomes entirely logical that Rasool was only an aberration that was harshly dealt with by being sent to Washington DC, while the entire media needs to be punished because of the one. Malema is also the victim of the horrible media monsters. Because the ANC can't be wrong.
Media is THE most powerful group in the country and, because of this, it must be dealt with by the representatives elected by the people.
Statements like this would mostly produce a chuckle were it not that such nonsense at such dangerous moments have immense power. A party that controls almost 66% of Parliament, federal government with all parastatals, eight out of nine provinces, institutions of democracy, a party that has infiltrated big and small business nationwide, that directly controls the state broadcaster, is somehow a weakling here. Somehow, the media, that does not control a cent of the budgets, nor issues any licenses or concessions, BEE processes, appointments of officials or actually anything else, is now the big bad wolf out to get the ANC's poor little sheep. And yet this picture, as preposterous as it is, is currently taking hold among ordinary ANC members and their voters. Because they WANT to believe it.
But still, all of the examples listed so far can be seen as one side fighting a smart battle, not much different from a usual US election duel. The members of the ANC these days routinely call talk shows to debate and leave long comments on websites and that could be a sign that they are becoming serious about taking their views to the public. (A cynic could also point that they are using the media network in order to destroy it.)
But the way the following issues are framed by the ANC are where things become downright dangerous and will probably haunt this country for a long time to come. The first one is:
Free media is somehow against black culture and only serving white liberals.
Racial profiling has been a deeply worrying element of the SA's political scene of late. Its champions, the Youth League under Malema's leadership, are not strangers to using the most crass racism in their press statements and speeches. We now find more and more voices adding to statements that it is not in African culture to criticise elders and that the party in power is, by default, an elder. Also by default, is that only white people support the media that can do whatever they want and that fighting against freedom of media in our society is somehow part of the black DNA. The ANC will probably be relatively successful in pushing this dangerous point that will turn to bite this country many times in the future.
Together with the racially divisive tactics, is the equally dangerous framing of the creation of false choices. Here's the one used the most:
What is more important, for the poor to get water or to have free media?
The structure is always the same: on one side is something really important and close to hearts of many, and on the other side is the free media. It is, of course, a complete nonsense that these are mutually exclusive and the village is far more likely to get the water if the media reports on government's delays or shoddy delivery. But the emotional power of the left hand side of the choice will blind many an inexperienced person into believing the free media should die right now in order for granny to get water. It is a truly dangerous, criminal way of conducting the propaganda war.
The ANC's war against the media is a truly fascinating subject and one day will be a basis of the great study of a society desperately trying to push a self-destruct button. By choosing not to really talk to the media or anyone else supporting the freedom of expression in the country, and only to their own people, the ANC has chosen an effective path that will strengthen its lines for the time being and may even finally bring them the obedient media they so crave. But the reversal of the late 20th century's gains of freedom of expression will bring long-term misery to South Africa. Unfortunately, there's only one way for them to find that out.
By Branko Brkic
Photo of burning newspaper courtesy of Piero Annoni Etnophotos.













http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates
Follow the rabbit hole, though, and look further into it.
As far as I was aware average IQ was as follows:
Ashkenazi/European Jews: 115
Whites: 100
African Americans: 85
African blacks: 70
Chinese were over 100, but can't remember the exact number of their average.
Sorry for the stupid puns but I must amuse myself somehow.
This is why you didn't see front page news of journalists being arrested for political reasons during the world cup, or even before. It seems the western media and media watchdogs are well aware, just as they are aware of how in Russia a similar approach was taken with 'responsible journalism' laws, which have, along with control of television and the murder of numerous journalists, effectively silenced opposition and garnered support for Putin and his KGB buddies 'democratically'. This here is being done without Mugabe's AK's and is a tougher story. Also, the media cannot pretend to be shocked by this here, I would imagine this is why the news is a bit watered down. By the way, I am PC cancer bleeding heart liberal. Regarding international reaction, indeed, since it has become clear specifically what the ANC is doing legislatively, it seems here that only gradually are people realizing the full implications, as well perhaps of more to come, even when it is in their face.
what you describe as a fact is hardly that
do a critical (non-selective) reading of the article you cite and you will realise that the entire theorem is based on a web of speculation and assumptions that the authors did not even have the courage to support empirically
And yet here we are, about to find out if people can be that stupid. Personally I would like to see Orwell proved wrong, but history is against me.
Otherwise this excellent article clarifies what I have found so disquieting about the new media bill. Obviously the concept alone is frightening, but I hadn't realised what was really bothering me was how the ANC is justifying it. Or rather, isn't justifying it but relying on rhetoric and suspension of disbelief to try push it through.
I don't believe that South Africans falling for such blatant manipulation is a foregone conclusion. But if we do, history has no shortage of examples showing how this will end.
Badly.
Sadly, the majority of South Africans are supporters of the ANC and as such as likely to be inclined to support their party's initiatives. Given further that even Jacob Zuma recognises that at least some of his party's members are liable to be intimidated by threats of witchcraft, we have an indication of the average IQ of ANC supporters. The reality, however, is that at present the ANC commands an overwhelming majority in Parliament which allows them to push through any legislation they want to short of changing the Constitution; public opinion is of no consequence. South Africa is facing a crisis which will most likely require a decision by the Constitutional Court to resolve.
Alas, what else is new in the unfolding saga of ongoing countrywide infrastructural implosion. The ship is on the rocks folks,.. and weekend newspaper reports of direct top level manipulation of events i.r.o the inflow of ANC funds through nefarious sources just adds to the chaotic scenario.
Come hell or high water the government will do everything in its power to implement curbs on the media,... to throttle the throat of transparency and order. Shame on them!
Will be spreading this story widely.
Can we amend "Never in history has there been a communist party ruling a one-party state in which any kind of free media was allowed." to include the words 'communist "or in any form of dictatortorial" party'.
'Free media is somehow against black culture and only serving white liberals.' This line clearly shows that you have resorted to two lies: that black people are opposed to free media, and that South African media is free. You know very well that the two are not correct but you are using these in your attempt to win this debate and to emerge as a hero. I can assure you now that one of the reason media will not will their debate is the fact that all their conclusions are based on untruths.
Media that is controlled by white shareholders, who compose less that 30% of the society, in a country that has its majority being black people who championed democratisation process is indeed a threat to democracy. The reason is that it does not reflect the views on all the people but just a cluster. Any sober minded person will accept that this is problematic. Media that represents only the views of the opposition parties is again problematic because it does not inform the people about developments in government.
The truth is that people will always get to a point where they revolt against injustices. It does not matter what you do but they will eventually revolt. It is high time that majorities of this country reject such kind of media. This country deserves objective media that is not biased towards white opposition parties.
The way to ensure that not only white people own the media is for black people to also start up newspapers, radio stations and TV stations. So far the media are still relatively free and open to anyone to enter into the market. Clamping down on the freedoms that still exist and muzzling the media will not bring media freedom; all it will do is take control away from the owners and editors and place it in the hands of the government. Given the track record of the government in running commercial enterprises it will only be a matter of time before the media are also crippled by government control as is the SABC already and ditto for other State-owned enterprises. It does not follow that because the media are controlled by whites that therefore the media are not free - unless your definition of "free media" is "media controlled by blacks".
The resistance is to the threatened government control of the media. It is not that "black people are opposed to free media", it is that the ANC/Communist Party/COSATU alliance is opposed to free media.
It is also not true that most white people "were opposed to democracy in the first place". The majority vote in the referendum regarding opening up the franchise to all adult citizens on a common voters roll was in favour of democracy; only white people voted in that referendum and the majority were in favour of democracy. White people also championed the democratisation process, and people of all skin colours are opposed to the government's current effort to gain control of the independent media. Given that we are now some sixteen years into democracy it is an inditement of ANC policy that black people supposedly do not yet have a say in the media. For sixteen years black people have been at liberty to buy shares in "white-owned" media or to start their own media houses, and government policy has been to force existing companies to retrench white staff to make space to appoint black staff, managers and executives, and to sell off significant chunks of their shares to black people: how can you say that any segment of the economy is still controlled by white people?
An interesting aspect of your comment, though, is the assumption that everybody must hold to the same views. "The reason is that it does not reflect the views on all the people but just a cluster. Any sober minded person will accept that this is problematic. Media that represents only the views of the opposition parties is again problematic because it does not inform the people about developments in government." The implication is that political parties are problematic, because they do not reflect the views of all the people but just a cluster; do you support the formation of a one-party state? Equally, media that represents only the views of the government is "again problematic" because it does not inform the people about (negative) developments in government. Keep in mind that Apartheid was bolstered and enabled for many years by government control of the media; we do not want to regress into that situation again especially given that the ANC is still openly racist inasmuch as it continues to enact and enforce legislation based on skin colour and fails to silence cadres who spout hate speech against white people.
The statement most white people "were opposed to democracy in the first place" might not accord with most white people's current beliefes (although anyone reading some of the comments here and most of the comments on other websites might struggle to believe that) but it is a provable true one.
Fairness would dictate that we accept a similar trend amongst black voters. Wonder just how many people do not go and vote and how those percentages would compare to those of the NP? Could we ascribe this to the fact that no acceptable alternative existed then and now to the ruling party?
As to your sarcastic comment about Martians keeping you darkies down, keep in mind that the media and educational system were abused by the Nats to disseminate propaganda supporting Apartheid (I was not around before the Nats came to power so cannot comment on the state of brainwashing by their predecessors) and, of particular relevance to this debate, presenting their form of government as essentially democratic while highlighting other issues e.g. Rooi Gevaar as a smokescreen to obscure the real issues and to secure reactionary support for their regime. They deliberately formed public opinion using the school syllabus and broadcast media, and did their best to infiltrate, disrupt and control the independent print media by underhand methods (e.g. agents posing as journalists and the Citizen newspaper) and censorship. Democracy was not generally an item of debate. It is likely, had a survey been done during Apartheid, that the majority of whites would have indicated that they were in favour of democracy; it is just that open debate of democracy and criticism of Apartheid and the Apartheid regime were suppressed leading to a distorted conception of what democracy truly is and a failure to recognise that the political system under Apartheid was not fully democratic. And the current widespread resistance in South Africa and internationally to the ANC's proposed measures against the media is due in large measure to a recognition of the damage that such controls do to democracy.
If, as you claim, 'The statement most white people "were opposed to democracy in the first place" ... is a provable true one' please go ahead and prove it if in fact you can prove it objectively. Take note that anecdotal evidence of how SOME white people were opposed to democracy (which is not disputed) is not objective proof that MOST white people were opposed to democracy.
Please have a look at:http://www.mdda.org.za/Trends%20of%20Ownership%20and%20Control%20of%20Media%20in%20South%20Africa%20-%20Ver%203.3%20%20Final%20-%2015%20June%202009.pdf.
It is clear that radio remains the most influencial media format in the country. Radio, by and large, is under control of the government as is TV1, TV2 and TV. How then is it that you believe main stream media can manipulate ANC voters. Lets not forget that they do not buy these papers anyway.
The reason the government need this tribunal is to hide their transgressions of the very laws they have written.
Let us not forget that they promised all of the people of this country that they will never resort to apartheid style tactics.
I don't think that one can sustain the argument that this represents a monolithic "white" control structure.
You should try and make a collect call to reality. It'll be worth it. If this statement of yours above was true, the ANC would still have been the spent force it was in the late 80's. And nothing would have changed in this country. There was a referendum. And THE WHITES voted yes. THE WHITES freed you. Not the terrorist organisation called the ANC.
http://letterdash.com/g.annandale/the-real-victims-of-the-media
I refer specifically to comments by Donovan Jackson, Bill Rogers, Lara Johnstone and Archie Brown which state that Black South Africans have average intelligence levels just above than the threshold of retardation and then go on to posit that their extreme stupidity is why those South Africans will be misled to their own slavery.
Firstly I will point out that it was these “stupid” black South Africans that organised the liberation of this country, since the 19th century “stupid” blacks have fought racist and colonialist encroachment – Hintsa, Sandile, Cetshwayo, Sekhukune, Clemens Kadalie and the ICU, the Israelites, Nat Nakasa, Henry Nxumalo, Cassey Motsisi, Percy Qoboza, Sam Mabe and Aggrey Klaaste are probably “stupid” blacks of little renown to you, for us they form links in the chain that led us from our enslavement to liberation. To answer your allegation about the reading habits of blacks in South Africans and their understanding of a free press, Chris Potgieter, I’ll point out that the last six were journalists. I’ll also say that when the ANC won the negotiations in the early 1990s (the NP gave in on all their negotiating points despite their control of state power, the ANC stood on all theirs, I think it can safely be called a win for the ANC) their team was led by Cyril Ramaphosa, a son of “stupid” black South Africa against well renowned “Northern European” intellects such as Gerrit Viljoen, Chris Heunis and others.
Secondly, you fail to note that it was “stupid” blacks in Zambia who booted out Kenneth Kaunda’s UNIP, “stupid” blacks in Kenya who voted against the corruption of Daniel Arap Moi’s party, “stupid” blacks who voted to boot out corrupt elites in Malawi and who, if the will of the electorate was respected, would long ago have booted out Mugabe in Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that it will be “stupid” blacks who vote out the ANC when they judge that its excesses have grown to outweigh its usefulness.
Thirdly, you should probably look up the meaning of racism. Racism is the belief that race determines the differences in ability among people, with some (usually the duskier among us) judged as having inferior abilities to others (usually the lighter toned). In other words – to paraphrase the immortal words of George Orwell, and to put them to better use than they already have been in this thread – it is the belief that while we may all be equal, some of us are more equal than others.
The belief that some races are inherently superior to others has already been used to justify a good deal of evil in our history – slavery, the holocaust, colonial exploitation – that I am surprised that “decent” people did not recoil at saying the things you’ve said above and that other decent people read them and passed them over without comment.
It always amuses me the bunk spewed out to support so-called "superiority".
Nyiko, please point out where I said any such thing. The web site listing the average IQ in various countries lists data per country, not per racial classification within a country: your assertion that black South Africans are referenced is blatantly untrue. With regard to comments about supporters of the ANC, keep in mind that the ANC is a non-racial organisation and as such its supporters cannot be presumed to necessarily be black; your rant about '"stupid" blacks' is therefore irrelevant. As you are the person who has raised the issue of stupidity being linked to any particular race group (which none of the other posters to this column has done) I put it to you that you are in fact the resident racist here.
Another definition of racism is 'discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race': in every instance that the legislation passed by the ANC-led government discriminates on the basis of race it is just as racist as that of the Nats and should be exposed by all 'decent' people; I eagerly await your unreserved condemnation of the racist ANC regime and an unqualified apology for your racist rant above. (See http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=racism)
As you are the person who has raised the issue of stupidity being linked to any particular race group (which none of the other posters to this column has done)...
should read
As you are the person who has raised the issue of stupidity being linked to any particular race group IN SOUTH AFRICA (which none of the other posters to this column has done)...
Is this sort thetoric the best argument the ANC spin-doctors can come up with? Look at the voting results and see how many whites did not vote in election. Look at the voter numbers today and see how many people are starting to not vote again.
Racial cards are not going to get voters the South Africa they deserve.
The comments on this piece specifically has caused us a sleepless night, as we reopened the debate on what we refer to as the LJP, the Lara Johnstone Problem. It's convenient shorthand, because Lara is a perfect example of a troll who is not vanquished by our real-names policy. She continues to spew her vile opinions and nonsense statistics undeterred, and at a rate that poisons many discussions.
And yet she has never yet crossed the line into actual hate speech. Trust me, I know. I can't wait for her to do so, and give me an excuse to banish her. The day that happens, the champagne is on me.
Until such time, however, we're trapped by our deep and abiding commitment to freedom of speech – which becomes more important, not less, the more repugnant the person or the views. I don't need to explain to you the slippery slope that is censorship.
Which ends our internal debate where it always does: clinging to the belief that the trolls and haters and racists are not in the majority, that the rational majority will not stand idly by, and that they will eventually drown out the crazies.
Perhaps that is naive. But we'd rather be naive than censors.
Why would reader comments here, or anywhere else, be "associated" with me, or any of the editors, journalists and columnists who are published here?
In this particular case, I don't even exercise editorial control over them. In other forums, where I do have the right to approve comments, I generally disallow only spam, in the belief that freedom of expression is absolute, subject only to law about defamation and fraud, and that comments reflect exclusively on the intellect and character of the commenters. On my blog, for example, I routinely approve comments that describe me as an idiot, a racist, or worse. Would you presume I agree with such comments?
As for the particular issue in question, I deeply loathe presumptions about intelligence, and believe those who resort to IQ analysis are not worthy of a response. If you do read my columns, you'll know I advocate individual liberty and free markets, without reference to the presumed, tested or actual intelligence of the people exercising those freedoms. You will also notice that my view of humanity is optimistic, that I think people are generally both good and smart, and that I trust even the most modest ranks of society with their own economic choices and political opinions. I may call for discussion, debate, engagement or education. I may disagree, and I may argue. But if I had to resort to a crass IQ argument I would have lost the debate.
So no, I would not be happy to be associated with those comments, but happily I am not associated with them in any way. It is shallow, disingenuous and frankly vindictive to impute such an association.
For what it's worth, I also do not wish to be associated with the opinions of other writers in publications for which I write. Their opinions are their own, and I often disagree. I'm sure the feeling is as frequently mutual. I know for a fact that the editors of this publication do not agree with some of the opinions I express in my columns. Unless agreement is explicitly stated, do not assume any association.
This case illustrates well why political oversight over the media would be so dangerous. It would demand homogeneous views consistent with ruling political principles. It would leave little room for disagreement and debate over the philosophical questions that underlie those principles.
Now that we have all of that out of the way, I would like to note that I largely agree with Branko's original analysis above. Feel free to consider me associated with it. Please don't conclude that this means I agree with everything he has ever said or thought. His views on global warming, for example, like his views on the virtues of coffee and the evils of beer, are completely wrong.
I am terribly busy at the moment, my tea is getting cold, and I don't have the time to browse for specific examples, but I will say this. Every comment I have seen posted by you on this site has got some or other racial undertone to it, or you manage to engineer an outrageous situation whereby race (or my favourite, colonialism) is somehow brought into the debate. Quite an extraordinary ability you have, but one that is not appreciated here.
It's boring, unnecessary, and regressive.
As for your comments on oppression and equality. Oppression presupposes equality. And equality is a blatant falsehood. There is no equality. There is only ability in the individual.
In response to Brendan Love, I don't know what you are talking about and clearly neither do you. And yes like you I wish there was a way to track reader comments because then you would know that I have posted comments on history and geopolitics (nothing to do with race), on environmentalism (mostly in agreement with Ivo Vegter about the misanthropy and moronic ludditism inherent in the modern environmental movement), and then finally on South African poliotics, which only a fool would believe could be divorced from race. I'm afraid I cannot be quiet in the face of outright racism. Your last comment "oppression presupposes equality" probably sounded clever and profound when you said it to yourself but it is a rubbish statement, it cannot be proven or disproven, it does not support any argument or argue against anything, it is stupid and it means absolutely nothing - maybe it says something about you.
1. "The Politics of Recognition", by Charles Taylor.
2. "Liberalism and the limits of Justice", by Michael Sandel.
A bit of sel;f-examination might be in order methinks, so Brendan Love expect that sometimes if you treat people with contempt or make unsubstantiated statements at them they might call you stupid.
If this is your account, please note that it has been blocked and you will no longer be able to log in. If you would like your account (and this comment) restored, please get in touch with the editors.
The comment read as follows:
Well spotted Sonwabo Xaba.Not so long along ago South Africans were joined under one flag and anthem. Maybe not all South Africans, but cameras dont lie, neither do 40 million people in this country suffr from cataracts.
You're spot on, it is a discussion about a proposed Media Tribunal. May I hasten t o clarify that the "medium" referred to in the Trubinal is the press, newspapers for clarty purposes. It has no bearing on broadcast and other electronic media. The intention with the Tribunal is to facilitate easy access to the provision of recourse in the event that an individual,company,institution or whatever entity, is falsely accussed thru the press based on untested and/or inaccurate facts. Consequently, the individual/company/institution suffers reputational damage, loss of brand equity or potential business etc. Many bad stories have made their way to the rinting press without much regard for the rights of the individual.Press freedom is not an absolute, it can never be allowed to superced the rights of the person being written about, to an extent that every aspect of the subject's life is laid bare for the whole world to read. Ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Not even the police can make a pronouncement on an "allegation" until the matter appears before a court of law to be tested. But newspapers can publish realms and realms of paper on a hear say, suspicion, rumour etc without a care for the damamge visited upon that individual.When the stories are proven to be false by relevant authorities, all the aggrieved receives is a lousy 30 words apology somewhere in the middle pages. Not the big bang blitz the press rolled out when the story broke. No one is above the law, not even the press. The Tribunal was never intended to "muzzle the media" as some would like us to believe. Let's base our discusions on correct information, lest we are accussed of doing the very same thing the Tribunal seeks to protect all South Africans from. Why denegrate this important discussion and steps to help regulate the press to a darkie bashing moment? Surely, if the ANC is the majority ruling party in a predominantly black continent...catch my drift? But then again, let us not lose focus of our subject matter, the Media Tribunal (read press)and why we need to protect ordinary South Africans who can not afford expensive lawyers and law suits to access compensation in the event that he was falsely accussed and put on public trial by the press. This is a Third World country, we can ill afford a situation such as in Britain where the tabloids can print anything they want, even most evil and insulting in the name of press fredom, the natives are not that sophisticated yet. Remember the majority just recently tasted "political freedom, let them savour it before you confuse their unsophisticated taste buds. The SA press (newspapers) and not broadcast media, can never be allowed to run amock in this fragile democracy under the guise of self regulation/ombudsman.
Maybe a better route to go would be to ensure the legal costs will have to be paid by the party found guilty in a court of law. That together with punitive awards would stop spurious claims.
We have seen that when one devolves interpretation of laws to a person, that has no legal training, that incorrect decisions will be made. Let us rather place the process in the hands of the Courts than in the hands of a political entity who may be accountable to a political party.
The fact that Nigeria's Constitutional Court declared the media tribunal legislation unconstitutional recently can surely be considered as an indication that the "politically free" have matured?
They need to stop Zapiro from publishing easily understood pictures?
See http://www.mg.co.za/zapiro/all, that will probably lead to another charge of crimen injuria being launched by our Prez?