On Wednesday morning the chairman of Pick 'n Pay linked media freedom with economic freedom. On Wednesday evening the US ambassador to South Africa linked media freedom with the fight against corruption. What makes their voices stand out in particular is that both have felt the sharp end of the media – but neither think that's reason enough to muzzle the country.
The US government hardly has the most friendly relationship with the media; witness its current battles with decidedly non-traditional outlet Wikileaks, or the continuing war between the Obama White House and Fox News.
Even so, the US is by far the strongest foreign voice in the current debate on media freedom in South Africa. Officially its position is that the media and government need to talk more and find one another on the issues, something it has promised to encourage through its own talks with both sides. But ambassador Donald Gips had no qualms about drawing a direct line between the fight against corruption and a free media when he became the first foreign diplomat to publicly and directly address the issue.
"America's founders recognised that the best way to fight corruption and promote democracy in their new nation was through a free press," Gips told a meeting of the SA Institute of International Affairs on Wednesday. "A free press provides the information that permits the public to make informed choices." And while he's not arguing with the protection of state secrets, as the Protection of Information Bill seeks to do, he points out that "in the United States, ‘national interests’ are issues of national security”. Not, as would be the case in SA, should the POI Bill pass, just about anything relating to the functioning of government or parastatals.
Watch: US Ambassador Gips on media freedom - and dialogue - in South Africa.
Gips is in good company. US President Barack Obama is well known for sometimes characterising the media as a necessary evil, and even as the George W Bush administration sought to spy on and invade the privacy of its citizens, it professed a commitment to media freedom.
Earlier on Wednesday, Pick 'n Pay Stores chairman Gareth Ackerman became the first high-profile business leader to take a similarly strong stance, though not before the business community was criticised for its silence.
"The economic freedom on which business depends flourishes best when citizens are able to rely on an unfettered flow of information that is free from excessive government control and regulation," Ackerman said in a statement. "Any attempt by government to restrict the free flow of information or to circumscribe the liberty of the media should be opposed."
Unlike the US, Pick 'n Pay isn't well known for its belief in media freedom, but both the chain and the Ackerman family are firmly convinced of the need for economic freedom. And that, rather than some conviction on freedom of information alone, is Ackerman's concern. "Any erosion of our open society, now that we have achieved it, will only impede economic growth and national prosperity," he said.
In airing these views, Gips and Ackerman may have opened the door for others of a similar persuasion to do the same, which may finally move the debate beyond an increasingly acrimonious to-and-fro between the ANC and political bodies on the one hand, and the media itself on the other. Which is clearly what both men have in mind. Gips has promised to meet with both government officials and editors to promote dialogue, while Ackerman has effectively called on the business community to stand up and be counted.
By Phillip de Wet
Photo: US Ambassadro Gips. (The Daily Maverick)
However, I'm not sure that we should celebrate the fact that a foreign government seems to be taking sides in a domestic South African issue.
If the United States government wanted to make comment about SA politics they should have refused to accredit Ibrahim Rasool as our ambassador to the US. That would have indicated clearly and strongly their commitment to clean government and non-interference of politicians in the media.
I suspect that the US Ambassador's comments will be perceived as a diplomatic warning shot over our bows. Simply put, a statement of the US position that will have been delivered privately to Foreign Affairs prior to his making the speech.
Refusing to accredit an ambassador is a much stronger statement about the relations between two countries, in short a "diplomatic incident". If Rasool was not to be accepted by the US for any reason, then that would most certainly have been sorted out in private before we bought his plane tickets.
I guess that the US doesn't see the Media and Protection of Information Bills as being sufficent for a major souring of diplomatic relations.
We live in a global village today and must be prepared to enter into debate with all who seek honest debate.
would this still be the same after the proposed restrictive laws have been enacted? The US is not trying to dictate to us, or meddle into our politics, but there are certain basic standards that any democracy should uphold and the US has always defended them. In other words, our choices will definitely have a response from other nations that espouse democracy and that our standing in the world will be judged accordingly. We may ignore this at our own peril.
There are a whole series of ways to make a disapproving comment that are much less harsh and that back one into a corner a lot less.
In usual diplomatic behaviour, there is a series of graduated steps that would almost certainly come before rejecting an ambassador - not least increasing less and less oblique comments about developments in a country.
It is also possible that rejecting an ambassadorial appointment could be a reaction to the person being appointed, not the country or its policies - say for example, if the intended ambassador had a pending legal case in the US that had criminal aspects to it - or at the very least major conflict of interest connotations. However, such a circumstance would usually be sorted out before someone was officially named and handed his airplane ticket.
But, given the allegations about his relations with the Cape Town media and a Johannesburg TV station, there is some sort of hypocracy in accepting Rasool and then turning around and lecturing on press freedom.
Her response, "The primary objective of British foreign policy will remain as it has since just after Agincourt - stuff the French". Except she didn't say stuff.
Jusr for clarity are you saying that a friend should never tell a friend that they are about to step into doggy doo?
Most captains of industry have people in place that lobby politicians in such a way as to not cause them loss of face.
Having said all that let me add:- Go Gareth Go, you are forgiven for trying to expand a store over our sportsfields.
What has your points got to do with a warning given that a media bill is not a good thing?