Unfair, untrue and unpatriotic
AS IT STARTS its investigation into
racism in the media the Human Rights Commission might be intrigued by
the fate of an earlier South African inquiry into the press. It was set
up by the National Party government in 1950 shortly after it had come
to power and when it was zealously implementing apartheid through a
string of racial laws that earned it international opprobrium. The
commission’s purpose was to investigate the concentration of control
and monopoly tendencies, the activities of stringers and foreign
correspondents and the accuracy and responsibility of South African
journalists. Underlying the probe was an attempt to nail the
English-language press and its journalists for being unpatriotic by
misrepresenting the government at home and abroad.
The inquiry followed a debate in parliament in June that year led by
Dr A. J. R. van Rhyn a former editor of Die Volksblad. In that debate
he accused British and other overseas newspapers of sensationalism, of
misrepresenting South African affairs, of misleading people by false
reports and of inciting public opinion overseas against the people of
South Africa. Black suspicions “about white honour” were raised by
reading distortions in the papers, he charged. Eric Louw, then minister
of external affairs, weighed in saying that much harm had been done by
slanderous newspaper reports and called for the deportation of foreign
journalists who abused South Africa’s hospitality. Dr Albert Hertzog,
minister of posts and telegraphs, said that the SAPA, a co-operative
news agency set up by the major newspapers, had a monopoly in the
supply of news which it first passed through London for “filtering” and
“twisting”. Not to be outdone the prime minister, Dr Daniel F. Malan,
described the South African press as the “most undisciplined in the
world”. Comment, he said, should be restrained by patriotism.
Mr Justice J.W. van Zyl of the Cape provincial division of the Supreme
Court was appointed to chair the inquiry. It began enthusiastically by
impounding all press cables leaving the country between 1950 and 1955,
collecting reports that had been sent overseas by mail and by taking
clippings from overseas newspapers. From 1955 oral evidence was taken
from reporters and editors in secret. It is remarkable that editors and
journalists who have written books covering the period have failed to
indicate what took place during those hearings.
The commission reported first in 1962 and again in 1964 having
produced nine volumes containing 1 400 pages of text and 2 850 more of
annexures (weight, 27kg). It described 75.95 per cent of the 1 665 214
words cabled to the British press from May 1950 to July 1955 and
February to April 1960 as representing a distorted view of South Africa
— “unfair, unobjective, angled and partisan” — and classified 75 per
cent of press comment “exported” from the country as “bad to very bad”,
14.6 per cent “faulty” and only 9.4 per cent as “good”.
Its conclusion assumed that whites were the guarantors of peace in
South Africa and it complained that journalists failed to report on the
barbaric behaviour of “Natives” and were inadequate in their reporting
of the government’s viewpoint and of Afrikanerdom in general. Foreign
correspondents made untrue statements, ignored the government’s
problems in restoring law and order and played down government
statements while giving undue prominence to statements by its
opponents. It called for the establishment of a statutory press council
to reprimand, impose fines of “unlimited amounts”, “maintain the
dignity of the state and its officials” and impose “self control and
discipline”, and a register of journalists with special registration
for overseas transmission rights. The press council was also expected
to encourage accurate reporting, informed and responsible comment and
to maintain press freedom.
This ponderous exercise cost R355 000, took 14 years — and was ignored
by the press and the government.