Racism in the media
THREAD OF ambiguity runs through the
100-page report of the Human Rights Commission on its investigation
into racism in the media, raising doubts anew about whether the
investigation has justified its huge costs to the taxpayer.
The most glaring ambiguity is contained in the first - and presumably
the most important - of the HRC's observations and findings. It states
that "to the extent that expressions in the South African media
'reflect a persistent pattern of racist expressions' and content of
writing that could have been avoided, and given . . . that such
expressions cause or have the effect of causing hurt and pain, South
African media can be characterised as racist institutions."
Imprecision about the "extent" to which racist expressions occur in
"the media" leads inexorably to the conclusion that the HRC's finding
means everything and nothing. To paraphrase Lewis Caroll's Humpty
Dumpty, it means whatever the reader chooses it to mean. If that is so,
then it is not unfair to suspect that the HRC investigators have been
reading Machiavelli's The Prince as well as Alice in Wonderland.
In an apparent exercise in masochism, most media reports have ignored
that qualifying subclause and summarised the finding as an
unconditional verdict of guilty of racism, as charged by the Black
Lawyers' Association, the Association of Black Accountants of South
Africa and, of course, the black editors who testified about their
experience of anti-black racism in the media.
The black lawyers and accountants famously accused two newspapers, the
Mail & Guardian and the Sunday Times of "subliminal racism". That
vague accusation has not been finally nailed, rather it has been
transmuted into a generalised view that "the media" is racist. Judging
by the remarks of HRC chairman Barney Pityana at a press conference
held to introduce the report, this includes those components which have
black owners and black editors.
Ambiguity characterises another major finding in the HRC report: the
recommendation that a single "regulatory authority" should be
established for the media as a whole, irrespective of the differences
between print media, which do not have to be allocated air waves, and
the electronic media, which do. The HRC report envisages that the
regulatory authority should be controlled and funded by the media and
recommends that its power should be strengthened by legislation. The
idea of the authority deriving its power from legislation brings the
notion of government control one step closer, as it will be the
government that enacts the proposed legislation.
The attitude of the black editors may be significant here. During the
subpoena saga which preceded the hearings in March and April the black
editors took the position that the question of racism in the media was
more important than the threat to media freedom posed by the subpoenas.
They were therefore willing to appear before the HRC even if the
subpoenas were not withdrawn. Ideally they said they would prefer to
avoid choosing between these conflicting imperatives, but if they had
to choose then they sincerely believed that combating racism took
precedence over defence of media freedom. If the perception grows that
the media is a racist institution - and in another of its observations
the HRC report states that "much racism occurs at the institutional and
structural levels" - the cry for government intervention against racism
may be raised.
The national conference on racism, hosted by the HRC and held in
Sandton from August 30 to September 2, has added to the belief that
racism is a pervasive and sinister menace in post-apartheid South
Africa. Whether by intention or not, the scene may have been set
psychologically for an assault on the "racist media". That deduction is
reinforced by President Thabo Mbeki's warning that "sectors of our
society" saw the objections of editors to the subpoenas as evidence
that they were "beneficiaries of white minority rule . . . unwilling to
contribute to the process of national reconciliation."
Three intertwining themes stand out when the national conference on
racism is reviewed in retrospect:
- the conviction that whites are primarily responsible for South Africa's legacy of racism. ("Black people have been the victims of racism rather than the perpetrators" - Mbeki);
- the associated contention that whites are thus primarily responsible for eradicating it. ("We must treat racism as a problem that challenges white people" - Mbeki);
- the belief that more often than not the white reaction to these "historical facts" has been one of denial and "collective amnesia", comparable to the intellectual dishonesty of holocaust deniers - (ANC frontbencher, Pallo Jordan).
Such judgements raise the spectre of further legislative action
against racism that would go beyond its prohibition in the Constitution
and in the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination and Promotion of
Equality Act. As noted in an earlier article (Focus 18, June 2000),
media observers are watching keenly to see how the HRC handles a formal
complaint by two senior journalists, one white and one black, against
Jeff Radebe of the African National Congress. In the ANC submission to
the HRC media hearings, which Radebe presented, the ANC charges that
Mail & Guardian editor Philip van Niekerk wrote an article
attacking Mbeki but published it under the name of Lizeka Mda, then a
journalist on the Mail & Guardian and now a senior editor on The
Star. Van Niekerk and Mda have minced no words in dismissing the charge
as absolutely untrue.
HRC spokesman Siceko Njobeni confirms that it is an offence under the
HRC Act to lie under oath to the commission. But he says that the
decision on whether to prosecute or not lies with the national director
of public prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, not the HRC. Affidavits have
been obtained from Van Niekerk and Mda and a formal reply to their
complaints from Radebe. These documents will be forwarded to Ngcuka,
Njobeni states. Whatever his decision, Mail & Guardian lawyers,
Jacobson, Rosin and Wright, are pressing ahead with court action.
Patrick Laurence
is an assistant editor on
the Financial
Mail.