The British newspaper the Daily Mail has made headlines in South Africa for its coverage of President Jacob Zuma's state visit to the UK. On his arrival in the country, the paper described Zuma as a ‘vile buffoon' and a ‘sex-obsessed bigot with four wives and 35 children'. Zuma has responded by saying that the British Media is determined to protray Africans as ‘barbaric' and cannot let go of colonial views towards the continent.

The truth is that many Britons would shudder to be represented by the Daily Mail, a right-wing tabloid that makes its name out of distasteful and insensitive headlines such as this. Nevertheless, although the Mail is an extreme example, it was not alone among the British Press in its critical and somewhat mocking portrayal of President Zuma as he arrived in Britain.

The Times opened its coverage of the story with a joke about royal etiquette: ‘For hundreds of years, world leaders have agonised over etiquette at state banquets with the Queen. The president of South Africa also faced a more personal dilemma: which wife should I take?'

Taking a similar tone, the Daily Telegraph story read, ‘For all the colourful characters who have visited the Palace during the Queen's 58 years on the throne, the South African president is possibly the first guest to be a polygamist, probably the first to have faced a multitude of criminal charges including fraud, racketeering, corruption, and tax evasion, all of which were later withdrawn, and most certainly the first to have a signature anthem that runs: "Bring Me My Machine Gun".'

One column in the Guardian even went so far as to call Zuma ‘Mr Defective Zipper'.

So is Zuma right that the British, years after colonial rule ended, continue to view Africans as ‘barbaric'? Are the British, as the ANC Youth League claims, ‘racists living in a dream land [believing] that Africans are still their colonial subjects'? The answer is an emphatic ‘no'. Such accusations of racism and colonial prejudice entirely miss the point. Of course Britain is not devoid of racism; most would struggle to name a single country in the world that was. However, there are several reasons why the treatment of Zuma by the British media should not be viewed as racist.

Firstly, political satire and criticism of politicians is an important part of free speech and a free Media in any democracy, and Britain prides itself on having a Media unafraid of criticising and poking fun at political and public figures both at home and abroad. In this context, we should not forget that Zuma stands in a long line of leaders mocked by the British (and international) media: from Sarkozy with his height complex and pop singer wife, to Berlusconi's hair implants and prostitutes; from Clinton's affair to Bush's embarrasing grammar; and at home big-eared Tony and dreary Gordon have certainly not escaped the cartoonist's pen or the columnist's criticism.

While the ANC Youth League may expect nothing but adulation for the country's president, this is not what is needed in a healthy democracy and it is not what should be expected of a free Media whose job it is to hold our leaders to account. The British Media have focused on Zuma's shortcomings not because he is black, or because he is an African, but because he is a politician, and because that is their job.

The second reason the British Media is not racist in their portrayal of Zuma is that the South African Press (and public) have been saying many of the same things. When the news broke about Zuma's affair with Sonono Khoza, there were very few -if any - newspapers which defended Zuma's right to privacy, and public opinion reflected in the Media suggested that the majority of people were critical of Zuma's conduct and his reluctance to apologise. Many in the South African Press have been equally scathing about Zuma's polygamy, the charges of corruption and allegations of rape, the ‘shower' statement, and so on. Zuma is the butt of many a joke at home, as the sniggering during his state-of-the-nation address suggested to, so why should the international Media turn a blind eye to his failings?

There is a third reason why the British media should not be viewed as racist. If the Western media sat back and uncritically accepted Zuma and all his controversies as ‘good enough' they would be short-changing South Africa. It would be as if to say, ‘This is Africa'. This is all we expect of African leadership: corruption, nepotism, polygamy and affairs.' The fact is that the British know South Africa deserves better than Zuma, and that he and many in his government are failing to live up to the example set by Nelson Mandela of selfless and humble leadership.

Whether or not one questions Zuma's ability to handle the state visit, his personal life has ended up upstaging the business end of the visit. It is a shame that the strengthening of trade links, the sharing of expertise in hosting world sporting events, and the chance to discuss pressing issues such as Zimbabwe and climate change are being eclipsed in the Media (in both hemispheres) by discussions of which wife Zuma would choose to ‘take to tea with the Queen'.

The coverage of Zuma's state visit by the British Press is not racist. This is not a case of double standards - after all, the Media there has spent the last few weeks revelling in scandals involving some of the country's best-loved football stars. Scandal and controversy make the headlines, and sadly Zuma is making the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Lucy Holborn is a British expat working as a researcher at the South African Institute of Race Relations. This article first appeared in the Institute's online newsletter, SAIRR Today

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter