In his latest editorial entitled ‘Making sense or the lack of it, of politics' (Sunday Tribune, January 13, 2013) Jovial Rantao finally admits that there is a huge disconnect between the South African media agenda and the real South African public agenda.
Oddly, Rantao is flabbergasted at his own realisation, as he writes: "Something does not make sense. Things are just not adding up. The gap between the general sentiments among South Africans about the leadership of Jacob Zuma and the outcomes of the vote by the over 4500 delegates at the ANC 53rd national conference is way too big and calls for deep introspection among South Africans".
He laments that going into the conference, President Jacob Zuma was generally considered out of favour with the majority of South Africans, and this was apparently backed by polls. For reasons best known to the press, the poll results of the South African population were extrapolated to determine candidates' popularity within the ANC. In research you may not apply the results of a specific survey (generally popularity of government leaders) to a population which was not included (ANC members) in that survey. The press must understand that the only population to which the results of a survey can be directly generalized is the population which made up the sampling universe for that survey.
Rantao's political quagmire seems to be rooted in the disgraced agenda setting theory of the 1960's. Agenda-Setting theory contends that the media has the ability to transfer salience issues through their new agenda so the public agenda can form their understanding of the salience issues. Two basic assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting: (1) the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it; (2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues. The agenda setting theory is predicated on a notion that the media is a professional enterprise, political neutral in tone, and independent of commercial values.
However, the media in general and the South African press in particular is far from being politically neutral, it smuggles in values conducive to the commercial aims of monopoly capital, advertisers as well as political aims of the opposition parties. In short, it serves the interest of monied white males. Fortunately, the larger South African populace have seen through this fallacious media agenda.
To illustrate this point, the South African press ahead of the Battle of Mangaung (ANC 53rd National Conference) created two fictitious groupings i.e. ABZ (Anyone But Zuma) and Forces of Change. It was reported through extensive use of anonymous sources that these two groupings had one thing in mind, to dislodge Zuma from the presidency of the ANC.
But, as analysis will show there was no coherent political agenda within the ANC to dethrone Zuma. Here are the facts; Kgalema Motlanthe was nominated for the presidency, deputy presidency and NEC of the ANC by a few ((like many others who lost) branches and provinces. Motlanthe never had any meetings with these two fictitious groupings. Motlanthe's political ethics precludes him from participating in any factional agendas within the ANC (see Kgalema Motlanthe a Political Biography). Well and good.
So, who was the presidential candidate of these two groupings if they really wanted to dislodge Zuma? Why they never had a unified candidates' slate? All candidates whom we were told by the South African press were members of either the ABZ or Forces of Change accepted nominations for the top six positions in the ANC as individuals, often competing amongst themselves. Why would such an experienced cohort of political actors act in this faction not consistent with the factionalist agenda manufactured by the South African press? There is only one conclusion, the press were hoodwinked into telling a lie, and they did hook, line and sinker.
In my 2005 study into the South African media entitled "Media ethics and Ngcuka spy debacle" submitted in part fulfilment of Baccalaureus artium' degree in Journalism at the Durban University of Technology, I found that the South African media suffered from trust deficit amongst other defects. Hence, its salience issues are of no concern to the general public. As Henry Adams put it at a century ago, "The (South Africa) press is the hired agent of a monied system, set up for no other reason than to tell lies where the interests are concerned. In short as Robert W. McChesney (Monthly Review 6 Vol. 52, 2000) illuminated..."Journalism is explicit class propaganda in a war with only one side armed".
It is therefore a misconception for Rantao to want to believe that there should any symmetry between the South African press agenda and that of the general public. The two agendas are mutually exclusive. As the 53rd ANC Conference attest, the South African press in particular is in need of time-out to look into the mirror and ask whether they have any "contract" with the public as articulated by Matthew Kieram in his book, Media and Ethics. Kieram wrote, "There is an implicit contract between citizens and news media as watchdogs." He said it entails a normative conception of good journalism. Good journalism, according to Bill Kovach et al in his book, the Elements of Journalism, means fulfilling the press first obligation, to ‘tell the truth'. Does the South African press tell the truth? And, why is the majority of citizens not buying it?
The reality of the situation Mr. Rantao is that politics does make sense after all. The only question is whether the South African press tells the truth about Jacob Zuma in particular and ANC in general?
Bhekisisa Stalin Mncube is the Gagasi 99.5 FM resident political analyst and a media strategist at B74 Media Lab.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
