"He'll en hath no fury like a women scorned " - The embedded journalism of the DA 20 years after democracy
John Pilger, in the foreword to a book called Tell Me No Lies, quotes TD Allman, an American journalist, as saying "Genuine objective journalism is journalism that not only gets the facts right, it gets the meaning of events right. It is compelling not only today, but stands the test of time. It is validated not only by reliable sources but by the unfolding of history".
So, when De Doorns or Diepsloot burns, or Khayelitsha service delivery protest occur or booing of the unpopular DA Premier in Saldanha happens or when the DA supporters (minus the Whites) march on Luthuli House rather than Union Building, to what extent do journalists go beyond just reporting on these events and provide the substantive reasons and root causes of the facts and events they are reporting rather than just the effects?"
Sadly the answer to this question is an unequivocal almost never! Today the majority of SA journalists and print in particular seem to have a myopic view of the role and responsibilities of the fourth estate. The body of evidence over the past 2 decades suggests that at best the 4th estate believe that the characteristics of good Journalism dictates that you must and can only criticize the ruling party ANC, ANC government and its leaders and supporters, even when there is nothing to critisize rather than constructive critique of government as a whole when necessary.
Whilst constructive criticism of government may not necessarily always be well liked by government and the ANC, it is accepted by them as a necessary evil and democratic norm provided it is at the very least unbiased and objective. Instead many journalists today have both abused and confused there role as the 4th estate believing that good journalism requires them to be part of and on the side of the opposition parties only.
Said differently, being biased towards opposition parties and the DA, in particular, is perceived as an essential requirement for being a "good journalist".
This unholy, and at time undemocratic, alliance has developed into a sub-culture and an unwritten code that as the media they dare not criticize the opposition, and the main opposition party the DA in particular, even when they are wrong as they seem to believe that it will only strengthen the ruling party hegemony on society. The unintended consequence of this paradigm is that they have become an extension and the official mouth piece of the opposition political parties.
In some cases this subjective double standards has been taken to such extremes by some journalists who quite ironically at the same time practice sunshine journalism where the same opposition parties namely the DA are governing a province the Western Cape and a number of municipalities.
A basic analysis of a number of newspapers indicates a dangerous pattern emerging that unlike there subjective but robust reporting of the National government and ruling party and its supporters the trend is exactly the opposite where and when the DA governs. They fail to criticize any and all service delivery failures, maladministration, corruption and lack of accountability.
Instead some of these same journalists spend copious amounts of time and space defending any failures and weaknesses of DA governance and party political scandals whilst the vast majority of journalists remain deafeningly silent in these cases.
Equally so the only time one finds any critique of the opposition parties and there leaders is when the 4th estate believes that these political parties are becoming a threat to the biggest opposition party namely the DA.
This threat can be seen within the context of Julius Malema who moved from being media enemy No 1 when he was in the ANCYL to suddenly a messiah of the masses after he left the ANC to form his own political party the EFF. Gone are the regular ridiculing of Julius the radical by the media. Instead he is now cajoled, complimented, defended and given prominent and positive media space. Is this damascene change because the media believe that Julius has suddenly grown up or because he is now an opposition leader? Does the media really believe its power can be abused to the extent of crucifying individuals and then resurrect them from the dead? Me doth think the latter!
We saw similar patterns amongst COPE leaders emerging and now again with Dr Mamphele Ramphele and AGANG. Its leader Ramphele was presented as a hero when she was first courted by the DA in 2012/13. Thereafter she was quickly lambasted, ridiculed and spat out by many of the same journalists when she rebuffed and refused the good Madam Zille's courtship then.
Again more recently when she began her second round of flirtation with Helen announcing her marriage once again, within a few minutes the same media defended her, cajoled her, and complimented her, an attempted to either her initial attacks on Zille. Suddenly the majority of the print media seemed to be suffering from a bout of selective amnesia by once again presenting her as the new messiah and her and Zilles relationship as a match made in heaven.
For example the business day within a few hours of the announcement of the very short-lived marriage even went as far as playing the older father figure by giving the newlyweds wise counsel on how to grow old and strengthen the relationship together. They worried and warned them of all the potential problems and possible dangers that could emerge from an arranged marriage and how to manage it , knowing full well that this was a relationship that was doomed from the outset as forced marriages where only 1 party wants it (read Zille) rarely survive.
Yet despite their hopes and best wishes this desperate marriage was on the rocks before it could even be consummated. The media once again like good and emotional family members and close friends closed ranks and quickly accepted Zilles story rallying around Zille the family favorite. They assumed from the outset that she was the victim in the relationship and once again demonized Ramphele for committing the cardinal sin by once again rebuffing the good madam as soon as she realized that she had been duped imarriages tip ship premised on false pretenses.
Rather than once again reverting to a subjective and emotional response to this news through knee jerk attacks and demonizing Ramphele for so called stupidity and unreliability, good journalism would have asked why the marriage broke down so quickly in an objective manner rather than rallying to the defense of the darling Zille who can do no harm.
Has the media dug deep enough and considered that perhaps Zille, the jealous lover, family princess and rich spoilt brat, had not gotten over the first rejection of her proposal. Has the media not considered that Zille may have used her clout as the family favorite by covertly demanding that some of the more wealthier and powerful members of her extended family (namely the donors ) cut their funding to Ramphele in order to pressure her to dump her current relationship with AGANG. Has the media not considered the possibility that Zille in a fit of jealousy blackmailed Ramphele into accepting the marriage with her under duress. It is said that "hell' en'hath no fury as a woman scorned".
The examples of such hypocrisy, sunshine and embedded journalism are endless. However the question is why have young journalists who disagree with the current paradigm (and there are many of them) remain silent and allowing this rot of the current state of subjective and shallow sunshine journalism to continue.
The answer is no doubt multi-faceted but includes that since the dawn of our democracy there seems to be some kind of neo liberal ideological and philosophical school of thought that has incrementally dominated journalism. This school has developed the unwritten rules that in order to be a good family member (read journalist) and strengthen democracy you need to criticize the ruling party at all costs rather than provide constructive critique of government.
Equally so you must seek to defend opposing political parties in general and the DA in particular at all costs. Taken to its extreme this means that any commendation of government is religiously disallowed and perceived as sunshine journalism whilst any attack against the opposition parties and the DA in particular is a cardinal sin and an attack on democracy.
Any young journalist who dares contest this paradigm is ridiculed and rebuffed as a rebellious and rash family member, treated with disdain disowned and threatened with disinheritance (read its knows that it is career limiting) both by their establishment and there family favorite Hell' en. So rather than speak truth to power to the authoritarian grandfathers they remain silent.
The consequence of this school of thought is that there is a growing body of evidence that in fact reveals that the media has entered a state of embedded journalism with the DA with many of them either overtly or covertly supporting the DA political project. The latest DA candidate lists for Parliament which indicates a number of well-known journalists confirms this fact but is the mere tip of the iceberg.
If truth be told there are many more closet DA supporting journalists and editors who covertly remain in the media including the likes of Jan Jan Joubert, Gareth Van Onselon, David Mars, Tony Weaver and Terry Bell to mention but t a few. They have used and abuse their authority in the media to not report on the facts but in fact further a very deliberate political agenda of the DA.
These same journalists and newspapers claim to be nonpartisan and politically unbiased in there reporting, whilst in fact they are both overtly and covertly supporting a particular political agenda of the opposition and endangering the true role of journalism and the 4th estate. This position is both duplicitous and deceitful and an abuse of power and certainly not standing up to the standards of good journalism as set by TD Allman.
Young Journalists across the country need to begin serious introspection of the current state of journalism and begin to buck the current trends for the sake of protecting the integrity and once proud history of the 4th estate particularly prior to democracy lest they too become infected and tainted by the fruits of this poison. For young journalists this means reporting on events in a manner and style that even if the meaning may be part of what Indian writer Vandan Shiva calls "subjugated knowledge" that is fighting for space against "dominant knowledge", those views should come through for the meaning of the event to be right.
Wesley Douglas is Convenor of the MTMSA and Chelsea Amor Lotz, Deputy Convenor of the MTMSA (Movement for the Transformation of Media in South Africa).
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
