Address by UDM President Bantu Holomisa MP, at the Press Freedom Commissioners Meeting Braamfontein Recreational Centre, Johannesburg, Gauteng, January 31 2012

Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen

The United Democratic Movement (UDM) welcomes this initiative by the Press Freedom Commission to solicit public opinion about how to protect press freedom and regulate the media in South Africa.

What some onlookers might miss is that this debate conveniently comes at a time when the media and the Government are at loggerheads over the media's perceived bias and unfair reporting.

However, this has given the Nation an opportunity to discuss freedom of the press in our Country and to point out any inherent defects in our system of media coverage. The truth is that there are many problems with media reporting in this Country. I speak from personal experience. In the past, I was targeted by certain media houses that pulled out all the stops to discredit me.

The only way in which I managed to successfully get rid of them was by seeking redress from the courts. This course of action is however not available to the each and every citizen.

1. PRESS FREEDOM: HISTORICAL LEGACY AND THE FUTURE

Looking at transformation - for example in education, the economy, land distribution, as well as the media, there are serious imbalances where the majority of our citizens are still excluded.

On the one hand, one cannot shy away from the fact that the South African media is still heavily influenced by those who had been given power during Apartheid. Nothing much has changed and the same companies and/or individuals are still dictating what gets published and what not. This is another way of looking at the concept of press freedom? Are they truly free?

Almost two decades into our democratic dispensation, the South African media remains in the tight control of a minority group that has deluded itself into thinking it has the power to dictate the Nation's thought processes.

Some media houses will be hard pressed to rid themselves of their image of being associated with, euphemistically put, a "certain political philosophy".

On the other hand, we should be very careful with this press freedom vs. regulation exercise. We cannot falter under the pressure exerted by certain individuals who abuse tax payer's money (like those who benefited from the Arms Deal, Oilgate and the Eskom/Hitachi/Chancellor House deal) to totally restrict the media and dictate what can be said and what not.

The media has a critical role to play in exposing such wrongdoings. If not for the media we all would be blissfully unaware that we are being fleeced. We simply cannot support any attempts to suppress such scandals. Nor will we be part of schemes that are designed to cover-up blatant institutionalised corruption.

2. PRESS FREEDOM VS. RUNNING A VIABLE BUSINESS

Unfortunately it is not as easy to just "transform" the media, because they remain business in the hands of shareholders and company philosophies.

It is a tricky balance for such businesses, considering the need to sell newspapers to protect their commercial interests and the need to report responsibly.

There are enough unashamed tabloids newspapers out there that prove that sensation sells. They cannot get away from the image of bending the truth, promoting speculation or omitting information.

In addition print newspapers have had to pull the proverbial rabbit out of a hat to compete against electronic media. Fortunately for them the majority of South Africans do not have access to the internet - this will of course change in future.

3. PRESS FREEDOM: FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A POLITICAL PARTY

The UDM's relationship with the media is mostly unproblematic. However, we are concerned about the biased and subjective decisions made by editors and journalists on what is, or what is not, newsworthy. They brand most stories which originate from opposition parties as "un-newsworthy". The irony is that the very same journalists who refuse to cover stories about certain political parties later join Government as its spokespersons.

Journalistic integrity seems to mean very little to such individuals. It makes one wonder if they are not part of a broader cadre deployment strategy that seeks to suppress the views of opposition parties and other members of society discrediting them in the process.

What has led us into this quagmire is the ruling party's infighting that has spilled over into the media where journalists take instructions from the different ruling party factions.

4. PRESS FREEDOM: FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ORDINARY SOUTH AFRICANS

Our Constitution protects our right to express our views freely and we can all agree that the media has an important role to play in informing the populace.

We could also agree that the media seeking more protection from undue influence is fair. But conversely, every citizen should enjoy protection from media victimisation.

5. PRESS FREEDOM VS. REGULATION - DO THEY NEED TO BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?

In the past year South Africa has dropped in the international press freedom ranking. This broadcasts a negative image of South Africa; and our democracy in particular. That being said, irresponsible reporting also does serious damage to the image of our Country.

However, any form of media regulation should delve deeper into what forms of sanctions should be imposed on editors and journalists who do not verify the authenticity of the stories they publish.

The media had a critical role to play in exposing these wrongdoings. If not for the media, we would all be blissfully unaware that we are being fleeced. We cannot support any attempts to suppress such scandals and "

"the regulation of the media" should not be abused as a tool to stop the truth from getting out.

There is, however, a perception the journalistic code of ethics is not always honoured. It therefore seems clear that there should be some mechanism or set of rules in place that gives a framework to function within. For example, what should happen to those journalists, editors or newspapers that dishonour this journalistic code?

The question that needs to be addressed is: "What form this regulation should take?" For example:

a. The exclusive regulation by a government - running the risk of state propaganda being the order of the day. We had enough of that under Apartheid. Not to mention that the so-called National Broadcaster is doing a good job of promoting its masters at the moment.

b. A system of self-regulation - the danger here is that one cannot sit in judgment of oneself.

c. The establishment of an independent body with powers to convene those who are in conflict with one another.

It would be crucial that such a body has the necessary powers to ensure that its decisions are respected. The Nation should debate this concept, if it feels that this is a good idea, thought needs to be given on how it should be funded - maybe using a public/private partnership model.

6. PRESS FREEDOM: SOME PRACTICALITIES

a. On a practical level, there are burs that scratch when interacting with journalists. For instance, being called five minutes before a deadline to comment on a story.

Sometimes this is unavoidable, but how can one properly engage with a story when asked a difficult question stone cold? One cannot help but think that one is set up for failure or being wilfully put at a disadvantage.

Editors and journalists should at least give the interviewee access to the full text of the story so that he/she can engage with each concept to phrase a well thought-out response.

b. Press does not only refer to the print media, the growth in electronic media is astounding and this brings about a new set of variables.

Ordinary citizens become journalists using blogs, etc., without having been trained for the job. Even worse, these "new-age journalists" do not feel bound by the ethics of journalism.

How one would go about regulating this aspect of press freedom is a dilemma all on its own.

Of course there are those who believe that this is the ultimate form of press freedom, but where does the accountability lie? Look at the impressive back-lash that happened with the Wikileaks saga (at least that brush more or less tarred everyone).

CONCLUSION

Not being press freedom experts do not preclude all South Africans from having a point of view in the debate. And they should!

Bold institutional reforms accompanied by a candid assessment of the weaknesses and challenges facing the South African media are required to rid the media of its negative image, its opaqueness, and the resultant scepticism with which our people and the world perceive it.

Having considered the matter, it is clear that there should be a balance between press freedom and regulation of the media.

However, before the question of "Who should judge whom?" is answered, more research and benchmarking needs to be done.

I thank you.

Issued by the UDM, January 31 2012

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