I could not let this debate pass true without throwing my views about the press in South Africa. Maureen Dosoudil seems to be missing the point here, free movement of press and speech is a pillar of our democracy as supported by the constitution. Meaning that this is a constitutionally guaranteed right and as we all know every right comes with a certain responsibility.
In this South Africa of ours, we journalist continue to evade the scrutiny of the public by hiding behind the free press doctrine. This is en called for, in terms of the practice of journalism. It is part of journalism ethics to take criticism for as long as it does not censor you. You talk of the development of the South Africa media, mentioning the example of the then Citizen newspaper. You must understand that this was part of propaganda project of the apartheid’s department of information. So you cannot say that our government should be taking this route, this route is bad as apartheid itself. Due to the fact that you seem to have some knowledge of the media history, let me give you what I know about South Africa’s media history. The media industry during apartheid was divided into three. There was the nationalist or Afrikaans press, The English Press and the Resistance or Alternative Press. The nationalist press was a propaganda tool of the nationalist party as it supported the national party, if you look at it most of the presidents of the regime we once editors of the Afrikaans press, eg DR DF Malan, JB Voster, FW de Klerk. The English press on the other hand was supportive of big business and when the apartheid resistance movement started to receive scrutiny they were the first on the line, calling for the reform of apartheid that was basically why it criticised the apartheid government. You must understand one thing, they did not want apartheid to be done away with, but wanted it to be reformed. The name of the third group, Resistance Press, explains its stance against apartheid quite clearly. You must understand that in this South Africa of ours (Post- Apartheid) the English press started to take a new route. The apartheid reformists who were leading it during apartheid are still in high positions of its editorial. They could not and still cannot bear the idea that they are ruled by a black government, they still wanted apartheid, because it benefited them. The black guys, such as Mondli Makhanya are only put there to fool the people of the country into thinking that they press is transformed. Look at most South Africa newspapers, their editors are black people, but managing editors are white-see this agenda. So for them freedom of the press started to be freedom to attack the ANC. They started to be threatened by the majority of the ANC and could see that the opposition is weak in South Africa. What they then did was that they tried to be an opposition themselves. To understand their agenda look in the manner in which they scared of the ANC’s two thirds majority, one would think that they are telling the truth when they say the ANC will change the constitution for corruption purposes, but in essence they a scared that there will be a time when the property clause in the constitution will be reviewed by our government. Look how they have covered the PAC, they do so because the PAC says it will chance the property clause, they feel scared and threatened by this. That’s freedom of the Press for you my man Luzuko Buku YCL Rhodes University ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: YCLSA Discussion Forum <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 10:42:42 AM Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: WHAT IDI AMIN DID TO JOURNALISTS. i feel this whole concept of a 'free press' is misleading. South Africa does not have a free press. the Newspapers are owned by companies or organisations and are funded by advertisers. What is published is what the editor wants and ultimately what is wanted by the Shareholders and to a certain extent readership. If we look at the mail and gaurdian for instance, it has a Readership of mainly Middle class readers. the adverts in the mail and guardian appeal to this demographic. if it where to change to a less anti ANC line then the majority of its DA, ID readership will probably flood it with complaints and its readership will reduce (unless picked up by a different demographic of course) damaging sales and ultimately stopping advertisers from wanting to advertise in it. Similarly i find it quite amusing that the USA and UK are viewed as bastions of the free press, a few examples. if your presidential reporters report negativly of a president or ask unwanted questions they are black listed- something George Bush was more then happy to use against a fare few of his outspoken enemies. Editors do not risk loosing the privilege of going to these press meetings and therefore report positivly on them....very free and fair that is. again from America....have you ever heard of the patriot act and the negative effects the anti terror legislation has had on the media. in the UK: the US defence department funded right wing think tanks to wine and dine British journalists (who are know to not be morally sound) in order to come into line on there position on the war in Iraq...which they did. another sign that money makes the media go round. also im guessing you never heard that the TIMES newspaper was a full supporter of the Nazi regime even when the persecution of jews was well under way, All because its owner had interests in Nazi germany (that would be an example of money over mind). finally, i am somewhat embarrassed to read this slippery slope argument that the degradation of the "free" media will lead to a situation similar to Zim. well for all intensive purposes look at Cuba at what you would deem to not be a free media and there is no destruction of of rights there. just as an after thought : ""Never forget it is the capitalist countries who send millions $ of financial aid and other resources such as doctors and medicines to the poor countries (despite their anti-poor values) - or do you suggest that they should not do this? What is the alternative?"" Cuba send far more doctors in aid then any other country in the world, and after Katrina in new orleans the US government refused to let cuban doctors come to the aid of the people of New Orleans. i think we can clearly see who has got the better system in North America when it comes to moral values effecting the poor. Brendan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
