A public call for malfeasance

October 23rd, 2007

Government advertising is public expenditure, subject to the same rules and constraints as any other spending of money raised for the public good. It has to be used in a transparent and accountable way. It has to be used for its stated purpose, such as filling state jobs.

To use it to pursue personal vendettas or to target government critics is bad governance, an abuse of public trust and perhaps even corruption, worthy of the attention of the Auditor-General or the Public Protector.

So when Essop Pahad, Minister in the Presidency, urged that government consider withholding its advertising from the Sunday Times, it was public encouragement of official malfeasance. He did it because he did not like the newspaper’s allegations that the Minister was a drunkard and kleptomaniac (You see, a sad reality is that the longer you hold the editor and not the Minister to account, the more the allegations stay in the public eye).

I raise this now because word has it that government officials have started canvassing the idea, and talking to agencies which place adverts in the Sunday Times. They should be slapped down as fast as anyone else actively promoting the abuse of the state coffers in pursuit of their political agendas.

Other publishers and media owners might be tempted to rub their hands with glee at the prospect of this approximately R150-million being dispersed among the Time’s rival publications. If they do, they will be displaying an extraordinary shortsightedness.

To allow the government to use their expenditure to punish those they disapproved of and reward those they like would be to had them a powerful weapon to use against their critics. This month it may be the Sunday Times, but if it proves effective then you can be sure that it will be used against others. It means that publishers and broadcasters will have to think twice every time you do something which might find disfavour with the presidency, such as questioning the use of beetroot rather than antiretrovirals, or pointing to the poor conditions in your local hospital’s maternity wards.

It would be a matter of time before such a weapon was used against those who did no more than give favourable coverage to the wrong faction of the ruling party.

It is dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.

Government puts out for tender its advertising placement, and specialist commercial agencies bid to do this work on the basis that they will secure good bulk discounts and place the advertisements where they will be most effective (the Sunday Times, more often than not, as it is the granddaddy of career advertising). We need to ensure this is done at arm’s length: it should be dispersed among more than one agency, and it should be subject to the strict instruction that the only criteria to be considered is cost-effectiveness.

Actually, I would be in favour of one exception to this, because it would be for the good of us all. I think the government should stipulate that a chunk of that money, perhaps 15%, should go to community or other smaller or alternative media. I think that would be legitimate use of public money in pursuit of public policy.

And, while one goes about it, I think one should establish a set of rules which prevent the use of government advertising for personal political promotion. Quite often we see adverts which serve little purpose other than to promote a Minister or MEC, and some of the provinces are particularly guilty of this abuse. It is easy to identify the culprits – they feature a large picture of the relevant politician with a cheesy grin.

There are those who will argue that Pahad is not pursuing a newspaper he disapproves of, but disassociating the government from an editor who flouted the law. But Pahad has never raised it when other papers in other circumstances get close to or cross that line.

The truth is that he is using the state machinery to pursue a personal vendetta against someone who has been sharply critical of a minister he seeks to protect from accountability. For her alleged drunkenness and thieving (whoops, that allegation slipped out again!)
*This column first appeared in Business Day, 24 October 2007

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Media regulation, Print