Of aliens and mobs

June 13th, 2008

A look at the coverage of the xenophobic violence by two leading and quite different newspapers throws up interesting contrasts. I have focused on the Daily Sun and the Star in the first five days of the outbreak of the violence in May.

In its flamboyant way, the most noticeable aspect of the Daily Sun’s coverage is its frequent and consistent use of the word “aliens� to describe non-South Africans. The violence is flagged repeatedly in headlines as a “war on aliens�. (“It’s war on aliens – 20 bust for attacks�, 13 May; “War against aliens: Thousands forced to flee Alex�, 14 May) In the tabloid tradition, aliens usually refers to little green visitors from outer space, but the Daily Sun is referring to black visitors from much closer to home. The word has the same effect of emphasising foreigners as outsiders, different and even strange, not part of us, even threatening. To describe the violence as “war� implies a formal exercise in defending the country against this invasion, and invokes such dramatic phrases as “War on terror�.

However, it is striking that the Daily Sun, in contrast with most other media, downplayed the violence. On the first Monday after the violence broke out in Alexandra, the Daily Sun had no coverage, though this was probably due to early Sunday deadlines. On day two, it had only a short inside story. The first time they put the story on their front page was on the Wednesday, three days after the violence broke out and when it had dominated national headlines for 48 hours. The angle they took was of a “homeboy� mistaken for “an alien�. It would be hard to think of two phrases which more clearly distinguish between local and foreign. The story kicked off with a warning, in bold type, to their (local) readers: ““Be very careful … don’t look or act like a foreigner.� If there was ever a warning to South Africans to keep their distance from foreigners, this is it.

Over the next few days, the Daily Sun paid attention not just to the victims of the violence, but a good deal on South Africans who were in danger of becoming victims. “But cops say one of the victims was South Africa� they put high up in their very first story. And: “So far four aliens have died. And now South Africans are victims too – mainly Shangaans and Vendas.�

The paper showed its colours most starkly on day four, the Thursday, with a front-page editorial purporting to tell “the Truth� about “aliens�.

“There is much wailing about the debt we owe foreigners, the lessons we learnt from our own struggle, the dignity of all Africans, the evils of xenophobia – the big word for hatred of foreigners. There are calls for indabas and workshops on the subject. WHAT NONSENSE, “ the Daily Sun said with its characteristic disdain for large words and the people who use them. Talking serves little point, they are saying, and they are noticeably not offering a word of criticism of the violence and bloodshed.

It then suggests the “real� reasons for what is going on. Their explanation starts quite routinely, pointing to high unemployment, corruption in housing allocations and government’s lack of policy on foreigners. They seem to be suggesting that South Africans have cause to hate foreigners, but they also point fingers directly at government for these problems.

But then comes the kicker: “Many of us live in fear of foreign gangsters and conmen. Much terror has been caused by gangs of armed Zimbabweans, Mozambicans and others.� And then they make a generous concession: “Not every foreigner is a gangster, of course – but too many are.�

Foreigners are not just alien, but they are criminal aliens, in the Daily Sun’s pages. The one consensus we have in our society is that criminals are fair game. “Shoot the bastards,� the deputy minister of Safety and Security recently said . Label them criminals and you are setting them up for attack.

The Daily Sun did not condemn the violence until a full two weeks later in a column by the editor. This was the only paper which could not criticise the president for being slow to speak out, as they were even slower themselves. Interestingly, after this the Daily Sun appeared to stop using the word “aliens�, signalling a deliberate shift in their coverage.

But to point to the Daily Sun’s willingness to pander to xenophobic sentiments is to see only half the picture and it is a common failing among South African media analysts to take a narrow view of the role of this unusual newspaper. Look below the “Aliens: The Truth� headline and you see a picture of two bodies and a burning bakkie. It is described as a civilian attack on suspected criminals, with no mention of nationality. And in fact on the previous day, the xenophobia story was tucked away on Page 4, and more prominence was given to the Page 5 lead, “Residents on the rampage� over lack of basic services. In that week, the paper had no less than three prominent stories of citizens turning into vigilantes to deal with alleged criminals. None of these stories appeared in any other media that I could see. The Daily Sun is covering township life like no-one else, telling us that there are a range of violent protests going on, and treating the xenophobic attacks as just one manifestation of peoples’ anger and frustration.

This points to the wider role that the Daily Sun is playing. It is covering people and events not found in any other media and in doing so giving an identity and public space to citizens who don’t otherwise have it, it is articulating a frustration and anger which, distasteful as it may often be, is real and substantial, and is thus providing a warning signal of a number of developments only covered in other media when they explode into crises. I randomly take today’s Daily Sun as I write this (10 June 2008) and find it has a horrifying picture of a burnt man, a suspected criminal killed brutally by his neighbours. It is not reported nor photographed anywhere else that I can find. If you want evidence that ordinary citizens are responding in a particular way to anger around crime, it is there. You might have to cut through the Daily Sun’s gung-ho and triumphant reporting of vigilantism, but the other news media will likely only cover it when it bursts out of the townships of becomes a national crisis in some other visible way.

* * *

Two things are immediately apparent in the Star’s coverage . From the outset of the violence, the paper is doing much more substantial first-hand reporting, with a team of reporters and photographers on the ground. Their coverage is fuller than any of the other Johannesburg dailies, their pictures used large and dramatically. Secondly, their focus, in contrast to the Daily Sun, is on the victims. Their choice of pictures, their headlines, their stories are all the tales of those who have become the targets of violence.

For example, on day one, Monday 12 May, they feature two huge and horrifying colour pictures of bloodied victims under the bold headline: “Faces of xenophobic hate: Victims tell of night of terror …� They are careful to humanise these individuals, with close-ups of their faces and the core of the story is them giving their account of what happened. On the Thursday, they built a front page around a picture of school students tormenting refugees through the fence of a police station. “Kids learn the lesson of hate�, is the headline. Once again their sympathies are with the victims and the pictures and quotes all tell the story from their viewpoint.

The following week, the Star is one of two newspapers which goes to the trouble of identifying and telling the story of the man burnt alive before the cameras, providing the most horrific image of the violence. It takes some work, but they make a point of humanising and individualising him by finding his friends and family and telling us bits and pieces of his life.

The perpetrators, on the other hand, are a “mob� (a word used over and over againin the Star) and are described with words like “bloodlust� and “gang�. The distance between the Star reporters and the perpetrators is palpable: “They came in the night carrying iron bars … They came hunting foreigners…�

On their pages, it is the attackers who are largely faceless and anonymous. The Star is quick to condemn the violence, but you have to search hard in their pages to get a clear understanding of who the attackers are and what is driving them. There is an isolated quote here or there to give some indication.

By the second week, the story of violence is supplanted by the humanitarian refugee crisis, and the Star is giving over its front pages to calls for help and assistance, having set up their own fund. Pictures of refugee children are used to evoke sympathy and the paper’s civic role has displaced the hard news. “Please help this little girl,� is their front page headline for the launch of what they call “a campaign to show the real heart of South Africa�. And the next day it is “Love vs hate: the nation fights back� featuring a girl’s school protesting against the violence and donating for peace. It is feel-good stuff as they assert an image of South Africans as loving and caring in contrast to the brutal images which have gone around the world and dominated their own front page.

* * *

So we have contrasting treatments of the same story: one paper focuses on South Africans as victims, and comes close to legitimising attacks on foreigners giving its front page over to telling why South Africans have reason to hate foreigners; the other focuses on foreigners as the victims, and launches a sympathy campaign, giving its front page over to appeals for demonstration of caring.

It is easy to say which of these newspaper treatments makes us feel better about ourselves. The Star holds out hope that those who respond to humanitiarian needs outnumber those who partook of the violence or stood aside as it happened. It is tougher to say which newspaper offers the more accurate depiction of our society. More likely, the contrast between these two highlights the different worlds occupied by South Africans of different classes, with very different understandings of what happened in those few days in May. The Star’s is the view from the suburbs, from those only indirectly affected; the Daily Sun’s is the view from the townships and often from the perpetrators themselves.

This leaves us asking what we expect of our newspapers in this situation. Is it foremost to tell us what is happening day to day? In which case, the Star did well. Is it to evoke sympathy and an outpouring of public healing? The Star did well again. Is it to express the darkest sentiments of the angry, the powerless and the hateful? You would have to give credit to the Daily Sun. Is it to forewarn us of such outbursts? The Daily Sun again. If it is to probe the events and try and find out what lay behind them, what drives South Africans to act with such callous brutality, why poor people turn on other poor, and other such difficult questions, then you will have to look somewhere else other than these two papers, at least in those initial baffling days.

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber