Crossing the Jordan

July 6th, 2008

Pallo Jordan, now head of ANC communications, says that a media tribunal is justified because of the Daily Sun.

“Have you been reading the Daily Sun for the last three weeks? Do it and if after that you do not think we need a media tribunal then you are far more optimistic than most of us are … There is a newspaper inciting the violence and not a single one of the newspapers, not even Sanef, has taken it up,” he told Maureen Isaacson of the Sunday Independent.

Well, let’s start with some facts: there is a complaint before the Press Ombud against the Daily Sun, laid by the Media Monitoring Project, so it is not true that nothing has been done. Notably, nether Jordan, nor anyone else in the ANC, nor the government, have bothered to lay a complaint against the Daily Sun. In fact, Jordan himself, his party and his government have not said anything about it before.

On the other hand, there have been a series of public fora where the Daily Sun and its coverage have been hotly debated by fellow journalists. Just those I have been at include one at Wits University and one hosted by Fray Intermedia.

But there is more important point: I would like Jordan to show me exactly where he thinks the Daily Sun, or any other media, have “incited violence”?

They have been guilty of stereotyping foreigners, mostly by calling them “aliens” and by arguing that one cause of the recent violence was that many “aliens” were guilty of crimes. That was ugly, even dangerous, as was their front page editorial explaining the violence without condemning it. They should be sharply rebuked for this.

But it is some way from “inciting violence” which would be a clear criminal offence. If Jordan can show that they have been doing this, he should be in his local police station laying a charge against them. If he can show that this is what the newspaper is doing, then they will have no sympathy from me or most other journalists when they face such charges.

The Daily Sun is running a “South Africans first” response to the violence. They dismiss with contempt notions of “brotherhood” with other Africans and charge that what must come first is the quality of life and rights of their readers, ordinary South Africans. This is a narrow, rightwing view which has all sorts of negative implications. But it is a legitimate political view, which they are entitled to argue and pursue, however, much either Jordan or I do not like it.

It is certainly not an argument for a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal, as Jordan is suggesting.

But Jordan’s argument goes to the heart of why we oppose this idea: it is because it so quickly and easily becomes a way to deal with views you do not like. And Jordan himself is falling into this trap.

Jordan has himself been a fierce and consistent defender of freedom of expression, it must be said. He does not need me to tell him that freedom of expression includes the freedom to say things that are ugly, unpleasant and even offensive.

But if one crosses over into illegality, like promoting violence, then that newspaper, editor and reporter belong before a court of law.

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