» Jackson Mthembu shows his colours

Jackson Mthembu shows his colours

September 5th, 2010

It is worth parsing Jackson Mthembu’s latest attack on the Mail & Guardian, which you can find on politicsweb.

The nub of his criticism is that the M&G, using “ghost sources”, has made a series of claims about the president which he says are false. He is upset that the paper said that some elements of the Youth League, Cosatu, the Veterans’ League and the ANC executive, no longer support President Jacob Zuma. He challenges the paper’s suggestion that Zuma has been traveling the country to consolidate his power, and that his intervention in the public service strike was a bid to shore up his personal position.

Mthembu is upset that the M&G has not accepted the official version of events: that the president enjoys full and unequivocal support, that his travel was part of a wider NEC mandate for senior leadership to prepare for the National General Council and that the president’s strike intervention was a logical follow-up to ANC calls for a resolution. What is interesting about his criticism is that he seems upset that the M&G has not simply taken at face value the ANC’s official explanations for these things, but added their own interpretation, analysis and reporting.

Is this conscious naiveté, is it just bluster, or does he seriously think that political journalism is about reproducing ANC statements? What is one to make of this sweeping statement: “The ANC NEC, including President Zuma, enjoys the full confidence of the entire members, its branches, its regions and its provinces.” This is a claim so ludicrous, so patently ridiculous, that it stretches Mthembu’s credibility way beyond its limits. Does he expect the media just to repeat that?

The worrying part of what Mthembu is saying is that he does not accept that events may be subject to different interpretations and analyses, that the M&G is entitled to a different view, that there is space for this fairly standard kind of political reporting.

He is upset that their sources are anonymous. This is only partly true, as a number of people are quoted, including trade union figures confirming that their members have lost confidence in Zuma. (No doubt Mthembu will carry a correction with due prominence.) The piece is quite balanced with a range of ANC people quoted as well. And most of the anonymous sources meet the requirement to spell out clearly what kind of source it is, such as “several ANC sources linked to the Youth League” and “Zuma lobbyists”.

Mthembu must know that nobody in the ANC is going to discuss these things on the record with the media, and to expect the newspaper not to report what many people are saying just because nobody will go on the record, is to ask it to abandon its mission of seeking out the truth. This is standard political reporting as you might expect in any democracy.

Mthembu is upset that the paper speculated on a cabinet shuffle, “causing untold anxiety not only to the ministers, but also to their families”. He is suggesting that it is cruel and unfair to speculate on a cabinet reshuffle, something so fundamentally a part of political reporting and commentary, something done by political reporters everywhere, something done by many people in the ANC all the time.

What Mthembu cannot see is that we all read a report like this with a sceptical eye, and we decide which bits of it are convincing and which are not. If the paper quotes people on the record, and don’t use anonymous sources, it is easier to be convinced. But when they don’t or can’t, then we have other ways of assessing whether or not the story has credibility: we look at who wrote it, we weigh up their evidence or lack thereof, we scrutinise the logic of the analysis, and so on. We might believe some parts and not others. It it has the feel of sensationalism, as Mthembu suggests, then we view it accordingly. We are able to make judgements. We don’t take these reports at face value, just as we don’t take Mthembu’s statements at face value. But we do see a value in getting interpretations and analysis of events different from those of Mthembu.

It is worth recalling that in the run-up to Polokwane, the ANC was telling us that the organisation was not divided and what was happening was just a regular process to choose leadership. Media were constantly berated for suggesting that there was internal conflict and for the fact that they relied on anonymous sources for their stories. Those suggestions were laughed off at the time, and Polokwane - and the subsequent recall of President Thabo Mbeki - proved their veracity and validity. In fact, if the incumbent presidency had paid more attention to what some of the media was saying, and been less dismissive and derisive, then President Mbeki might not have been so blind-sided in Polokwane.

Mthembu’s uses a language which is concerning. The M&G is not offering a view or interpretation, it is “vilifying”; it is not critical, it is “an insult”; it is not analysing the situation, it is an “attack on ANC leaders and the president” (and one must ask what the president might be if he is not an ANC leader); it is not reporting on divisions, it is “seeking to cause divisions”; this is not legitimate discussion, it is intended “to politically poison ANC membership”; it is not fair comment, it is “irresponsible reporting”.

These are phrases which imply not only that the paper has crossed a line of acceptability, but that it is an enemy deliberately causing damage and division, that it is behaving improperly. These are dangerous words that seek to delegitimise this kind of political reporting.

And then there is Mthembu’s kicker, his final paragraph. Against this background, “we [the ANC] raise once again the question, who protects us from such gutter and sensational journalism?” Now Mthembu is saying that the ANC needs regulation to shield it from this kind of debate, discussion, expose, analysis and interpretation. He is implying that the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal would have as part of its mandate the power to punish the M&G for taking this view of the ANC.

He is trying to narrow the definition of acceptable comment, and this is where the real danger lies. He has exposed himself, and the real intention behind the Tribunal.

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Media regulation

5 Comments Add your own

1. Impartial Observer.. | September 5th, 2010 at 11:38 pm

I’m not sure who is the pot and who is the kettle… The media cover up so much of hteir own corruption.. who is more corrupt? ANC or SA Media? Coin flip?
2. Akanyang Merementsi | September 6th, 2010 at 2:48 pm

Last week and as noted by the African National Congress, I think there was something, if not everything, wrong with the Mail & Guardian newspaper report. However, the newspaper Editor, Nic Dawes differs.

In the report the newspaper lengthy quoted many “several ANC sources”, “Zuma lobbyists”, “ANC insider(s)”, “government official(s) with strong ANC links”, “ANC-aligned government official(s)”, “former ANC leaders in the Western Cap”, “Mbalula’s supporters” and “Mbeki supporters”.

Unfortunately, it was only ANC member Billy Masetlha who was quoted in the report, not even ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu, ANCYL’s Floyd Shivambu or any of the ruling party’s alliances’ spokesperson were approached for comment by the reporters. And I find this strange but as you can tell, the editor doesn’t see anything wrong with that and instead said there were “lots of on record comment in that piece too”.

This after I told him on Twitter that I enjoyed the newspaper’s Friday edition but was “disappointed at the pg2 story that… extensively relied on sources and not even ANC’s Jackson Mthembu” was approached for comment. And maybe, as The New York Times newspaper Public Editor Clark Hoyt said about readers like myself – I just happen to “hate anonymous sources because (I) cannot judge the sources’ credibility for (myself)”. Really?

Apparently, said Hoyt quoting the then Bill Keller, the executive editor, and Allan Siegal, then the standards editor of the NYT newspaper as saying, anonymous sources should only be granted “as a last resort to obtain information that we believe to be newsworthy and reliable”.

In this M&G report and taking into account the above statement – was there no way the report could have gone for print/for press had the reporters not sought these “sources” quoted extensively and lengthy in the report and even without having bothered to seek official comments from the spokesperson(s) of the ruling party and those of its alliance partners? Rubbish. This is because the way I see it – comments were just never sought by the reporters in the first place.

Hoyt said a “policy (I am not sure if that’s all newspaper policies on sources) requires that at least one editor know the identity of every source”. And here I would like to believe that Dawes knows the identity of the sources. But in disagreeing with the Dawes who said there were “lots of on record comments” in the article – Hoyt said: “anonymous sources cannot be used when on-the-record sources are readily available. They must have direct knowledge of the information they are imparting; they cannot use the cloak of anonymity for personal or partisan attack; they cannot be used for trivial comment or to make an unremarkable comment seem more important than it is.”

In a study that Hoyt conducted there were concerns raised over the use of sources because not only does their usage bother readers like myself but that some editors were also worried and were trying to fix this, in reference to the NTY, though. He said the ‘common but uninformative explanation’ that sources could not be named was because they are “not authorized to discuss the matter.” And in the ANC’s case, Mthembu and others were there for such an “authorization” and why weren’t they consulted or approached for comment?

This failure, unfortunately, creates the impression that sources are lazily used. Therefore, said Hoyt: “it is so critically important that anonymous sources not be used lazily or out of habit, and why, when they really are necessary, readers need to be told as much as possible about why the sources can’t be identified and how they know what they know.”

Sadly in the M&G report, this much – readers (myself to be precise) being told as much as possible about why the sources could not be identified and how they came to knowing much of what they know – was nonexistent, I can conclude.

Or could the newspaper have allowed reporters’ “personal or partisan attacks (being shielded) from behind a mask of anonymity”, something Hoyt warned the New York Times newspaper against? This is because even the ANC denied this and said this can only be seen as “extreme levels of gutter journalism” by the newspaper “fuelled by a political motive that is guaranteed to meet its waterloo at the NGC of the ANC”

Even the Washington Post newspaper Ombudsman Andrew Alexander complained for decades about the paper’s “unwillingness to follow its own lofty standards on anonymous sources.” He said readers who care about the quality of their newspaper’s journalism – like I do that of the Mail & Guardian – will “persistently object to anonymity they see as excessive and incessant.”

They problem was “endemic”, said Alexander, and that “reporters (of the M&G too?) should be blamed” but then again said the “the solution must come in the form of unrelenting enforcement by editors, starting with those at the top.” So Nic, I guess that’s you in this case, or not?

Not that I condone the politicians behaviour to journalists or anything like that but – and like Helga Jansen said and that if media keeps going at the rate at which they are going – we have brought this onto ourselves we might as well injure being called “media dogs”.

By the way, as my blog disclaimer, “I am a Media Freak. I read, learn and write about media and politics all the time and other issues too, of course and to some people, my writings may be seen as bias but there are not, okay.”

And my point is the same as that of the Avusa Public Editor Thabo Leshilo who said we should at all the time “approach anonymity with caution”.
3. Akanyang Merementsi | September 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm

This is a blog post I wrote after I saw Mthembu’s response to the M&G article, just before I your response…
4. Jim Powell | September 7th, 2010 at 7:44 am

Politicians are the employees of the voters.

Our current system in South Africa is so much better than pre 1994 but it lacks accountability. The primary allegiance the proportional representatives have is to their own political party. The 50% of the local government councillors that have a constituency can at least be identified by the electorate but still are not accountable. We, the electorate, are the shareholders of the South African government and employers of our politicians. We choose the politicians who are employed and pay their salaries. We must be able to directly control the politicians. An interesting statistic is that 97% the laws of the world’s best-known democracy, Switzerland, are passed without voter intervention. The threat of voter intervention means the laws are passed with the electorate in mind.

A combination of:

1. Constituency (Wards at all three levels of Government)
2. Top-up proportional representation to ensure that the representation reflects the will of the people
3. Recall of politicians (firing of politicians by the voters before the end of their 5 year term)
4. And referendum with initiative mechanisms where the electorate can reject or propose legislation and change the constitution.

should work the best for the employers of politicians, the voters.

The ANC would have won 80% of the seats on a constituent basis in 1994. The top up proportional vote would counter this. The ANC that obtained 69% proportional votes would then not receive any proportional seats. A political party that did not win any constituency seats but obtained 2% proportional votes would then be allocated 2% of the seats.

*Charles Bukowski quotes*
“The difference between a democracy (as normally practiced) and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later”. In a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.” Our current system can be called a 5 year dictatorship.

An employment advert for a politician in South Africa under the current system (and generally throughout the world) should read as follows:

Applicants are requested to submit their CV’s for the position of politician:

1. The interview will last for a number of months.
2. Many thousands, or even millions, of the politicians’ potential employers (voters) will decide whether the politicians’ application will be successful
3. Should the politician be successful, the politician is guaranteed employment for 5 years unless the politician resigns, die, found guilty of a serious crime (we can talk about this one) or upset the group of people (political party) that the politician chooses to be employed with.
4. The politicians’ CV does not have to be accurate or truthful
5. The politician can ignore the employers (the voters) for the whole of the 5 years, and even go against the wishes or the politicians’ employers (voters).
6. The politicians’ employers are relying on the goodwill and integrity of the politicians, to act honestly and with dignity. But if the politicians choose not to, there is nothing that your employers, can do about it.
7. The politician’s employers understand that the basic rules of operation (SA Constitution) are in many ways much better than the vast majority of basic rules of many other countries and so much better than pre 1994. The basic rules were created by the politicians and in many ways for the benefit of the politicians and detriment of the employer (voter) and as a result the politician, the employee, will be in charge of the employers (voters).
8. Voters recognise that many politicians, from 1994, have done sterling jobs and others have done a terrible job but we, the voters (employers), will not able to remove the politicians from the voters employment or payroll if the voters are not happy with the politicians’ performance.
9. The voters (employers) will not be able to control the politicians (employees).
10. If the politicians are successful the politicians could change the basic rules (constitution) then the politician (employee), would then not govern us but would have to operate in the voters’ interest. This will be under the politicians’ control and we recognize from the past that you are not likely give the power to the voters (the politicians’ employers).
11. The voters, the politicians’ employers, would like the politicians to listen to the voters all the time and do as the voters instruct the politicians, not just play lip service for a month and then disappear for 5 years. It is the politicians’ choice whether you will do this.
12. The voters would like you to create a system to have an individual at every level of government that we can go to, so the voters would like to have constituencies at Central, Provincial and Local levels. Politicians, please put this in if you are elected
13. We will rename the position of “politician” to “5 year dictator” since this more accurately describes the position on offer. When the politicians give the power to the voters (employers), the voters will rename the position to “representative”.

We accept that this is a long road to travel. There are many steps to take so that the community will believe that they are in control of their destination. Let us all take the journey together.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy,
http://democracybythepeople.googlepages.com/direct-participatory-democracy-links
And http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/

Jim Powell (+27) 0118041335 0825712856 jimpowell@mweb.co.za
5. MoAfrika | September 7th, 2010 at 9:54 am

@Akanyang, I am not sure I understand what you are getting at so I will read your post again. I do agree that the warnings you refer to are valid and ought to be heeded by our media. I also agree that one ought to have the courage of one’s convictions and not hide behind anonimity. You and I know differently though, don’t we? Discent is not encouraged in our society and that is putting it mildly. So, as Anton Harber points out, we should evaluate the reports that we read, including the sources referred to. There is a lot that is wrong with our press and that we need to fix but where there is smoke, we should just check to make sure lest we go down in flames.

@Anton Harber, we need to keep the conversation going.

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed