J'adouble

Most of us feel the typical example of our media's short-comings, especially print, is the manner by which they report on president. President Thabo Mbeki has been something of an enigma to the South African media for so long that now it has grown tired of trying to understand him, opting for a new strategy of vilifying him. A quick peruse of especially South African leading black columnists will convince doubters. No one is asking for holy cows but a more balanced approach would be in order.

As an African nationalist there's a lot that fills the media, which is predominantly liberal, with trepidation about Mbeki. To compound the issue, Mbeki has a complex and aloof personality. Where Mandela expressed himself in gestures, Mbeki gives more space to words, baffling words sometimes that require skills of dissecting a gossamer to get to their real meaning. Perhaps no man with Mandela's big shoes to fill could have fit.

The major accusation against Mbeki's presidency is his denialist stance against the causes of Aids; the velleity of his 'quiet diplomacy' when it comes to Zimbabwe; and, recently, his perceived lack of taking crime serious enough. There are also other vestigial accusations like arrogance, delivery impotence of his government. Such things one naturally expects the media to cuss; what leaves me cold and bored is the media's self-aggrandised role as the real opposition party in the country. I feel our media takes too seriously its own self-publicity.

The ANC has published a policy discussion document, Transformation of the Media, which, I suppose, seeks to hoist the media with it's own petard. The ANC says the document will be discussed in depth at its national conference to be held in June. The topic has the potential of belling the cat, but I suspect that very little of it will see the light of day beyond the corridors where it would be discussed. Our popular media, which operates through confirmation bias (seeking and finding confirmatory evidence in support of their already existing beliefs, while ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirmatory evidence to fit their coffers) will just ignore it for more sensational and controversial stuff.

Most consumers love dynamic and vitriolic journalism for the sensationalism it provides and the life it brings to issues that need to be debated. Our news would be dour and enervated without grime. As annoying as that may be to public figures this serves democracy. Maybe not necessary in what it says as in the fact that every voice is allowed, no matter how shallow, scandalous and controversial it may be. It's a sign that tolerance reigns, which in turn brings confidence on the vox populi about their democratic government ten times more than a constitution written on stone.

Politicians as public figures should be under the scrutiny of public eye, and the media is correct in doing that with some modicum of sense—sense being the operative word here. Our media does a splendid job as a public watch dog but is guilty of living in its own narcissist world where it imagines itself to be an innocent messenger, when in actual sense it too carries the burden of history and realities of financial imperatives that prone it for selective self-censorship. Commercial motives compels the media to be Janus-faced (two-timed).

The ANC document put it thus: Not only does there need to be a diverse and generally representative range of views and interests represented within the media, but all South Africans need to have avenues to express their views and ideas in the media. The struggle for media freedom therefore also involves the extension of access to the media to as many people as possible . . . The freedom of the South African media is today undermined not by the state, but by various tendencies that arise from the commercial imperatives that drive the media.

It is no secret that the bias of argument in South African media is drawn along lines that channels the gestalt of liberal perspective. I personally see nothing wrong with this since one of the strength of liberal values is tolerance, something very crucial for freedom of speech. What gets my goat is pretending otherwise, and the active censoring of those with different point of views, such as African nationalist. So what if they wag the dog, most people can see through such things, including media bias.

This is how the ANC document contest with the issue: Yet there persists a pretence in many quarters that those in the media are somehow a breed apart from other human beings, that they are not impacted by the dynamics within society and therefore do not hold personal views on social or political developments. Others pretend that even if journalists and editors do have personal views, they do not allow these views to encroach upon the hallowed ground of objective reporting.

As someone who is involved in the media I know that media non partisan is bunkum: The reality is that the media - in South Africa as in every other society - is a major arena in the battle of ideas. All social forces are therefore engaged, to varying degrees and with differing success, in efforts to ensure that the media advances their ideological, political, social, economic and cultural objectives.

Some argue the censoring comes from quality control than contextual bias. I do not believe that. Sure those of African nationalist trappings tend to speak in political jargon that is ill suited for genuine media communication, but if editors are not there to lick into shape pieces at variant with their style without betraying the content. The quality of expression is a desirable thing in modes of communication but it should not serve as a mask for cultural liberal elitism.

Media platform should be neutral in order to inform rather than propagate. That ours is fast becoming the beneficiary of growing resentment, especially among black people, is telling sign that something is rotten at the state of its affairs. If our media wants a brighter future perhaps it's time it takes cognisance of this. Finding ways to seriously engage with the ANC document Transformation of the Media would probably be a great way to start.

Just as we much challenge the notion that the media is necessarily ideologically neutral and non-partisan, so too must we resist the impulse to seek a media which mechanically follows a single 'progressive' political line. Rather we need to seek a media which is able to reflect the diversity of views and interests within society, and to act as a forum for a vigorous exchange of views - a contest of ideas that enriches the democratic process and contributes to the building of a national democratic society.

Amen to that; and here is to hoping that by media it is also understood to mean the state owned SABC enterprises also. I truly hope among The Issues of Discussion on its conference the ANC will touch on the case of John Perlman, the Sa Fm presenter who departed his post unceremoniously after alleged differences of view with the SABC management.