I have neither the space nor the inclination to interrogate the veracity of all of the claims made but I shall deal with each pattern in general terms. First, the nature of the DA’s decision: agree with it or not, it was logical and certainly it was considered – it took three years to make. It was not inspired by Nazism or apartheid and it had nothing to do with democracy. It was simply a protest – a decision to withhold comment from a journalist, a right every South African citizen can claim (indeed, in America, there is even a constitutional amendment dedicated to the idea).
Presumably none of these parties have archived and analysed three years of Majavu’s stories about the DA (see this example by way of illustration). And, of course, to use what seems to be a very popular phrase, it ‘flies in the face’ of the Press Ombudsman’s ruling which everyone seems to assume lies at the heart of the matter (it doesn’t).
Third, although rendered somewhat redundant by the previous point, the right to protest poor journalism would be outlawed. As Brendan Boyle put his distaste at the DA having an opinion on what qualifies as good journalism: “So now they decide who is a ‘real’ journalist?” Only the media will determine what constitutes good journalism. One could not display any unhappiness or discontent with poor journalism outside those channels determined by the media itself.
That is what we did. Any discussion with a journalist on this issue appears to follow this pattern: First, there is outrage that some abstract principle – transparency, press freedom, liberalism – has been violated. Once it is agreed that, poor or not, that judgement is the DA’s alone to make and that the evidence would have to be interrogated to determine its veracity, finally, in some attempt to revert again to principle and avoid that assessment, the action itself is restated in different terms. After some discussion about particulars, it is generally accepted no principle has been violated, rather that the decision was evidence of poor political judgement on the DA’s part. (One journalist told me, exacerbated, “What the DA did was actually go into their mailing lists and remove a journalist’s name!” Correct. Saying it with effect does not invest it with some hitherto unseen motive.).
The real test is this: if Anna Majavu is biased, what will the media do about it? Will its reaction be as intense as it was to the DA’s suggestion? Will Sanef and the PGA release a statement? Will the FXI and the Right 2 Know campaign speak out against her? To these questions, we will never know the answers. Because there appears to exist within media circles an unwritten rule: never criticise another.
It is true there exists an environment in which the media is under intense pressure to justify and defend those mechanisms it relies on to regulate itself – primarily the Press Ombudsman – and to safeguard against the state’s encroachment on its independence. That is a worthy and necessary fight and one to which the DA remains steadfastly and resolutely committed. But, if that environment only results in generating mindless moral outrage on any incident that involves some explicit or implicit criticism of the media, that is to the detriment both of the fourth estate and our constitutional order.
On Monday 14 February 2011, some two days after the Sowetan first broke the news about the DA’s action, Majavu gave an interview to the website ‘themediaonline.co.za’. That interview contained within it the following quote from Majavu: “I too am guilty of once taking Ferial Haffajee off the Samwu press list for two weeks! She was then an associate editor at the Financial Mail and her publication had run a profile on the Samwu general secretary where they superimposed a viking’s hat onto his head. It was childish and when she asked to be put back on, I did so.”.
And you will note from the comment, Majavu does not contest the principle at play, only her reason for invoking it. Saying it was ‘childish’ is probably accurate, it seems like an overreaction to a disagreeable but by no means unjustifiable picture; in other words, saying it was a childish move is a comment on the quality of her judgement, not on her right to make that decision in the first place – poor or excellent judgement regardless. In light of the above, that is a remarkable admission.
And, second, the media is capable of reasoned judgement too because it makes much sense to hold your tongue when your entire case has been pulled from under you by the poster child for your cause. The media never picked this up and, when it was brought to their attention, never commented on it. That she seems to concede. This tells you two things: First, moral outrage is not some uncontrollable force, it is a conscious decision.
Related Stories
