ANC Today ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 1 No 15, 4 - 10 May 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS WEEK: * Letter from the President: South Africans wish to see the people of Palestine and Israel living together in peace * World Press Freedom Day: Many challenges remain for media freedom and diversity * Media and race: South Africa not alone in tackling racism in the media * Media in a democracy: South Africa needs a truly critical media ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT South Africans wish to see the people of Palestine and Israel living together in peace This week, our country hosted an important meeting. This was the meeting of the Committee on Palestine of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which was also attended by NAM members of the Security Council as well as Egypt and Jordan. The meeting took place in the context of a deteriorating situation in the Middle East, centred on the continuing violent conflict affecting the Palestinian and Israeli people and principally the Palestinians. This conflict has already claimed more than 500 lives since September last year. Thousands more have been injured. Enormous damage has been caused to property. Thousands are unemployed, with large numbers thrown deeper into poverty. In addition to this continuing tragedy, we are all faced with the crisis that the process of negotiations between Palestine and Israel has become seriously compromised, with virtually no movement taking place. This has further postponed the historic outcome that the people of Palestine seek, of the birth of an independent state of Palestine and the whole range of matters that must still be addressed to bring about this result. Similarly, tension has risen throughout the Middle East, raising new concerns about the security of all the countries of the region, including the State of Israel. Needless to say, this situation also has the effect of postponing the resolution of other important outstanding questions, such as the conclusion of a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. It is clear that to bring the negotiating process back on track, the issue of the continuing violence affecting the Palestinian territories and Israel has to be addressed as a matter of the greatest urgency. When he addressed the NAM Committee on Palestine yesterday, President Yasser Arafat made the following important remarks: "I reiterate my full commitment to the peace process and all agreements signed. The language of violence and bombardment will not serve the interests of Palestinians and Israelis. "Therefore, in front of this distinguished gathering, I announce my full acceptance of the Egyptian-Jordanian proposal. "I do this with no reservation, for the cause of a comprehensive, lasting and just peace in order to revive the hopes of peace and put the peace process back on its right track. "I send this to Mr Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, saying my commitment to peace is for the peace and security of your children and for the stability and peace of the whole Middle East region." The previous day, on May 2, speaking in Washington, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, had said: "Actually, we would like to stop the violence as soon as possible because we are interested to start the negotiations at the earliest possible date. "(We) are seriously and sincerely anxious to re-enter the negotiations, provided the bombing and the shooting and the fire will stop." >From these statements, it is clear that the leadership both of Palestine and Israel recognise the urgent need to end the violence in the area and to resume the negotiations. In this way, they also recognise that the only correct way forward to resolve the long-outstanding problems in the Middle East is to address these through peaceful negotiations. When the US Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke on the same occasion where Shimon Peres made the remarks we have cited, he said: "I made sure the Foreign Minister (Peres) continued to understand America's commitment.to do everything we can to bring down the level of violence so that we can get economic activity moving again in the region and hopefully soon get back to negotiations which will lead to peace, peace that all parties need, peace that will finally bring an end to this difficult situation. "We need violence to start going down. We need to start going down the escalator of violence. You can't have the kind of negotiations that will be needed between the parties under the current conditions of violence. "I think the Israelis have indicated that they are anxious to work with the Palestinians and reduce the level of violence.And so, this is not the time to do anything but work on getting the violence down, and that is the primary goal of American policy at this moment." Needless to say, we draw attention to the comments of the US Secretary of State because of the critical role the US has been and is playing in facilitating the process of negotiations in the Middle East. The NAM Committee itself also focused on this central matter of peace, as did the Secretary General of the UN, Mr Kofi Annan, through his representative at the meeting. The Egyptian-Jordanian proposal to which President Yasser Arafat referred also spells out a possible route to follow to bring about peace and ensure the resumption of the negotiations. All of this indicates that both the principal players, the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the international community, are all committed to work to end the violence and encourage the speedy resumption of negotiations. Where there is a will to achieve these objectives, there must be a way practically to bring about this result. Accordingly, the urgent challenge that faces everybody concerned about the Middle East is to find this way. On September 4, 1999, a solemn agreement was signed at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt, having been negotiated by Israel, the PLO, Egypt, Jordan and the United States. Among other things, this agreement includes the following paragraph: "The two Sides (Israel and Palestine) will, in accordance with the prior agreements, act to ensure the immediate, efficient and effective handling of any incident involving a threat or act of terrorism, violence or incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. To this end, they will cooperate in the exchange of information and coordinate policies and activities. Each side shall immediately and effectively respond to the occurrence or anticipated occurrence of an act of terrorism, violence or incitement and shall take all necessary measures to prevent such an occurrence." Despite this agreement, violence broke out again towards the end of last year. The leaders of Palestine, Israel, Egypt and the United Stated once again convened at Sharm el-Sheikh on October 16 and 17 last year, to address this situation. This time, among other things, they agreed that: "Firstly, to end the violence by making public statements aimed at ending the unrest and to take steps to end confrontation and incitement and restore calm to areas affected. Both sides agreed, in order to achieve this, to return the situation to the status quo before the current crisis began. This to include the redeployment of all forces, the enhancement of security cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian sides, the ending of the closure of all Palestinian territories and the opening of the Gaza airport. "(The) US will strive to ensure a resumption of negotiations between the sides as soon as possible and to this end would consult with the Israeli and Palestinian sides on steps to be taken to move the peace process forward during the next two weeks." It is therefore clear that formal agreements also exist binding both Israel and Palestine to the prevention of violence as well as action in defence of peace. The challenge therefore is to give effect to these agreements, as well as the statements made this week, which we have reported above, to bring an end to the continuing violence in the Middle East and thus to open the way to the resumption of negotiations. Our government has a responsibility to contribute whatever it can to the achievement of these objectives, in support of those who are directly involved, pursuing the direction contained in the Egyptian-Jordanian proposal. Millions of our people are also concerned about the situation in the Middle East and wish to see the people of Palestine and Israel, and other peoples in the region, living together in peace and harmony. As South Africans, we must therefore work together to promote this perspective, doing nothing that could further worsen an already difficult and volatile situation. Together with the peoples of Palestine and Israel and the rest of the international community, we have to apply ourselves to the urgent and serious task of finding the key to re-open the door to peace and a just and lasting settlement, in the interests of the suffering people of Palestine, the Israelis and the region as a whole. We must continue to act in solidarity with the peoples of the world for peace, national independence and social progress. Thabo Mbeki ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY Many challenges remain for media freedom and diversity As the world celebrates the tenth anniversary this week of World Press Freedom Day, journalists, governments and citizens reflect on the many and varied challenges which continue to impede media freedom in many parts of the world. Adopted in 1991 by the United Nations General Assembly as World Press Freedom Day, May 3 also marks the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Windhoek Declaration on a free and pluralistic press in Africa. The declaration declared the "establishment, maintenance and fostering of an independent, pluralistic and free press" as essential to the development and maintenance of democracy and economic development in a nation. It noted significant developments in Africa towards the creation of environments condusive to a free media, and the impediments - political, economic and social - which stood as obstacles to the creation of such an environment across the continent. After a decade, the Windhoek Declaration and the intent of the UN General Assembly have had mixed results. As the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) notes, more than 1 000 journalists and media workers have been killed or suffered violent deaths in the exercise of their profession during this period. A number of governments continue to detain and harass journalists, close down newspapers and radio and television stations, apply strict censorship laws and pursue a range of activities designed to restrict the ability of their citizens to receive and impart information. Even where government restrictions do not exist, economic and social conditions often militate against a free and diverse media. In many societies, media resources are concentrated in the hands of a small section of society, effectively excluding the views and experience of a large body of the population. Despite the existence in law of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, most citizens in such situations do not have the means to exercise those rights. This is echoed by President Thabo Mbeki in his message on World Press Freedom Day: "Nor can any of us remain content while press freedom in its fullest sense remains in practice something enjoyed mainly by an elite -urban rather than rural, rich rather than poor, industrialised rather than developing." The IFJ notes more subtle threats to freedom of expression come from within the media as a result of media concentration, globalisation and a culture of greed within the industry. "Today a handful of media conglomerates control much of the information across the globe." Calls for greater deregulation pose a threat to public service media and the conversion of public information space into a commercial service. "They pose a significant threat to quality journalism, they undermine standards of media pluralism and they operate outside the orbit of democratic accountability," the IFJ says. The IFJ says owners are imposing poor working conditions and job insecurity on media workers: "The quality of media is rock-bottom and some employers want to take it lower." In the face of these challenges, both on a global and local level, to the achievement of media freedom, a number of gains have been made in Africa in the last 10 years. In an assessment of progress since Windhoek UNESCO officials point to a growing awareness about the link between a free press and democracy, the reinforcement of independent and pluralistic newspapers and liberalisation of the airwaves. They also note the development of regional organisations of media professionals and improved training and development of media workers on the continent. The deepening of these gains and the removal of obstacles to press freedom will require the continued commitment and efforts of governments, media institutions, civil society, business and the public to this important process. MORE INFORMATION: President Thabo Mbeki's message on World Press Freedom Day, 2001 http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/pr/2001/pr0502a.html Information on World Press Freedom Day http://www.unesco.org/press-freedom-day/ Declaration of Windhoek, United Nations, 3 May 1991 http://www.unesco.org/webworld/com_media/communication_democracy/windhoek.htm International Federation of Journalists http://www.ifj.org/ Media Institute of Southern Africa http://www.misanet.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA AND RACE South Africa not alone in tackling racism in the media The United Nations is using World Press Freedom Day to highlight the threat of racism, xenophobia and intolerance in the media to the ongoing struggle for press freedom. In a joint statement, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura said a free, independent and pluralist media has an indispensable role to play in rooting out racism and xenophobia. They hoped the World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia, Racial Discrimination and Related Intolerance, being held in Durban from 31 August to 7 September, would find ways to strengthen free media throughout the world, "and will remind media professionals of their vital role in educating the public and fostering peace and mutual respect among peoples". According to Aidan White, International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) General Secretary, the problem of intolerance is a constant threat to good journalism anywhere in the world. "It is not unusual to find mass media recruited to support the cause of intolerance. In this complex news environment journalists are sometimes casual victims of prejudice and political manipulation. Too often, ignorance and a lack of appreciation of different cultures, traditions and beliefs lead to media stereotypes that reinforce racist attitudes and strengthen the appeal of political extremists," White wrote in a recent paper. In South Africa, where these factors are combined with a history of racial discrimination and conflict and continuing racial inequality, the impact on the media is particularly acute. An inquiry by the SA Human Rights Commission last year found racism widespread in South African media: "The cumulative effect of persistent racial stereotypes, racial insensitivity and at time reckless disregard for the effect of racist expressions on others, amounts to racism." The commission found that racism could not simply be equated with, or explained by, bad journalism. It occurred in the media at the institutional level. "It occurs as historical reliance is made on common sense methods and systems without interrogating what messages these conveyed about the cultural diversity of our country, about the history of inequality and about the dominant knowledge systems that create a unipolar view of the world," the commission said. The commission found however no evidence of the mainstream media blatantly advocating racial hatred or incitement to racial violence. Part of the solution to these problems included more active efforts to achieve greater diversity of ownership, among media staff and in the media market. Of particular concern, said the commission, was the small number of black sub-editors and women in senior management positions. The current concentration of ownership can stifle media diversity and prevent the media from properly reflecting the whole South African reality, it said. Diversity in the news room also contributes to improved efficiency, professionalism and performance, according to White. "A news organisation which employs people from different social, ethnic or cultural backgrounds will always be better equipped than those which do not. Ethnic diversity in editorial staffing and performance attracts a broader range of readers, listeners and viewers," he says. Other responses to this problem include the adoption of ethical codes of conduct across the media industry. This may be of voluntary or compulsory nature. The Human Rights Commission found that existing voluntary codes in the print media were not sufficient, and urged the South African National Editors' Forum (SANEF) to conduct a study into how best to ensure compliance with certain ethical standards without restricting press freedom. White believes ethical codes will not solve all the problems of intolerance in the media, but may help journalists focus on their own responsibility: "By setting out the ideals and beliefs that underpin independent journalism, codes of conduct encourage journalists to act according to their conscience." As the Human Rights Commission reported noted, racism in the media is not always blatant nor immediately recognisable. There are a number of factors which contribute, in differing ways, to a racially-biased representation of society. The resolution of the problem requires the commitment not only of media workers and media owners, but all institutions of society in fundamentally changing the complexion of South African media. MORE INFORMATION: Inquiry into Racism in the Media, SA Human Rights Commission, August 2000 http://www.sahrc.org.za/investigation_into__racism_in_th.htm 'Racism and the Media', Teun A. van Dijk, University of Amsterdam http://www.unesco.org/press-freedom-day/presskit_docs/teun_dijk.rtf 'Journalism and Intolerance: Setting standards for media action against racism', Aidan White, General Secretary, International Federation of Journalists http://www.unesco.org/press-freedom Information on World Conference against Racism http://www.un.org/WCAR/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA IN A DEMOCRACY South Africa needs a truly critical media Viewpoint by Smuts Ngonyama Freedom of the press only applies to those rich enough to own one. This adage may be universal in meaning, but to an observer of South African society its seems particularly fitting. The media in South Africa is shaped by the same political, social and economic forces which have shaped our society over several decades. At the same time, the media has itself in various ways and at different points contributed to the development of these forces. Under the apartheid state, the media played a leading role in propping up up white support for the dominant political ideology. A smaller section of this media played a role at different points in challenging this ideology. The support of the media for the apartheid system was possible because of the patterns of ownership, forms of editorial control, staff composition, marketing and distribution channels and, of course, restrictive legislation. Much has now changed. Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the constitution. Patterns of ownership are changing. Black and women journalists, editors and to a lesser extent managers are slowly becoming more visible in our major media institutions. There has been important growth and diversification of media aimed at black South Africans, due in great part to the growth of a black middle class. Yet much more still needs to change. And to reflect on what still needs to take place, it is important to consider what the role of the media should be in this democratic South Africa. To the owners of media institutions, their managers and sales people, the primary role of their publications, stations or web-sites is to maximise profit. To politicians, social commentators and citizens, the role of the media is to inform, engage, entertain, champion the rights of citizens, deepen democracy and provide a voice to the diversity of voices in society. To journalists and editors it is perhaps a combination of both. Yet one aspect of the media's role which has proven difficult to effectively debate, not surprisingly given the country's history, is the relationship between the media and government and the ruling party. Some people view this as a simple choice for the media: either be a watchdog keeping a beady eye on the ruling party or a lapdog which happily swallows anything the ANC might dish up. Neither dog is particularly desirable. What South Africa needs is a truly critical media. A truly critical media is not one which opposes the government at every turn. It is not a media automatically inclined to distrust government, or which will seize any opportunity to portray the ruling party or government in a negative light. A truly critical media is one committed to ensuring its coverage is informative and fair. It strives to provide coverage that paints a picture of events or issues that as accurately as possible reflect reality. A 'critical' media is a media which thinks. It is a media which interrogates each and every issue, which weighs up the facts, which reflects on the various perspectives, which acknowledges its own inherent prejudices and predispositions, and which then presents the issue in a way which most closely conveys the real situation. Too often, media in South Africa mistakes criticism with being critical. Too often, the media accepts at face value supposed instances of corruption, incompetence, political bad faith, etc, when in fact a critical look at the issues would have indicated otherwise. A critical media requires higher standards of professionalism in journalism. It requires investment by owners and managers in training and development. It directs a number of challenges to representative and professional organisations of media workers, to newsrooms and to schools of journalism. Society generally needs to better appreciate and more actively acknowledge the contribution of journalists and media workers. A critical media also depends, most fundamentally, on the achievement in South Africa of a media which is free, independent and truly diverse. The media needs generally to be able to represent views other than those of the government or other single centre of power. This means that as a whole, the media should not be beholden to any one boss, be they in the Union Buildings or the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. It is a central feature of a vibrant, plural society. It needs also to reflect on the diversity of views and interests within society itself. This diversity must manifest itself in the patterns of media ownership. Once the sole possession of white capital, the print media is now owned by a broader range of interests, including black empowerment groups and union investment funds. This is an important and welcome development. We need to ensure however that the media becomes more diverse in ownership terms, and that it does not remain the preserve of big business, black or white. This requires innovative measures, including state assistance, to make media bosses of a broader range of groups and people. The proposed Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) represents an important instrument to assist that process. Ownership alone does not guarantee diversity - there needs to be a diversity of voices in the media. This means that the newsrooms of this country need to reflect a diversity of perspectives and experiences, not merely among journalists, but among sub-editors, editors, managers, even photographers. It means they need also to give space to various voices and perspectives. Too often, for example, we are provided with expert analysis almost exclusively from white men, sometimes white women, occasionally black men and very rarely black women. This is not because black women (or men) lack insight or are unwilling to express their views, but because we have not worked hard enough to break down the racist and sexist intellectual hierarchy in this country. The media needs to analyse very critically the race, gender, class and age profile of the people it gives a voice to. For the media to reflect the diversity of South African experiences, it needs also to be broadly representative of South Africa. One cannot, for example, give air time to fascist perspectives equal to that of democratic perspectives, arguing that this reflects even-handedness, when those who have sympathy for fascist views represent a miniscule proportion of the population. This is particularly important in a country like South Africa where the views and interests of more than 80 percent of the population have gone largely unreported for decades. This is not to suggest that we should implement a system of 'journalism by quota'. Nor should we assume that views are homogenous within a particular race or group - we can't have journalists going around trying to get the 'Zulu perspective' or the 'Coloured perspective' or the 'Shangaan perspective'. But we must recognise that the racial, gender and class divisions in society have ensured that our life experiences have in many ways been shaped by the particular race, gender or class we come from. What is therefore required is a conscious effort to ensure broad representivity in the newsroom, in the boardroom and on the pages of the paper. This might require extraordinary measures, such as targeted training or mentoring programmes. As South Africans work together to achieve a free, diverse and critical media, it must be expected that vigorous exchanges will take place within the media and society. The ANC understands that in the course of pursuing its programme, it will sometimes be criticised within the media. Where such criticism is unwarranted, the ANC will not hesitate to proclaim its thoughts on the matter. Such 'proclamations' should not be viewed as signs of an intolerant organisation, nor an attack on the independence or integrity of the media. They should be seen for what they are - sincere and well-meant contributions to a culture of vigorous, open and honest public debate. Smuts Ngonyama is an ANC National Executive Committee member and Head of the Presidency at ANC headquarters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This issue of ANC Today is available from the ANC web site at http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2001/at15.htm