25 July 2000
It is a very real, and indeed humbling, honour to be given this award.
The delay in its being accorded, at this splendid occasion, is largely due to the fact that I wished to receive it myself, in person, and therefore some juggling with my programme was necessary to ensure this.
So, it is a great pleasure to be among you.
Moreover, I want you all to be assured that I accept the award with a sense of deep humility, for my efforts are no more and no less than those of a team. I also do so with a sense of warm appreciation, for there is no political figure on earth who does not welcome unsolicited honouring by the media.
But much more than Thabo Mbeki stands before you tonight. I accept this award, indeed, on behalf of all South Africans who are struggling to create a new and just society. It is their efforts which no doubt led me to catch your eye in 1999 as a newsmaker. And it is their efforts which will ensure that this country grows in strength, setbacks notwithstanding, and takes its place where it belongs in the world.
Political figures tend to do battle with the media. The two joust, and usually seem to like the jousting. That is how it should be. This sense of tension has always marked government-media relations in societies where there is respect for freedom. Elsewhere, government and media tend to merge their activities into undistinguished and indistinguishable mutual admiration societies.
It is always a bit disconcerting when those who aim their suitably-dipped pens and quills (turned into logged-on mice and modems in the E-era) at political figures, offer to honour them. It tends to make one think of the classical saying: beware of the Greeks who bear gifts. But let me assure you that this is not the spirit in which I accept this award. I accept it as a sincere and much-appreciated gesture from well-wishers who act critically and independently in society, and know as much about the public process as most politicians do. That is why I am so happy to be here.
I believe, moreover, that - the constitutional independence of their calling notwithstanding - there is in reality a very slim divide between what is political and what is journalistic in well-run and successful societies.
Both professions seek to fire the public imagination - though long, boring speeches and endless columns and fuzzy editorials can frustrate the efforts.
Both lay high value on good language and form of expression -though horribly mixed metaphors (actual published examples in the South African press include "being sold down the river by a snake in the grass" or "soft-pedalling a hot potato") and other lapses, can frustrate the linguistic effort.
Supremely, both portray themselves as acting in the broad and best interest of the community - though there are times when the interests of the community are very differently defined by each.
It is my intention tonight to spend a little time on the things that should bind politicians and journalists together, while each profession scrupulously recognises and respects the other's independence and freedom. I hope that, this way, we might begin a new debate between government and media in this land, and finally get behind us the ghosts of the past that crop up so frequently. We have to find ways more effectively to face our domestic and global responsibilities as a united nation.
You in the Pretoria Press Club, as journalists and communicators and working in associated fields, will know all about the merits of the argument that the media should print more good news. In fact, it is not only governments that - almost universally - call for this, because good news about a country is axiomatically good for those who hold public office. But it goes further, with commerce and industry, the law, the churches, the professions and numerous organised interests in society - not to mention individuals -frequently calling for more "positive", more "responsible" and more "constructive" reporting.
This can, of course, be mere camouflage for seeking a compliant media, as it was in the discredited apartheid era, but it is a theme that comes up time and again, and must be confronted and discussed.
The media, rather embattled at times, tend to be defensive under this sort of sustained attack, and may well respond by saying that they will print or broadcast the news as it happens and will not be subject to influence from any side. This position sounds good, and its intention can be most sincere and altruistic. But it needs to be considered in its context.
Many journalists are attached to the old adage that bad news sells better than good news - which some will question when one stops to think of the massive public interest in, and newspaper sales over, moonwalks and heart transplants; not to mention the recent clamour over the latest Harry Potter children's book just going on sale.
There is no end to the good-news /bad-news debate, and it shifts from one pole to another, depending largely on whim and circumstances - and the real or imaginary demands of the market. It is no secret that newspaper and other media offices are, or should be, abuzz with self-criticism and reflection on the issue of the good or the bad news, and that this frequently takes the form of trying to change the "mix" of what is offered.
There have been efforts, for instance in the USA, to publish newspapers that cover only the good news, which is one-sided to the point of being bad business. One such paper died, but could not report its imminent demise because that would be bad news! No one is asking for that, surely.
In well-run media offices, there are defined limits laid down by style books or traditions, and this is why the custodian of these rules, the editor, is called an editor, and has clout. He or she edits, which means deals with material submitted by others, changes or cuts it, and publishes the edited result. The tub-thumping remark by a Chicago editor that editors should simply "print the news and raise hell" may be emotionally satisfying to journalists, but has to be measured against the obvious fact that freedom does not extend to crying "fire!" in a crowded cinema.
It is a question of balance, a question of mix, a question of good sense and responsibility, a question of broad commitment to the public interest. And that is what I am raising tonight.
I would offer the suggestion that the mix, generally speaking, is skewed in the new and democratic South Africa in which we find ourselves - probably partly because of the legacy of a previous era when news values were totally distorted by the disgraceful system then in place. In those days, really good news for South Africa was bad news for the Government of apartheid. Those in tune with the real South Africa were accused by government, therefore, of publishing too much bad news, and not being "constructive" or "positive". But what they were publishing was in reality good news, very constructive and positive; and this, in some measure, helped to pave the way for democratic change.
But we undeniably emerged from that era with a strong tradition of journalists, as a knee-jerk response, being against the government of the day. I believe that the media should break out of this outdated mould. Good news is now good news. There is no confusion or contradiction.
There is no heroism in seeking, for instance, to defy the laws of a representative government acting in accordance with the requirements of democracy. There is, moreover, no explicit or implied threat by a democratic government when it simply criticises the media. In a free environment, the limits of debate are set not by government but by good taste, the ordinary law and the constitution. To fight battles as if we were still in the old mould may not be the best way to proceed.
Generally, in the media there is an emphasis on crime and urban disorder which is over-heavy, leading among other things to growing faintheartedness among those who could otherwise push in the South African scrum and help to give our country new strength.
There is, generally, a tendency in the media to accept uncritically dubious statistics and off-the-cuff judgements, for instance about unemployment, the incidence of rape, the state of the economy, the effect of affirmative action, without putting matters into perspective.
Sometimes it is just lack of time resulting in not digging that bit deeper to find the context; at others, it could be a failure, for whatever reason, to appreciate the changed requirements of democratic South Africa.
Adverse comment is made when it is noted that a proportion of the services provided to communities particularly in rural areas break down through lack of maintenance or other reasons. But this judgement can be unfair when not related to what can reasonably be expected to similar countries because, for instance, of the effects of generations of poverty and lack of training.
The media should go and have a look at experience elsewhere, and then judge our comparable efforts. And they should, in fairness, have a close look at the successes achieved, which are so often the rule and not the exception. And they should look at what we are doing in terms of training for successful management and operation of services.
There are howls of anguish from some of the privileged because of affirmative action favouring black people, women and the disabled. There is little appreciation - or published explanation - of why this corrective surgery is necessary, in the very interests of all, including those who complain.
And, in the area of affirmative action, one hears few exhortations from the media to try harder, like the famous car hire company that was unhappy at being second but did something about it. It should be obvious enough that we need more, not less, affirmative action.
And let us not forget that there are many stories of stunning successes by white male South Africans, ranging form top echelons in the public service to, for instance, a brand-new deputy director just appointed in Pretoria who found that over a period of months of applications, by persisting and trying harder and being good, he could win through in a field where affirmative action could not and did not totally exclude anyone. Let's send the reporters out to find such stories. That is my challenge to the media.
I find, time and again, that prominent figures in the world of governance and business - for instance at the recent meeting of the International Investment Council - are staggered at the negativity of reporting from inside South Africa. This, to some extent, must feed what foreign correspondents send abroad, though I grant that the best of them make their own independent inquiries which benefits their reporting.
My plea to the media is: use your freedom, roundly criticise the Government as is your right, which we are committed to defend, but do not simply hit out without cause or reflection. No one is going to interfere with the constitutional right to free expression as entrenched in our Constitution.
Well-run societies work on the basis of broad undertakings that exist between media and government, as happened, for instance, in the successful economic reconstruction of West Germany after the last war, based on consensus about where post-war Germany should be going. I therefore take this opportunity to challenge the South African media to dig deeper, to contextualise and to provide the background to their reports, to find the positive, developmental stories that abound all over South Africa while not ignoring the bad and ugly, and to accept, voluntarily, principled and independent partnership in the deepening of our democracy, providing a better life for all and the strengthening of the nation.
From our side, we will level with the media over the facts. We will continue to listen to the media and to reason with them and maintain contact with them.
And, if you have suggestions to improve communication, let us hear them. It is no secret that we are constantly looking at ways to smooth relations between media and government. The setting up of the Government Communication and Information System had this very much in mind.
The objective of all our efforts is to keep the public properly informed, which is critical in any democracy.
Once more, thank you very much for the award and congratulations to my fellow honorees and best wishes to them for success in their important work.
Thank you.