Black journos disappearing from the editorial front line

I am about to comprehensively lose confidence in the future of print media, especially newspapers, in South Africa. Worse, the major groups compound the problem by denying that not only are most of their black editors tokens but now confirming that they never appointed them on merit in the first place.

The recent trend in appointing top dogs in editorial executive positions have evinced complete disregard for taking black self-sacrifice and talent seriously. There is no reason for the media sector to restart the programme of appointing white women, Indians and coloureds at the expense of black Africans.

In fact, there is reason to believe that by this Christmas the number of black Africans in editorship positions and top executive positions will have been greatly reduced. Mathata Tsedu was removed from the Sunday Times, the Sowetan sent Thabo Leshilo to Harvard, Simba Makunike has virtually disappeared from The Weekender, Fikile Ntsikelelo Moya quit the Mail & Guardian, Tyrone August resigned from the Cape Times to be replaced by white women and the Argus has no blacks in its top echelons.

This is, of course, a testament of how the media has always refused to transform itself to reflect the demographics of the country. And yet it is a national imperative if the industry is to survive. The temptation is strong to write off the media industry as the revival of the tricameral system which in 1984 saw some whites, coloureds and Indians gang up against black Africans.

But this never worked and had the opposite effect of galvanizing the masses to run into the ranks of the resistance movement as represented by the UDF, which was the defiant face of the ANC. One needs only look at the recent top editorial changes in the Cape Times, Argus, City Press and Mail & Guardian to see how black Africans are being marginalised, overlooked or pushed into dead-end “assistant” jobs.

Again, we are hearing whispers in the corridors that “blacks are not good enough” or they are not available. There is a bid to convince everybody that, all of a sudden, the country is running on empty when it comes to black African editorial talent. Of course, it may be true that there are many blacks Africans who were fast-tracked to top jobs before they had proven themselves.

They were set up to fail by being tricked to climb the ladder by doing a quick crash course with Anton Harber at Wits, for instance, to be zoomed into leadership and management positions.

But chickens are coming home to roost, now.

As for me, I am not impressed that despite this fake advancement, black editors and journalists are, again, slipping into the backroom and fast disappearing from the editorial front line of newspapers. The white establishment is reviving liberal style racism through market strategies that seek three things: effective newspapers with political influence and power to get government advertising, white editorial hegemony and black tokens that cannot think for themselves but live to please white bosses.

We have to be deeply disturbed because this reveals that white strategists are putting on thinking caps that have been kept in the freezer for the last 15 years. It would seem the instinctive thinking in terms of the latest appointments is not only to overlook blacks but to appoint anybody and everybody who is non-black, especially white women.

This is done in the name of affirmative action.

Not surprising, black editors and journalists find this development resentful but they cannot say nor do anything about it because they have always been self-hating and powerless. Ironically, they killed the Forum of Black Journalists because they were in too much of a rush to prove their unconditional loyalty to their white colleagues.

But now there are sweeping changes in important top appointments and they are being left out.

This business strategy and development is bound to fail because black news junkies and readers are unhappy with papers that are anti-ANC or portray them as sleeping with goats or chasing the Tokoloshe at night.

I do not think that the failed tricameral strategy — whites, coloureds and Indians in editorial leadership — is going to work. What is required in the print media is newspaper leadership that is intuitively connected to the grassroots communities and possesses credible black leadership that has the ear of black politicians.

Without this newspapers are not only going to suffer from a declining readership and lack of political credibility but disintegrate as more black people lose confidence in them.

Of course, one can cite what is perceived to be a black government (sic) as one influential investor that is, increasingly, losing confidence in both black editors and newspapers, in general. Perhaps this perception could be changed if black editors had the balls to stand up for what blacks support and believe in and were willing to be seen to be fighting racism, economic inequality and injustice in the country and pushing hard to bring a “better quality of life to all”.

But this has not happened. Instead, black editors are seen as both white clones and tokens whose role and responsibility is to protect white privilege for self-interest. Unfortunately, the future of mainstream newspapers without visible black leadership is clearly out of the question. After all, this is a black country!

There is widespread perception that Mathata Tsedu’s removal from the hot seat at the Sunday Times was orchestrated by a tricameral cabal, that is, whites, coloureds and Indians who are opposed to black advancement and progress. In fact, it will be interesting to see if current editor, Mondli Makhanya’s contract will be renewed when it expires some time this year.

The big question is: will they appoint another black? Or does Makhanya’s tenure mark the end of transformation? Clearly, from recent developments, there is reason to believe that the white establishment has regained its arrogance and feels that it can go ahead and appoint whoever it wants, especially non-blacks, in leadership positions of newspapers with a dominant black readership.

But it is hard to see how this strategy, which is most likely to be seen as racist or expressing lack of confidence in blacks, will avoid a “blacklash” (sic).

The starting point for the media industry, especially newspapers, to avoid stagnation is for them to be seen to be offering influential and powerful positions to blacks.

To a much greater degree than in the apartheid years, South Africa has got a wealth of black editorial and writing talent. Some of it comes from all the corners of the continent, including Zimbabwe, Ghana and Nigeria, for instance. The problem is that the continued appointment of white women, coloureds and Indians into top position will continue to be seen as an anti-black move. In fact, it will be seen as undermining nation-building and social cohesion, which espouses the view that top editorial positions belong to all who work in the media industry, both black and white.

People are alarmed that whites and others are being appointed wily-nilly as if black talent does not exist. This may result in the exodus of black talent from the media — as happened in KwaZulu-Natal in the 1990s — to join government or become intelligentsia that will lead the masses to boycotting white-owned newspapers (sic).

And, of course, this development will undermine the functioning and effectiveness of democracy which needs a representative media that gives an authentic black perspective. Perhaps the white establishment needs to be sensitized that black editors and senior journalists are hurting. To be precise, they are a bunch of frustrated mediocre professional who have hit the cul de sac. In fact, the future prospect of the media industry is dim as it depends on the existence of credible black editorial leadership. The immediate beneficiaries of this tricameral arrangement need to persuade the white establishment that there will be no non-racial, post-apartheid media without meaningful black participation at leadership level.

It is hard to overstate the potential economic and social disaster that would await South Africa were blacks made to feel that they have neither the leadership skills nor abilities to handle big newspapers after only 15 years. This view perpetuates the myth of black inferiority.

In fact, this would be a step that confirms that the media remains, essentially, untransformed but takes us backward to days of racism.

It makes a mockery of democracy, especially transformation as espoused by affirmative action.

If a good newspaper is a nation talking to itself, where is the black voice?