Editors who don't support the ANC don't stand for anything

There has not been a time in the history of this country when so many blacks occupied the hot seat of editorship at mainstream newspapers, yet they lack political conviction.

The truth of the matter is that most black editors are fence-sitters who are afraid to rock the boat.

This happens at a time when they should not only be flexing their political muscle but taking hard-line positions to protect and promote the interests of the majority who are poor, unemployed and dispossessed.

The big question is: how do we account for the absence of a single black editor who supports the African National Congress? Why haven’t black editors who have benefited from affirmative action — an ANC policy — that has seen many of them fast-tracked to the top and doors of opportunity flung open for them, not pinned their black, green and gold colours to the mast?

A serious response to these perplexing questions requires open and honest discussion now that Jacob Zuma is poised to take over the Union Buildings.

In fact, we need to closely examine the emergence of the so-called new black editorial executive who is only interested in pleasing the share-holders and treats the interests of the country and the majority with disdain. There should be public hearings, perhaps, on the content of the character of our editors, their aspirations and anxieties, orientation and opportunities.

Since 1994, there has been a new breed of black editor who thinks and believes that his vision and mission is to be anti-government.
In fact, this turn to anti-government happened soon after Thabo Mbeki assumed the presidency of the ANC and country to espouse the much criticised “two-nations theory — one white and rich, the other black and poor”.

Shareholders — and other non-white cohorts with vested interests in creating the impression that the problems in South Africa were more about CLASS and less about RACE — took strong exception to what they perceived to be the dangers of radical Pan-Africanism. They were soon followed by liberal blacks who understood that the prerequisite for success and achievement in the mainstream media was to be the voice of the white right-wing.

The late 1990s had seen various white editors relinquish their positions in a grudging gesture of political correctness to make way for blacks who were white clones. These “intellectual coconut” — as they are called in the black community — jumped into white positions not only to retain the status quo but to echo the White Master’s Voice in voicing strong criticism against what they perceived to be an anti-white black government (sic).

Thus the emergence of so-called new black editors has not resulted in any significant shift in the media paradigm which says, “to be courageous, you must be opposed to the black government”. The consequence of this development has been that black editors are not different from their white predecessors except in the amount of melanin in their skin.

Instead, they are not only more oppositional but their role is to look for corruption under the soles of every government minister or official. In fact, the mainstream media today functions more like an opposition party than a platform for the nation to talk to itself.

For the most part, the headlines and lead stories that dominate portray a negative picture of the country and project the leadership as weak and stupid except when it criticizes itself as in the case of the care-taker health minister, Barbara Hogan.

As a result, many people have been discouraged by the one-dimensional, anti-government news that dominate the media. The open secret is that the media suffers from leadership bankruptcy.

Needless to say, Steve Biko, Percy Qoboza, Stan Motjuwadi, Mono Badela and Aggrey Klaaste are all dead and gone, now. Of course, they were neither radicals not militants but they clearly understood that their role was to take a political stand on issues and suffer the consequences.

But today’s black editors do not stand for anything except, mostly, to be opposed to the ANC. This has deprived the country, Africa and the world an opportunity to appreciate the significant fact that without the ANC, there would have been no continent-wide liberation movements to fight imperialism, colonialism and apartheid.

Ironically, the new black editors, together with their over-celebrated columnists and analysts, are beneficiaries of the ANC struggle and its policies. It is the ideals and principles of the ANC struggle that has seen most of them enjoy equal opportunities in positions that were reserved for whites.

Of course, it is important to note that as we head towards the elections, there is not a single black editor who has taken a pro-ANC position and encouraged readers to vote for the party that has delivered so much to so many.

There is not a single black person — including editors — who enjoys a better quality of life outside what the ANC has made possible in this country.

So, it is strange that black editors, especially, would want to distance themselves from the only party that matters. Yet we know that the pursuit of mythical objectivity does not mean that people should not stand for anything. That simply means that editors lack convictions.

So, how can they have balls?

For God’s sake, even the editor of Jehovah’s Witness stands for something.

What is wrong with today’s black editors?