JZ killed the weekly newsletter

The Sunday Times has welcomed the fact that Jacob Zuma won’t continue the tradition of a weekly ANC president’s e-comment.

The implication being: we no longer have to wade through screeds/screens of high-brow discourse each week.

Au contraire — the change means there will be even fewer opportunities to get a handle on JZ’s thinking (even if he had have decided to use a ghost-writer).

Say this for Mbeki — as aloof as he was, he regularly put his perspectives into cyberspace. You knew if he was on another plak/planet, and when he was back on Earth.

The gap that the dead letter now leaves will simply see speculation emerge.

For instance, in responding to the latest (and last) weekly offering, the South African National Editors’ Forum stated: “Zuma made no reference to the ANC proposal to investigate the setting up of a media tribunal to adjudicate on complaints against the print media. If that means that the ANC has dropped that proposal, that is to be welcomed because such a tribunal would conflict with constitutional media freedom.”

Seems like wishful thinking to me — especially when the party is insistent that its policy proposals in general are going to be carried out.

More to the point, Sanef expressed concern at JZ’s complaint in the newsletter that “the media” are politically and ideologically out of synch with the society. The forum correctly pointed out that it’s clumsy to lump all media together. I mean, if you line up Grocott’s Mail, Umhlobo Wenene, e.tv, the Mail & Guardian and the Sun, it’s pretty difficult to generalise.

But there’s a deeper problem with the JZ sentiment. It implies that: (1) his political camp reflects the preferences and priorities of South Africans, and therefore that the media should logically espouse a Zuma worldview; and/or (2) each medium in general should reflect, proportionately, the political diversity of this country.

Both propositions are as flawed as anyone still thinking that taking up golf with the Thabo-ites will continue constituting a green carpet to BEE deals.

The first Zuma proposition assumes that “the people have spoken” at Polokwane, and thus that all other views are “lesser”. Other takes on life don’t exist or count.

It’s true that many journalists missed the Zuma groundswell. It’s false to conclude that they should therefore now only report according to the perspective of this particular political grouping.

The second “proportional representation” view assumes that the media should be akin to a parliament. In effect, JZ is now calling for journalistic floor-crossing to align with the new political strengths. Press-titutes, perhaps?

This argument applies to a limited extent to broadcasting, and especially to the SABC, which is supposed to be a fair and representative forum for all tendencies.

But even in regard to radio and TV, our electoral regulations provide for boosting minority views in order to help level the political playing field. Direct proportionalism is recognised as dangerous.

Further, even Parliament, let us remember, probably does not reflect the majority views of South African society — for instance, on capital punishment or abortion.

The point is that the media, in all their shades, are a beautifully dynamic factor — not just reflective of social views, but also contributing to them. They help people consider and change existing political balances and deeply held prejudices.

This creative function dies if there is a direct correlation between coverage and status quo, a lack of difference and debate, and static reinforcement of existing beliefs.

One more point against the “proportional representation” position: as regards print and online media, freedom of speech trumps any ethical requirement to be a forum that reflects all views and opinions.

Newspapers are entitled to be as partisan as they like — entirely irrespective of whether they choose to be a minority of one or whether they mirror the mindsets of a majority.

One day, when the political tables turn — as they inevitably do — the JZ people may just have cause to appreciate this very freedom of speech. For now, the ANC executive should just chill in their political strength — and avoid attempts to chill free speech for an illusory short-term political advantage.

If the media in general are, as the ANC letter puts it, a battlefield, then it’s up to the JZ people to contest there. Through communication, not regulation.

They should reinstate that weekly newsletter from the ANC Prez.