Manyi, Manyi, Manyi…it's a rich man's world

By Hannine Drake

Sanef called it bribery. The DA called it a gross abuse of power. Zapiro called it a metaphor (sort of).

The already beleaguered media received yet another blow recently when Cabinet in true Machiavellian fashion approved the centralisation of the spending of its estimated R1 billion yearly advertising budget under the Government Communication and Information Service (GCIS).

Conveniently for some, though worrying for most, the less than beloved Cabinet spokesperson, Jimmy Manyi, is also at the helm of the GCIS and will no doubt relish withdrawing advertising from his least favourite newspapers or, differently put, to quote Manyi himself (lest I be accused of “painting a wrong picture” of an administration on the verge of collapse): “The people who are going to pass on our content much more effectively to the public are the people we will focus on, I can tell you this right now.”

The government seems to be upset that the media is not living up to the “role which we want the media to play, that of passing on information of government … ”. Says the man with the agenda and R1 billion to spend on it.

Such a wonderful satirist, this Manyi.

Advertising. Subsidising. Bribing. Words that sound so similar — and very helpfully rhyme. Soft censorship, sadly prolific throughout Latin America and Africa, has been the focus of many government’s attention and budgets.

In a report on soft censorship by means of government advertising (or lack thereof), the Centre for International Media Assistance has highlighted the following methods available to address soft censorship:

1. Greater transparency in awarding advertising contracts to independent newspapers and broadcasters, including passing legislation that clearly spells out the rules.

2. Regulations requiring governments to place advertising in media outlets that can deliver the intended audience, without regard to the news content published or broadcast by those outlets.

3. Steps to ensure that the allocation of government advertising is not concentrated in the hands of political appointees.

4. Litigation to end the practice of withdrawing advertising as a means to exert pressure on media outlets.

We are so far away from the above, it’s laughable. Considering the above points in turn:

(1) Let’s face it, with the current legislative crackdown on the media with the Secrecy Bill, what are the odds the ANC will take an about-turn and pass legislation to protect the media?

(2) Manyi has just said that he will do exactly the opposite. No help there.

(3) Uhm … Cabinet has just done the opposite. And there’s an uncomfortable blurring of functions in Manyi’s duplicate (duplicit?) role in the executive as Cabinet spokesperson and his newfound exclusive discretion to award government funding (read: power to play with the media).

(4) Soft censorship, South African style, is legally so contentious that litigation should at least provide some reprieve. Although sadly our courts are not exactly known for their expediency and cost-effectiveness. And why should we have to wait for someone to be rapped over the knuckles in court when proper public consultation and enough political will today can avoid wasting time and money (pun narrowly averted)?

Let alone the rights infringements that take place in the meantime while the issues are fought out? Ironically, Manyi has emphasised that this centralisation of ad spending is done to improve “economies of scale” and thus to make the ad spending process more cost-effective. So at least we can now rest assured that the government really had the interests of the taxpayers (coincidentally also mostly known as “newsreaders” or “citizens with the right to a free media”) at heart all along.

Unfortunately this soft censorship battle will likely have to be resolved by the courts. How, if and to what extent the government’s ad spending will change courtesy of Manyi, will surely be both curious and maddening.

As a sidenote, I see that Brazil, which also currently has an “Access to Information Bill” up for debate in their senate, is now considering inserting a so-called “eternal secrecy” clause that will allow information to be classified for an indeterminate amount of time. At the moment, the South African Protection of Information Bill, for all its faults, at least contains a maximum classification period of 30 years. (Unless the minister is convinced that “demonstrable life threatening or physical harm to a person or persons will result from its release”. Whatever that means.)

Let’s hope that Brazil doesn’t give Cecil Burgess any ideas.

Hannine Drake is a lawyer and freedom of expression advocate.