Mbeki said African journalists are paid for counter-revolutionary sellouts

It is almost two months now since former president Thabo Mbeki accused some African journalists, “experts” and “analysts” of being paid for sellouts.

Of course, this he did in a much-publicised letter in October in which he distanced himself from Terror Lekota’s Cope (sic.) His speaking truth to media has been greeted by resounding silence, so to speak. I am not aware of any journalist, expert or analyst who has publicly responded to deny or refute the former president’s assertions. It is strange days, indeed, that no African commentator has challenged the notion that they are, mostly, paid to be counter-revolutionary or “embedded opponents of the national democratic revolution,” to use his words.

To refresh memory, the former president had this to say to Jacob Zuma about African journalists and other media created commentators:

“I know there are some in our country … who appear on television programmes or contribute newspaper opinion columns as “experts” or “analysts,” simply on the basis of their readiness to abandon all ethical considerations and self-respect, to propagate entirely fabricated and negative notions about what our national democratic revolution (NDR) means to our country and our people.

“Because of the services some of these have rendered to the opponents of NDR – the “experts” and “analysts,” and others who market themselves as “intellectuals/ academics” have been handsomely rewarded with material possessions as embedded opponents of the NDR.

“Yet such is the malaise that has entrenched itself in our democracy, including our movement, that we do not ask the obvious question – how can such “intellectuals/ academics” have come to accumulate such wealth?”

Well, the former president is very correct in identifying the rise of a not so new phenomenon in African journalism: the over celebration of prominent and aggressively negative opinion makers who wish to undermine and reverse the gains of African political self-determination, democracy and freedom.

For the last 14 years, the media, in general, has been about the negative portrayal of African self-governance in South Africa. In fact, the elevation of African “intellectual” voices who hate themselves and desire to prop up an unjust racist system for self-survival is not new in African journalism history. Thus in the 21st century media to be independent, courageous and fearless is to criticize Mbeki, Zuma, the ANC and the government and more Zuma, Zuma and the ANC.

The most prominent example is the so-called “father of African journalism,” John Tengo Jabavu who founded Imvo Zaba Ntsundu in 1884. He effectively managed to fool some of the people some of the time as the premier voice of African political aspiration but, of course, failed to fool all the people all the time.

To this day, there are many who look up to Jabavu as an inspirational figure simply because he was given a platform by white liberals to “represent” African opinion without consulting the people he spoke for.

Of course, Mbeki’s accusations have been highly effective and have, in their own way, generated much self defence, anger, controversy and crisis of conscience among some over-celebrated African opinion-makers in the media today. But it has been difficult for any self-respecting opinion maker to take him on because he has, obviously, hit the nail on the head.

So-called African journalists, editors, “experts” and “analysts” serve the interests of those who pay for their posh cars, plush homes and designer labels. It is not that what they do is any different to their corporate counterparts in the white community or the West.

In the media, you work to please your bosses who are share-holders determined to make money and more money while you make sure that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This allegiance to the commercial interests and power is exemplified by rare stories that expose corporate greed, rivalry, inherent corruption, cabals and infighting but consistently focus on the power struggle in the ruling party, for instance.

Well, there is at least one good thing that the former president has contributed to media freedom in his defeated position and that has been to call a black spade a white garden tool. He has created an intellectual space for us to ask: how have our journalists, intellectuals and other opinion makers accumulated so much wealth? Who pays them? Can they write negative stories about their own bosses? Are they allowed to be “uncontrollable” and free?

In this context, it is easy to see that the greatest threat to freedom of expression and the media in this country is not government or the ruling ANC but self-censoring “experts” themselves and their handlers.

There are some salient points that emerge from the former president’s analysis. Perhaps it is proper to paraphrase the three charges he has put against mainstream media commentators.

Firstly, he holds the view that African journalists adhere to a negative portrayal of both the ANC and the democratic government. Their primary agenda is to focus on the alleged failings of African people and how they cannot survive without whites or the West. Thus stories of corruption, corruption, corruption and failure of delivery.

Secondly, he claims that African journalists harbour a debilitating loyalty to their capitalist bosses that binds them to not saying things that will make them lose their prominent positions. Instead of speaking or writing “power to the people,” they are about self-preservation to keep the bosses happy.

Thirdly, the former president argues without going into detail that African commentators, just like their Western counterparts, are committed to preserving the unjust economic status quo that benefits them. They will not advance what could be considered a radical Pan-Africanist “power to the people” perspective, for instance, because not only will they be censored, but also they will be rooted out of the industry.

The former president’s observations are noteworthy, especially among African commentators who should critically engage them, if they dare. Furthermore, we have to understand the vulgar forms of negative intellectual discourse which tends to ignore crucial issues about white hegemony, economic control and, instead, focuses, on Jacob Zuma, the ANC, HIV/Aids and the corruption of the “black” government (sic.)

Unfortunately, just like there is no white who supported apartheid, there will be no over-celebrated African opinion maker who is going to have the courage to confess their sins.
Of course, their silence simply means that former president Thabo Mbeki is correct: African journalists, “experts” and “analysts” are paid for sellouts.