SA’s press council: Public watchdog or (government) bloodhound?

Government’s constituency is highly irked by recent coverage, said Essop Pahad, Minister in the Presidency, on Thursday.

“In the ANC, there are very, very, very strong views about how the media has been dealing with the ANC. There is real anger. The question is whether this will spill over to regulation — the answer is no. I think we will stick with the position that self-regulation is the best answer.”

Speaking at a conference in Johannesburg, Pahad appealed to editors to use their constitutional freedoms “responsibly”, and especially show “some circumspection on dignity and privacy”. There was no question, he reminded his audience, that the ANC would win the next election.

Asked about the ANC policy conference proposal for a tribunal on the media, the minister said: “Like you had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the thinking is that there needs to be a look at the media in all its complexities, including ownership and reporting.”

But, said Pahad, “there was not a shred of evidence” that media freedom is under threat in South Africa. “You can’t pass legislation that would diminish freedoms in the Constitution, because these would not pass the Constitutional Court — which would not countenance this.”

The minister advised the new Press Council to be more than a complaints body or a watchdog on behalf of the public. The body should be a bloodhound, he said. (The implication being that instead of being reactive, the council should be sniffing out where there were problems in the media).

In this regard, Pahad critiqued the former press ombudsman, Ed Linnington, for saying that the South Africa newspaper self-regulation system did not play either a policing or prosecuting function in regard to the media.

Indirectly referring to the Sunday Times story on Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, Pahad urged proactivity on the part of the Press Council around “gross invasions” by the media of privacy and dignity. (The Sunday Times case is, in fact, before the ombudsman — as a result of a complaint laid there).

Weak and tepid self-regulation undermined the constitutional right to media freedom, argued Pahad. And if self-regulation was not taken seriously by the media itself, the press would lose credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

A different note was struck by Jovial Rantao, chairperson of the South African National Editors’ Forum, who defended the existing model in which council and ombud only respond to complaints. He also highlighted how their current sanctions on offending papers — like instructions to publish corrections — helped to educate journalists and public alike.

Pahad’s reply: Editors needed to give the same prominence to corrections, as was given to the original article. “The council needs explicit and ungrudging support from the editors,” he said.

When Pahad complained about the media themselves be misled by secret sources within the ANC, veteran journalist Raymond Louw responded: “Isn’t there a case for the ANC to train its sources to be more accurate?” To which the minister replied: “Only you know who these sources are!”