The DA digs itself doggedly deeper

What a big, dark hole the Democratic Alliance has dug for itself in blacklisting a journalist it dislikes. And in defiance of common sense to stop excavating upon finding oneself in a hole, the official opposition is defiantly still going for it a fortnight later, shovel-and-pick a-flashing.

The DA blacklisted Anna Majavu, the Sowetan‘s Cape political correspondent, because she formerly worked as “spin doctor” for a trade union, has a “political agenda”, and writes “factually distorted articles”.

The DA stands condemned by an array of organisations — the National Editors’ Forum, the Press Gallery Association, and civil society groups such as Right2Know and the Freedom of Expression Institute — with which it more usually finds common cause as regards the anti-press freedom inclinations of the ruling African National Congress.

Initially, communications director Ross van der Linde disingenuously claimed that the DA had “no obligation to send information to any individual or organisation”. DA spokesperson Lindiwe Mazibuko then tried to finesse media concern by explaining that Majavu could still attend events as an “ordinary member of the public” and that removing her from email distribution did not amount to blacklisting.

Any journalist worthy of the descriptor knows that this is transparent sophistry. To be blunt, utter crap.

One cannot attend a confidential press briefing as an “ordinary member of the public”. One cannot meet deadlines if a major political player won’t send one the information that routinely goes to one’s rivals.

The Majavu blacklisting is simply a crude, spiteful act of intimidation and an attempt at censorship — a rush of spleen to the head of Van Der Linde that DA leader Helen Zille should instantly have repudiated. Instead Zille is silent and the contretemps does not merit even a mention on the DA website. What extraordinary behaviour from a woman whose earlier incarnation was as a political correspondent and consequently must know that the DA’s action is indefensible.

What a godsend for the ANC, which until now has been in slow retreat from deeply unpopular legislative proposals to restrict access to information and institute a media tribunal. The ANC can gleefully label the DA as hypocrites and reiterate its own hand-over-heart commitment to freedom of expression.

So why, despite costing its liberal reputation dearly, is the DA still doggedly digging? Part of it is that despite a probably genuine belief in press freedom, the DA has an uneasy relationship with the media.

This is the norm for political parties, which find that their commitment to lofty principles quickly buckles upon exposure to the realities of a captious, sometimes inept and biased media. But it is a particularly acute problem for the DA, which mostly gets short shrift from the influential public broadcaster, in contrast to its fawning coverage of the ANC.

So the DA is always nursing a grudge and probing deeply into the entrails of any reports about it to find evidence of bias. It is certainly true that to write critically about the DA is to incur its displeasure, with the unsubtle undertone being that especially as a whitey, one should be onside.

Indeed, there is a lot of bias in the SA print media as regards the DA. Most of it, ironically enough, in its favour.

Partly this is a matter of shared values: journalists tend to believe in things like freedom of expression and an independent judiciary, both of which are patently under threat in SA. But it is also the innate advantage that any opposition party has over an incumbent government — it has boundless opportunity to carp without the realities and burdens of governance.

The DA supposedly believes in SA’s existing mechanisms for media accountability. It should use these to demonstrate that Majavu is dishonest. Otherwise, get over it.