Zuma has no need for a media out of touch with his people

If one had to choose between a Zuma presidency without a media-relations unit or a media without Zuma, I would settle for the former. Whatever one may wish for, the media without Zuma is impossible.

In the last seven or eight years, the media have made their profit by waging an incessant assault on Zuma’s integrity. At whichever level one looks at it, relations between Zuma and the media have not only been dysfunctional but difficult and insulting.

Frankly it has been a case of using the plight of a (then) down-and-out man to make profits in the name of freedom of expression and the media. Since The Man was sworn in as State President, there is now a pause and half-hearted efforts to redefine relations between Zuma and the media.

It is true that the media have to stress about how they have treated the man in the past few years.

They must take stock and set up new strategies that will, hopefully, improve their standards of self-regulation rather than seek the approval of Zuma, now.

But it would be wise for the Zuma administration to seriously consider a tabula-rasa approach, which will mean a clean break with the past in terms of government relations with the media.

The media have been given too much attention and priority in terms of the government but this has not helped in any significant way. To tell the truth, the media have, largely, been anti-government and projected it as corrupt, lazy, failing to deliver and incompetent.

The impression that prevails among the decision-making elite is negative and cynical, to say the least.

In an unusual way, the concentration of this negative portrayal is acutely epitomised in the person of Zuma. Fortunately, the media are alienated from Zuma supporters and the ANC’s core constituency, for example, and thus their projections and prognosis have not had the desired effect of undermining the ANC’s appeal and power, respectively.

This new extraordinary situation demands for a critical examination of the relationship between Zuma and the media. The need for this redefinition, especially at this moment of hesitancy in the media, is compelling in the lives of men and women who are in Zuma’s government communications office.

There is the possibility that it is a terrifying prospect for media practitioners who know that their excuse of freedom of expression may not hold water.

The media have, over the last few years, allowed themselves to be abused in what has been seen as a conspiracy to keep Zuma out of the presidency and denigrate the ANC. But, of course, it takes two to tango and it may be equally charged that the so-called Zuma camp has manipulated the media with its own agenda.

However, this temporary truce — where even cartoonist Zapiro has suspended the shower — provides the opportune moment for the Zuma presidency to change its media strategy.

In fact, what is needed is a complete revolution, a new programme of disorder that will completely break relations with sections of the media. The media need to really re-examine their role and responsibility in this transitional society.

The Zuma presidency should neither be expected to be magical in its attitude nor be seen to be unnecessarily friendly in its understanding of media relations.

Instead, the new relations should leave each party to do what it knows best: the Zuma presidency to satisfy the aspirations of the people and the media to report objectively.

To paraphrase Jesus, “give unto Zuma what belongs to Zuma and give to the media what belongs to its profits”. The tabula-rasa approach is to be understood as saying this new era marks a new break but complete change in media relations.

After all, nobody solves old problems by practising the same methods that created them.

What we know is that, in essence, government and media is the meeting of two forces, opposed to each other by their very nature. In fact, this trying relationship owes its origin to the profit motive and an adversarial approach to government.

As a result, while the Zuma government pursues nation-building and nurtures a new spirit of patriotism and identity, the media seeks opportunities to exploit that.

Thus the encounter is bound to be marked by tension and conflict, that is to say exploitation of the good intentions of the government by a media that thrives on sensationalism and poor research.

After 15 years, the government and media are old acquaintances. In fact, the government is right when it speaks of knowing “them” well because its budgets feed the media to perpetuate negative coverage.

The Zuma presidency owes its legitimate existence to poor people’s support. That is to say, it has almost nothing to do with the media that prophesied dismissal performance at the polls.

Of course, the business of governance cannot go unnoticed for it is about the general good of society, including the media. It is not the media but the people’s power and choice at the recent election that has transformed Zuma into perhaps the most powerful president in Africa. The media will, inevitably, subject him to the grandiose glare of history’s floodlight.

But to speak directly to the people who have put him where he is, he does not necessarily need the media in its current state. In fact, this is the opportunity for the government to introduce a paradigm shift in how the media functions or relates to government, especially in Africa. What the situation demands is the redefinition of government media relations. But this will need to be preceded by the media re-examining its role in a transitional society.

Over the last 15 years the media has, for lack of a better word, become the enemy of the people.

It has not only insulted the integrity of chosen people’s leaders but fed the so-called market with worthless news and features. There is therefore an urgent need to question the media in its current profit motive.

If we wish to spell out precisely what the Zuma presidency should consider doing, we might find it in these clear words: cut out the middle man in efforts to communicate with the people.

After all, the media is out of touch with the society it operates in. Also, it reaches less than 10% of the population, except through the help of the government communications structure, the SABC.

The naked truth is that cutting ties with the media will evoke no sympathy as it has seared the integrity of government and the liberation movement.

In fact, the last 15 years have been characterised by a decisive and murderous struggle between the two forces. It is the people who have affirmed their faith and belief in Zuma and the ANC government rather than be influenced by the media.

If the will of the people is to triumph, it is time government communications turn the scales by pausing in their efforts to put the media on a pedestal, which they do not deserve.

You do not transform any society or fulfil the aspirations and hopes of the people by spending too much time and energy feeding information to media that see far too little value in it because they dismiss it as propaganda.

When corporates put any commercial programmes into practice to reach their target market, they use money power to tell the media what to do.

It is clear that if the government lacks the courage to demand that the media report objectively, then perhaps it is time to put relations on the back burner.

The only obligation of the government is not only to let the media do its own thing but to demand that it holds up the best standards of its profession.

However, the Zuma presidency has less need for the media, especially print, to achieve its goals.

It is time the government of the people spoke directly to the people.