Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Print
E-mail
Tags
Replay of an apartheid nightmare
The reintroduction of the Protection of Information Bill to parliament is to certain older news hounds like a replay of a nightmare of some of the darkest days of apartheid when, under the guise of state security, the government of the day held full control over certain elements of the flow of information via the media to the public. In some instances, relatively junior civil servants could decide what the public would or would not read.
Sometime in the late 1970s, on a Sunday afternoon, as news editor of a morning daily paper, I received word from an alert proofreader that in the next morning’s edition, in our classified section we would carry a notice of the funeral of a soldier who died in action on the border – which meant somewhere in northern Namibia or Angola.
I gave our military correspondent, who under the rules and regulations at the time had to be accredited to the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), to contact the liaison directorate for further details. Shortly afterward, he came back to report that not only were we refused more details, but we were forbidden - under the security laws of the time - to report on the fact that a conscription soldier had died in action.
On a personal call to the head of the SANDF media directorate - who was a political reporter of the SABC with no real military background, but now carrying the rank of brigadier - I was informed that the reason we were forbidden to report on a death and funeral notice in our own paper was: it is the turn of the afternoon papers to have such information released to coincide with their deadline! What national security?!
In his critique on the present bill, with strong echoes from the past, Dave Steward of the FW de Klerk Foundation wrote last week that, among others:
- “ … it establishes the basis for the extreme and arbitrary restriction of public access to government information. It does so by creating such broad scope for the classification of information; such wide executive powers and such draconian punishments - that the government would be able to staunch the flow of information to the public as it sees fit”;
- “Any government information can be classified if its disclosure would be harmful to the ‘national interest’. The ‘national interest’, in turn, is defined so broadly that it could affect any government activity”; and
- “Heads of state organs would be able to delegate their responsibility for classification to any ‘subordinate staff member’ - so the free flow of information could be shut down at a relatively low level. Whole file series - or classes of information - could be classified on a collective basis.”
The public can appeal to have information declassified: to whom? To the minister whose department classified it! Fortunately, the public could still request access to classified information via the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). Where the minister refuses such requests, applicants would be able to lodge an appeal with a PAIA tribunal.
There is, however, a catch: If the requested information is classified as top secret, the government may refuse to confirm or deny it even exists!
During those apartheid days, it was not only the military that was the subject of absolute state control of information. Then minister of the Police Louis le Grange also passed regulations that prohibited an ordinary policeman to speak to a member of the media about any crime.
A police network of media liaison officers was created to ensure only officially cleared information was fed to the media. Gone were the good old days of sharing a bottle of Limousine brandy and coke with the policemen on night-shift duty at the state morgue in Hillbrow to ensure they inform you if a body from a murder scene has been delivered into their care.
The wider picture
To the Protection of Information Bill awaiting parliamentarian when they return from their winter recess can be added the recent confirmation that ambassador designate to the United States and erstwhile ANC premier of the Western Cape, Ebrahim Rasool used taxpayers' money to fund chequebook journalism to foster his own party political aims.
It recently emerged that the ANC national headquarters had allegedly instructed the SABC’s head of news Phil Molefe to place a ban on interviews with Thabo Mbeki, as publicity for the former president was felt to be undermining President Jacob Zuma who, at the time, was basking in Soccer World Cup glory.
Mbeki had been interviewed by the SABC after Ghana's World Cup quarterfinal win over the US. He appeared on the SABC current affairs show Interface, and was in the news after giving a public lecture at Unisa to open a leadership institute named after him. This led to a considerable number of positive public responses.
Molefe had allegedly instructed senior SABC executives to implement such a ban, telling them that the order came from ANC headquarters, but this has since been denied by the SABC - while the ANC refuses to comment.
However, a statement released by Mbeki, in which he said the successful World Cup was a giant step toward destroying negative stereotypes of Africa and Africans, was widely reported in various media but was completely ignored by the state-controlled SABC. The idea of South Africa hosting the World Cup originated during Mbeki’s presidency and was viewed as part of his African Renaissance project. Mbeki should rightly have shared in some of the recognition for its having taken place.
If one adds the government allegations of rumour-mongering by the media and others regarding resurging xenophobic violence, tight control of the SABC by the ruling party, and the revival of its proposal for a media-regulating tribunal to be established despite the principle of media freedom being enshrined in the Constitution - it is clear that independent, fearless journalism in the country is under serious threat.
With, among others, one of the ruling Alliance’s partners - the Confederation of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) - opposing the Protection of Information Bill, it remains to be seen if this second attempt at it will succeed.
Casting a wider eye on the state of the media internationally, it is clear that South Africa is not the only country where the media is under siege.
The international scene
From the US, where Rasool seems to be heading come what may, there are increasing accusations against the beleaguered Obama administration that is employing all sorts of censorship and cover-ups to control media coverage on the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
On the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan, the administration is also accused of spending vast amounts of taxpayers’ own money to ensure they only fed the information that coincides with the administration’s strategic aims. The Associated Press says, “the Pentagon spends $4.7 billion (during 2009) on public relations: that is, winning the hearts and minds not of recalcitrant Afghan tribesmen but of Americans. This is known as information dominance, and PR people are information warriors.”
These Pentagon information warriors number around 27 000, a staff nearly matching the 30 000-person State Department, which handles foreign affairs.
London-based award-winning investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker, John Pilger is said to be working on a documentary under the title, The war you don’t see, dealing with what he calls the war on the media.
On the state of the media in Europe, The Electoral Knowledge Network writes: “Even in long-established democracies, there is tension between governments and the media. This is inevitable and not entirely undesirable - since, after all, the media are meant to act as a ‘watchdog’ over government. But these tensions are not entirely healthy.
“Journalists in established democracies are less likely to face physical threats in carrying out their duties, but many have to contend with legal actions, for example to compel them to reveal confidential sources of information. Many of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that have laid down standards on governments' obligations to respect media freedom have arisen from cases where European journalists' rights have been infringed.”
Piet Coetzer
