As everyone knows, a vibrant, independent and critical media that shows no fear or favour to any form of power is vital for democracy. Of course, this is an ideal type because no media is ever entirely independent of all forms of power, or equally critical of all kinds of power holders. But the greater the diversity in terms of ownership, funding, editorial control and political alignment, the better a democracy is served by its media.
Perhaps the finest hour of the media in post-apartheid South Africa was the relentless exposés on the corruption by Jacob Zuma and the Gupta brothers. In that moment of crisis, the value of a critical and independent media was plain for all to see.
But there are increasing currents of disquiet about our media from many credible and independent black thinkers.
The growing concern largely takes two forms. One relates to international and the other to domestic issues. On the former front there is a developing debate about coverage of global geopolitics. This has two parts. One is that powerful actors in our media space assume that South Africa should be part of the West rather than understanding the world from an African or Global South perspective.
Read in Daily Maverick: “The murder of AKA is a tragedy that might galvanise a demand for decisive action”
The other is a question of whose lives are taken to have value. Far fewer lives have been lost in the war in Ukraine than in the conflicts in Ethiopia and Yemen. Where is the concern in our media for them?
To ask this is in no way to offer support to Vladimir Putin, or to undermine the gravity of the horrors in Ukraine. It is simply to ask why black lives do not seem to matter very much in our media.
Corruption and colour
A key domestic issue that is generating growing concern about media coverage is corruption. Of course corruption is a cancer that needs to be exposed and rooted out everywhere. It should go without saying that the cancer of corruption knows no colour.
In the South African context, the grotesque corruption of the apartheid state was brought to light by Hennie van Vuuren in Apartheid, Guns and Money. The looting by the National Party, especially in the dying days of apartheid, was hair-raising.
Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations
But the issue is not just that all corruption must be exposed, irrespective of whether it is black or white. The issue is also the tonality of the reports on it. White perpetrators are not presented to the public in the same manner as black perpetrators. There is a sometimes subtle contempt in how black perpetrators are represented that leaves many readers and viewers feeling a strong sense of disquiet.
Read in Daily Maverick: “The electricity debate is split into antagonistic camps – we won’t solve the power crisis this way”
All this was driven home when André de Ruyter said that his “white Afrikaans blind spots” had prevented him from fully appreciating how corrupt Eskom was. This is, on the face of it, an outrageously racist statement implying that white Afrikaners are by nature less corrupt than black people and that he needed some sort of “native informant” to reveal things to him.
Yet how much of our media really questions De Ruyter, or indeed Annika Larsen, who let the comment stand without challenge, on this? De Ruyter was presented as some sort of saintly figure, a great hero of our times. Black people who have stood up to corruption, also risking their lives, have not been presented in the same heroic terms.
For many black people it seems that there is still a way to go before our media becomes a fully South African media rooted in the experiences and lives of the majority.
Because a vibrant media is so crucial to democracy, we need to work as hard as we can to build a media that is up to the grave challenges we face as a society. DM168
This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R25.
Become an Insider
Prior to reading this I was contemplating the media coverage afforded to missing tourist Nick Frischke – increasingly presumed dead. The news coverage is of course not due to the lives of whites, or Germans in particular, being considered more valuable, but the impact it has on our status as a tourism destination that impacts millions of people. Likewise the war in Ukraine impacts the pockets of ordinary South Africans in a big way, and is a global (possibly nuclear) threat. One also have to note that Babita Deokaran has been widely adopted by the media as the face of whistleblowers in South Africa, and the media has generally been extremely supportive of the likes of Mcebisi Jonas and other powerful voices against corruption. Black Lives Matter and the plight of poor (mostly black) communities are widely covered by honorable publications such as DM. The main issue now however is De Ruyter – how you interpret his statements says a lot of what you believe – I thought the offending line was a self-deprecating comment as to white Afrikaners not being “street smart”. I stand to be corrected. Mr De Ruyter’s hero worship no doubt has many motivations, not the least being that he’s been the first CEO of an SOE to take on corruption at the highest levels. Mr Buccus perhaps need to do some introspection as to why De Ruyter’s comments were so offensive to him. Perhaps the larger reality the ANC’s constituency have to face is that 20+ years of systematically looting and destroying South Africa was enabled by their votes, and the chickens are coming home to roost. It’s a hard reality when our collective hopes and dreams are being shattered.