Dogs bark, but the GNU caravan moves on

IN my younger days in journalism, I was keenly part of a culture that was always on the lookout for a scoop. Your worth as a reporter was measured by how often you were the first to break a story. And then your newspaper would slap “Exclusive” or “Exposed” or “Breaking News” in bold letters on the headline.

As a species that sees itself as agent of consciousness, aiming to inform public opinion in the interest of a healthy democracy, we are rather slow to change, to adapt to the times and trends. No wonder the media here and elsewhere in the world are under tremendous pressure.

With X, Facebook, YouTube, etc. around, a scoop doesn’t mean much anymore. Seconds after you post your exclusive story, it’s broadcast on social media and radio. And three minutes later, it’s forgotten. Most people don’t even get to your own publication to read it there. No one can react as quickly as X, and millions of “citizen journalists” are ready to inform you, every minute of the day and night, of any trivial story, true or false.

Readers/viewers/listeners no longer seek scoops; they want proper context, background, and clarification about stories that affect them. They demand credibility and balance.

Yet, many of us still thunder ahead, looking for a story we can break. And it must be bad news. The old “when it bleeds, it leads” syndrome. It’s boring when things go well. Success and progress are not as interesting as failure and regression. Hatred and intolerance make for better copy than love and civility. We revel when a politician threatens violence or makes wild statements; it always becomes our headline.

Crime, corruption, scandal, and violence are still the main ingredients of today’s media meal, with a big bonus if a celebrity or their family is involved. (“Minister’s distant cousin’s son hits his wife,” “Singer’s uncle steals collection money.”)

We in mainstream media haven’t spent enough time over the last decade or two reflecting on our own industry and role. And now we are an endangered species.

Which brings me to today’s political journalism.

Banal conflicts within the GNU

The Government of National Unity (GNU), whether you like it or not, is a remarkable South African achievement that is well on its way to turning around the rot in ANC governance.

But most of my colleagues in political journalism are primarily focused on sniffing out the most banal conflicts within the GNU. We are tuned in to any minor sign of Gwede not liking John, or Khumbudzo and Leon emphasising different aspects of a problem. The magnifying glass is especially on Helen and Fikile, who supposedly can’t stand each other.

And it’s always front-page stories with bold headlines. It’s a hangover of the same old shock, horror, “bleeds leads” syndrome.

The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on. It seems to me there’s a very good chance that the GNU will survive intact until at least 2027.

Moreover, I think the media has played a very negative role in the recent debate surrounding the Bela act – once again focusing more on conflict and threats than on context and clarification. Every militant statement by Solidarity/AfriForum (“cultural genocide”) and the EFF and other hotheads (“perpetuated apartheid") was highlighted, and it was made to seem as though it would tear apart the GNU or even spark a minor civil war.

Solidarity stoked the flames because it meant more paying members, while the EFF and Sadtu defended the rights of the “black race”. But the outcome was clear from the start: Protocols and regulations would have to be considered before the controversial articles 4 and 5 could be implemented. In our constitutional democracy, rights cannot simply be undone by an official.

Truly a storm in a teacup.

John’s blue lights

The “revelation” that the DA leader, John Steenhuisen, as minister of agriculture, uses three expensive SUVs with blue lights for his “convoy” is another example.

It is entirely legitimate for ActionSA, whose raison d’être these days is to battle the DA, to question DA ministers and their use of blue lights or not because the DA has long campaigned against VIP blue-light convoys.

But the fact that the three vehicles allocated to Steenhuisen are years old and have high mileage, and the fact that he never allows the blue lights to be switched on, is just as important as the fact that he has access to the vehicles. Equally important is the news that he rented a Toyota Corolla when his official car was unavailable.

Sure, we can dream that some of our ministers, like the Dutch prime minister, would ride a bicycle to work without bodyguards, but that’s hardly realistic in South Africa. I dislike politicians with entourages of bodyguards, like the self-important ANC mayors and speakers, but if I were John Steenhuisen, I’d feel the need for some protection.

Just not with blue lights and a high-speed convoy.

Up and down in Auckland Park

I heard yesterday morning that the elevators in the SABC’s tall headquarters in Auckland Park aren’t working. This is also where all the public broadcaster’s radio stations are housed, meaning live interviews with guests are no longer possible.

That’s bad news. I must say, against my instincts, that the SABC’s news services haven’t fared too badly over the past year or two, albeit from a very low base. For example, RSG’s news and current affairs programs, after all the previous poor decisions, are now very professional and worth listening to. I occasionally tune in to SAfm in my car, and it doesn’t sound bad.

The last of the old, entitled ANC apparatchiks must now be removed from the corporation’s management. (Like the senior manager who recently caused a scene on a plane, shouting, “I’m an ANC bitch!”)

The complicating factor is that the minister in charge of the SABC falls under the DA: Solly Malatsi. The ANC machinery will fight him tooth and nail if he tries to turn the place around.

At least Malatsi showed his mettle when he blocked a new bill that wouldn’t adequately address the SABC’s troubling funding model.

I think the first step the SABC should take to cut costs is to shut down its 24-hour television channel. South Africa already has Newzroom Afrika and eNCA fulfilling that role; we don’t need a third channel.

Ganief’s congregation

There are only a handful of people in our national politics whom I consider competent and honourable. I can count them on my fingers.

But there’s one person for whom I’ve developed a special disdain: Mogamad Ganief Hendricks, founder and leader of the Muslim party Al Jama-ah. (It means “the congregation” in Arabic.)

I remember Hendricks as one of the Muslim activists who campaigned for the 1994 election to be boycotted. More recently, he and his party stood firmly with the EFF and ATM in supporting the rotten, corrupt former public protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, during her parliamentary investigation and ultimate dismissal.

Radio 702 journalist Stephen Grootes, who also writes for Daily Maverick, reminded me yesterday that Hendricks declared at his party’s manifesto launch last year: “Women mustn’t work; they must chill out and relax at home; the men must work for them.”

When Grootes reminded him during a radio interview that the constitution mandates equal treatment for men and women, Hendricks replied, “To hell with the constitution.”

Hendricks is also a homophobe who refers to LGBTQ people as the “alphabet people” fighting a “jihad within their own lives”.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, so Hendricks can spread his venom if he wants.

But then he was appointed as part of the GNU as deputy minister – of social development, no less.

So the number two in South Africa’s department of social development (his minister is a woman, Sisisi Tolashe) is a blatant sexist and homophobe?

Come on, man. (Come on, woman?)

♦ VWB ♦

BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION: Go to the bottom of this page to share your opinion. We look forward to hearing from you.