Pressly: Squeezing messenger won’t kill message. Not say #SABC.

SABC’s censorship of content in the country’s democratic era is not a new concept. Retired journalist Ed Herbst said the ANC’s control of the state asset took centre stage in 2003 around the Arms Deal, while the latest blackout entails violence and opposition party election ads. Cape Messenger Editor Donwald Pressly says the public broadcaster has got it all wrong, as squeezing the messenger won’t kill the message. Especially given the power of multi-media and social media which makes it impossible to completely black out events. The contradiction here is that in an attempt to keep all things positive around the ANC, the decision has painted yet another negative light on the ruling party. – Stuart Lowman

By Donwald Pressly*

Donwald Pressly
Donwald Pressly

Squeezing the messenger won’t kill the message being sent by those who use violence to achieve their political ends. At least that is what any logical person would think.

Not so says the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), the public broadcaster. Last Friday, May 27, the corporation decided to ban footage of violence showing attacks on property. This arises out of the run of violence in Vuwani, a city in the district of Vhembe in the province of Limpopo where some 20 schools have been torched. The SABC’s chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng announced that the entity would not “cover people who are destroying public property”. He argued that the footage could incite other communities to burn public property.

This is essentially illogical. Burning of public buildings was a critical part of the culture of the liberation movements – including today’s ruling ANC – during the struggle against apartheid. To burn a public symbol, such as a school, was a demonstration of resistance to apartheid then. It is a culture, unfortunately, forged by those liberation movements which lingers today. What has happened in Vuwani is deeply regrettable, but it is hard to believe that filming of the consequences of the violence would fuel other violence.

Imraam Baccus, a researcher at the School of Social Sciences at UKZN, pointed out in a recent piece:  For protest to be effective, it has to target an accessible icon with symbolic value. When rage is felt against a government – in this case a municipal boundary dispute of all things – then government property will always be a potential target for protest. Last weekend, the University of the Witwatersrand reported that someone was intent on setting the institution’s law library alight by sneaking in flammable material. One could argue that keeping eyes focused on potential criminal behaviour nipped this in the bud. Someone spotted the suspicious behaviour. We need more eyes, more cameras on criminal – an potential errant – behaviour, not fewer. Business Day reported University of Johannesburg professor Jane Duncan as saying that at Vuwani there was not a journalist (or indeed a camera) in sight when the schools were burnt down.

But extraordinarily, Communications Minister Faith Muthambi, and Small Business Minister Lindiwe Zulu have both welcomed the SABC ban. Muthambi said any positive action “that seeks to condemn the vandalising of infrastructure and the destruction of schools, and public infrastructure” was welcome. Zulu said that when one turned on the television “all there was to see was violence in mostly poor black communities”What they are saying is that if you take away the cameras the violence, the anger will stop. In Cape Town that argument would mean that the violent protests at Dunoon – where arsonists threw rocks at the MyCiti bus station – could not be filmed. Or perhaps they believe that the protests would not have happened in the first place if there were no cameras. This is hard to believe. According to Cape Town Mayor Patricia de Lille the Dunoon protests happened as a consequence of a fight over who would get the nomination as councillor candidates for the ANC in the upcoming August 3 municipal poll. Take away the cameras and you still have a political problem translating into violent political protest.

As Business Day pointed out in an editorial today Motsoeneng’s decision was dim-witted and Orwellian. The man has previously argued for a ban on open lines on SABC radio talk shows, for news carried to be 70% positive and 30% negative. He has a track record of being jolly silly. The newspaper’s argument is correct: All he is doing is bending over backwards to present the governing party in a positive light. Freedom of speech and expression is key to any democracy. This is, indeed, an Orwellian step back. Squeezing the messenger – in the form of a camera, a journalist or even a member of the public – won’t kill the message, even a ‘negative’ one. Out there the people, or some of the people, are angry and they are demonstrating their anger in an anti-social way. It needs a political solution, not a blackout – even if that were possible in this age of the multi-media.

  • Donwald Pressly, Editor of Cape Messenger.
GoHighLevel
gohighlevel gohighlevel login gohighlevel pricing gohighlevel crm gohighlevel api gohighlevel support gohighlevel review gohighlevel logo what is gohighlevel gohighlevel affiliate gohighlevel integrations gohighlevel features gohighlevel app gohighlevel reviews gohighlevel training gohighlevel snapshots gohighlevel zapier app gohighlevel gohighlevel alternatives gohighlevel pricegohighlevel pricing guidegohighlevel api gohighlevel officialgohighlevel plansgohighlevel Funnelsgohighlevel Free Trialgohighlevel SAASgohighlevel Websitesgohighlevel Experts