In most instances the matter of a MAT would be mentioned in one voice with the proposed legislation. A 2010 ANC discussion document explaining the idea of a MAT (ANC, 2010), argues in favour of “structured accountability” and having to give an account of one’s action, either directly to the public or via public authorities. This will often feed into, but is not necessarily connected to, “checked accountability, which means to be accountable in a sense of being liable to sanction if found to have acted in breach of some requirement or expectation attaching to the exercise of power”.
The view is held that the creation of a MAT would “strengthen, complement and support” the current self-regulatory institutions (Press Ombudsman/Press Council) in the public interest (ANC, 2010). It is suggested that Parliament be seized with this matter to consider the desirability of MAT being a statutory independent institution, established through an open, public and transparent process and be made accountable to Parliament. Parliament should consider the mandate of the MAT and its powers to adjudicate over matters or complaints expressed by citizens against print media, in terms of decisions and rulings made by the existing self-regulatory institutions, in the same way as with broadcasting.
3.3.1. Public reaction
The Mail & Guardian (28/1/2008) reported that the ANC's Polokwane conference30
30 The ANC held its 52nd
National Conference at the University of Limpopo in Polokwane from 16 to 20 December 2007.
110
fleshed out its proposal for a MAT “to keep journalists in check”. An ANC policy conference in June 2007, first raised the idea in a brief reference calling for an investigation into media self-regulation and the desirability of establishing a MAT. The proposed body had been given a name, the MAT; it would be statutory; answerable to Parliament; and seemed intent on acting as a channel for appeals against decisions by the Press Ombudsman. The resolution made these proposals after affirmation of support for media freedom – but defined this in a very particular way: “The right to freedom of expression should not be elevated above other equally important rights such as the right to privacy and, more important, rights and values such as human dignity” (ANC Today, 2010).
The ANC insisted that it did not want to curtail press freedom with a proposed MAT, but warned that print media did not seem committed to transformation (Sowetan, 11/1/2010). ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said the self-regulatory system of the press ombudsman did not allow for punitive measures against newspapers. He explained that a MAT would be similar to how broadcast media was regulated by ICASA (Mail & Guardian, 10/8/2010). He gave the assurance that the ANC was not prepared to limit the freedom the Constitution guaranteed the press. Mthembu said the ANC wanted an independent statutory body accountable to Parliament to deal with complaints against newspapers, instead of only using the press ombudsman who dealt with complaints.
The media also reflected government’s position on the matter as the Beeld (12/8/2010) quoted the President saying media houses had to be regulated, because they sometimes tended to “go too far". In defence of the ANC's proposed MAT he said that "the media said the MAT would limit them and that they were the public guard dog, but they were never elected” (to this position). He argued that they had to be controlled, because they sometimes went “overboard about rights”.
The President argued that the media could not be the only institution that understood rights: “The ANC understands the rights, because it fought for it." The Cape Argus (4/8/2010) also quoted him as saying the media had put itself on a pedestal and asked who was “guarding the guardian?” He asked if a guardian could be a proper guardian when it did not reflect the society it claimed to protect and represent.
111
The Argus Weekend (15/8/2010) commented that President Zuma's critique of the media was remarkable, not only in its deception regarding ANC motives, but in its fundamental lack of comprehension of what free speech and a free press really meant. The paper noted that the President questioned whether the media truly mirrored South Africans' lives and emphasised that the value of a free media lied in precisely the opposite: a multiplicity of competing viewpoints and voices and the freedom of readers and viewers to choose for themselves.
Referring to the President’s suggestion that the ANC could not want to cover up wrongdoing on the part of the powerful, since it was the ANC itself that had driven corruption-busting, the paper recalled issues such as the arms deal saga31, the “Selebi scandal”32, the Mbeki-era33 “AIDS-denialism” and the “shabby demise of the Scorpions”34 to incline to a “decidedly different viewpoint” (Argus Weekend, 15/8/2010). The paper suggested that in the absence of any commitment to strengthening the media and, instead, a single-minded focus on controlling it, the real motive for a MAT and the PIB could only be a desire to “tame the press”.
The Sowetan (20/8/2010) quoted the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) saying they conceded that it was accepted that media freedom was not an absolute right, but one that should be exercised in a fair and responsible manner and that there was therefore a definite need for effective regulatory bodies to be in place to hold the media accountable where necessary.35 It warned, however, that it was vital that such bodies be independent entities. The SAJBD was concerned about the
31
The Strategic Defence Acquisition involved the purchase of billions of rands of weaponry by the South African Government. It has been subject to repeated allegations of corruption.
32
Jackie Selebi, the former national commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS) and a former President of Interpol was charged, found guilty of corruption and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in 2010. He was released on medical parole in 2012.
33
Thabo Mbeki served as South African President from 1999 until September 2008. He made two statements based on research by so-called “dissident” HIV/AIDS scientists: that HIV does not
necessarily cause AIDS; and that antiretrovirals (ARVs) are toxic. This would become the cornerstone of a much decried policy that denied important truths about HIV and AIDS.
34
The government’s decision to disband the Scorpions and to incorporate the unit into the SAPS was interpreted as a reaction to the fact that they dared to charge high-profile members of the ANC and to prevent further prosecutions.
35
The SAJBD's mission is to work for the improvement of human relations between Jews and all other peoples of South Africa, based on mutual respect, understanding and goodwill and to protect the civil liberties of South African Jews (SAJBD, 2013).
112
proposed MAT, because they anticipated the creation of a regulatory body that was not independent, but “beholden to the government of the day”.
The SAPC announced a complete review of its constitution in the wake of criticism emerging in debate over the ANC’s planned MAT (Mail & Guardian, 23/8/2010). Commenting on the composition of the team to undertake the review, Press Ombudsman Joe Thloloe said they were dealing with a system of self-regulation, not regulation from outside. He explained that if any outside institution told editors what to put into the papers or not, it would be contrary to Section 16 of the Constitution and interfere with the freedom of the press.36 The team would review the SAPC’s constitution, the South African Press Code and complaints procedures. The constitution of the SAPC outlined its powers, its jurisdiction, its aims and objectives, and its membership.
During a debate on the matter divergent opinions were expressed:
• ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said the proposed MAT was receiving “overwhelming support” as the self-regulation of the media industry left “much to be desired”.
• Press ombudsman Joe Thloloe said the media was not against an inquiry into the possibility of a statutory MAT, but they were against the fact that some members of the ANC had already implied it was “a done deal”.
• SANEF media freedom committee chairperson Thabo Leshilo insisted there was overwhelming opposition to the MAT and more support for free speech. • The Head of the Wits School of Journalism Anton Harber said the media
should be accountable to its peers, readers, public, the law and courts, but journalists could not be accountable to politicians.
• CEO of the MDDA Lumko Mtimde said South Africans should be allowed to discuss the MAT and decide on it (Mail & Guardian, 24/8/2010).
36
Section 16 of the Constitution reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes (a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; (e) freedom of artistic creativity; and (d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. (South Africa, 1996).
113
The Sunday Tribune (22/8/2010) reported that the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) wrote a letter to President Zuma urging him to use his influence as head of state to prevent the establishment of the MAT in its present form. Four of the world’s largest news agencies added their voices to the opposition against the proposed MAT and PIB (Daily Maverick, 6/9/2010). Agence France Presse (AFP),
Associate Press (AP), Bloomberg and Reuters wrote to President Zuma, expressing
their concerns that a proposal for a MAT and the PIB could restrict their work and the work of other journalists. A MAT would undermine the media’s independence if it were to answer to Parliament or any arm of the government and it may not be in line with the freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution.
In Parliament, President Jacob Zuma said the proposed MAT was intended to "strengthen, complement and support” self-regulatory institutions (News24, 8/9/2010). The President noted that the debate had resulted in a decision by the SAPC to review its constitution with a view to strengthening its self-regulatory mechanisms. Mario Oriani-Ambrosini, IFP MP, said the debate on press freedom should not even be opened, as the solution lay in the law against defamation.
The ANC turned down an invitation to attend a “Big Media Debate” on media freedom hosted by the University of South Africa (Unisa) (News24, 12/10/2010). The ANC national spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said that the ANC would not participate in the debate until after Parliament had debated the MAT.
The DA’s Lindiwe Mazibuko, said there were currently many areas where relief could be sought from bad journalism; Dr Pieter Mulder, leader of the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), described the proposed MAT as a “red light” for the country’s democracy (News24, 12/10/2010). A MAT could never be independent, because it would be appointed by the government.
Speaking after a meeting between government and SANEF, South Africa’s Deputy President, Kgalema Motlanthe37, said the review of the media's self-regulatory mechanism, the Press Ombudsman, would influence whether there was a need for a
37
Kgalema Motlanthe served as South Africa’s third post-apartheid President from September 2008 until April 2009. Since 2009, he has been South Africa’s Deputy President.
114
MAT: “If the process of reviewing the self-regulatory mechanisms produces mechanisms that can address the concerns about its shortcomings, we see no difficulty in accepting that right product.” (iol, 16/10/2010).
iol (16/10/2010) quoted press ombudsman Joe Thloloe telling a University of Pretoria
(UP) debate on media freedom that the ANC had got the print media in its sights, because it was the one section of the media not under its control.
Regarding the MAT issue, the Beeld (10/1/2011) quoted a member of the ANC’s Communication Committee as saying that the ANC was encouraged by the transformation in the office of the Press Ombudsman, though this did not mean that the party would let go of its plans to refer the MAT to Parliament for investigation. It was speculated that referral to Parliament may be an honourable way to make the MAT disappear, quoting an “informed” ANC member saying: “Then we can say we followed the constitutional route and it did not work, without being embarrassed.”
The Mail & Guardian (31/12012) also reported on submissions made to the Press Freedom Commission. The ANC still believed “independent regulation” was the way to go when it came to the continuing debate over press regulation, arguing that self- regulatory efforts were undermined by vested interests (Mail & Guardian, 31/1/2012). However, on the second day of the Press Freedom Commission hearings, newspaper editors sounded a strong warning about the consequences of being seen to regulate the press (Mail & Guardian, 1/2/2012).