Selebi, Pikoli and the role of the media
Listening to Redi Direko’s show this morning on 702, I was struck by the number of people calling in who (once again) blame the media for the speculation over the as yet unresolved questions about the suspension of the head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Vusi Pikoli. He had allegedly obtained an arrest warrant for police commissioner Jackie Selebi, over links (including alleged bribes) to Glenn Agliotti, whom Selebi calls a friend. Besides for his arrest over the Brett Kebble murder, Agliotti has no rap sheet and is listed in Who’s Who of Southern Africa, but he acts the wealthy gangster and has a pretty substantial rep sheet involving fraud, smuggling, tax evasion and (would you believe it) bigamy.
“The media is trying to destabilise the country. They have an agenda,” callers say (to paraphrase). This is doubtful, actually. I can’t speak for all publications, but I’ve been in many editorial meetings and most have been notable only for their lack of agenda.
Why is it, however, that when critical questions arise about key figures in government, the media is taken to task for it? That it is accused of having some unstated “agenda” when it simply reports the facts and asks the questions? Isn’t the media there to ask questions? Is it not reasonable to ask why our national police commissioner counts well-known crime figures among his friends? Is it not reasonable to ask why it emerges, after an explanation for the suspension of Vusi Pikoli is given, that he had obtained an arrest warrant for Jackie Selebi? Should any suspicions roused by these events not be laid to rest? And if all this is also connected to the ongoing fraud investigation by the NPA’s special investigative arm into former deputy (and possible future) president Jacob Zuma, is it not the lack of clear answers that is the real destabilising influence?
This speaks to a broader canard about the media. It often stands accused of negativity, of being overly critical of government, and of therefore not being sufficiently patriotic or respectful of the wishes of the electorate. However, the role of the media is to shine a light on problems. We can all smile at success, or celebrate progress, but problems are where action is needed. Government — like the business world — will trumpet its own success loudly enough. Government failure is why the electorate needs independent, critical media coverage. That is what focuses effort on improving our society. So by pointing out failures, challenges and corruption, and by asking the tough questions, the media are not being unpatriotic. They’re not out to undermine the legitimate ruling party. They’re not being overly negative, or being unfair to the people of whom these questions are being asked. In reality, asking these questions is a sign of patriotism, of a desire to strengthen our democracy and governance. The most unpatriotic thing the media could possibly do is to discover something questionable and responding with a shrug.
I agree with you. Its and attitude of kill-the-messenger. Rather than look at the information and understand what it means, people get upset that the information was allowed to surface in the first place. For me, the occasional piece of incorrect reporting is the lesser of the two evils. Media censorship would put South Africa on a very questionable road - one the leads away from democracy.
The media is indeed on its right track. They’re really helping put a check on the government and the society in general. No matter what ill is spoken of them they should go on but should actually find out more facts before publishing.