Thloloe is SA press ombudsman
JOE THLOLOE
If anybody, including a tribunal, limits the freedom of the media, they will be limiting all citizens’ freedom of expression, all citizens’ rights
the Commission for Gender Equality, the SABC, the Human Rights Commission and the Independent Communications Authority of SA in Johannesburg on Media Freedom Day, October 19, recommended the resumption of discussions on the establishment of a media tribunal and a media charter.
The ANC’s 2007 Polokwane conference resolution on communications was thus given a new lease of life — this time not by politicians, but by “civil society”, with the ostensible blessing of respected institutions.
A few days later about 100 people gathered at an Amandla Media Forum in Johannesburg and heard more anger against the media. These are rumblings that the media and the country need to pay attention to.
I do understand the sentiments behind the resolutions at the October 19 commemoration. Many who have ostensibly been liberated for over 15 years, the majority in our country, still feel marginalised: they are desperate to see the fruits of that liberation.
They ask why they are still without jobs, houses, proper toilets and running water. And they will obviously ask questions such as: why am I not reflected in the media? Why is my voice still suppressed? Has anything changed in the media industry? Why do I have to travel many kilometres to get a newspaper?
The answers, unfortunately, are not to be found in knee-jerk responses that go against the very constitution that liberated us. We need to start with a sober analysis of where we are and why we are there, and then search for solutions that don’t trash the very foundation of our liberation.
The constitution says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.” This means that in our new democracy no action will be taken against people or publications because government or some sections of our society don’t agree with their opinions. I might hold a different opinion from yours; but we both have the right to express those opinions.
The only limitations the constitution lays down is that my opinion must not be propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
Our constitution has created this marketplace of ideas. The freedom of expression that the constitution guarantees includes “freedom of the press and other media”. Looked at in another way, if anybody limits the freedom of the media, he or she will be limiting all citizens’ freedom of expression, all citizens’ rights. We would be resurrecting Jimmy Kruger, who closed the World, the Weekend World, Pro Veritate and 19 black consciousness organisations in October 1977.
If anybody tells the press what they may or may not publish, he or she is taking away the editor’s freedom to decide this. This limits ordinary citizens’ freedom of expression.
A statutory media tribunal, as proposed at the ANC’s Polokwane conference, and resuscitated at the October 19 forum, suggests a code to be imposed on the media from the outside. This differs radically from the current SA Press Code, which was not imposed but voluntarily adopted by close to 700 publications, ranging from tiny community papers to major national newspapers and magazines.
As press ombudsman I can hold them to what they have publicly chosen to do. That is the logic of freedom of expression and our country’s constitution.
The country needs to explore more effective ways of addressing the concerns about media in our society.
