Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mazwai.  Mary?

MARY BURTON: Thank you Chairperson.  Mr Qwelane, you charged the media houses with a series of human rights violations and backed up your charges with some very grave allegations.  Charges of denying information to the public, of discrimination based on race and on different political loyalties, like the example you used about military involvement and on the selection of news for the different aspects of the newspaper.  You also charged the media houses with colluding with the State in this and I think we have to listen to this very, with great interest and seriousness. 	And Mr Mazwai, you have endorsed much of what Mr Qwelane has said and you have also pointed to the ongoing difficulties for independent journalists and the importance of maintaining that in the future.  I think, for us on the Commission, it will be important to look at ways in which we can recommend that these aspects to which you have drawn attention should be encouraged for the future.  You referred to the banning of The World, I think that was in 1977, am I right?

THAMI MAZWAI: Yes.

MARY BURTON: And I certainly remember when Mr Gqoboza came to Cape Town to speak to the Government to warn them of the impending crisis in Soweto and in return was, in fact, chastised for encouraging such action.  It does seem that the banning of The World did have an impact on the concern of other newspapers as the country went into the 80's with increasing suppression of news, that, probably, newspapers were afraid that the same thing would happen to them.  What would you think that they could have done differently in those circumstances?

JON QWELANE: I simply believe that, thank you very much, Mr Chairman.  I believe that if what they were parading all the time was principle as, indeed, they have told us they have principles and they stick to principles.  If you have principle and you are as principled as the ladies and gentlemen of South Africa's mainstream media love telling us, then you should be prepared to go the extra mile for such principle.  In the 80's when the Government came with media curbs, it was not the newspapers that challenged them, it was the unions.  We knew then that the Natal bench was a lot more lenient in its interpretation of the emergency regulations.  Much more lenient under the "verkrampte" bench here in the former Transvaal.	So, unions took the Government to court to court to do what the media, themselves, should have done.  That was the essence of it and, of course, later the Jimmy come lately's of the media jumped on the bandwagon and claimed then that they had challenged the curbs when, in fact, they had not.  To answer the question, I think they should have done much more than the pittance they did.

THAMI MAZWAI: Yes, and I think that after the banning of The World newspaper and Weekend World in 1977, The Star carried a story in which it had decried the, it decried the banning of The World, but it was a significant sentence in the editorial that appeared on the front page which said that we, at The Star, always felt that The World had really gone beyond their bounds of responsible journalism.  Now, if at all your sister newspaper can go, now I am not, this is not a direct quote, but this was the sense of what they were saying.  Now, if your own sister newspapers can go, can say that about when you have been banned, it clearly illustrates to you that, it clearly illustrates the mindset in the media at the time.	Therefore, once if the mindset in the media, at the time, has been that, I mean, that, is that the ANC is a terrorist organisation, the PAC is a terrorist organisation, MK are terrorists and so on.  So, therefore, they did not have it in themselves to take actions that would really make them newspapers South Africa could be proud of.  Lastly, I think that really, I mean, that the Government could go for a black newspaper was really, I mean, it was testing the water.  The white newspapers could have continued in the same vein that The World was going and I doubt if the Government would have had the guts, after the outrage by the international community, the Government of the time would not have had the guts to also close a white newspaper, because the Government was trying to deny that there is a crisis, was telling South Africa that things are normal.  It would not be able that things are normal if it closes down a paper like The Star.	So, they did not go far enough in, and I, and with hindsight, I can agree that they did not go far enough, because if one has got to have an analogy, use an analogy,  you do not expect journalists, a white journalist who has been a journalist for 15 years and he is looking forward to being appointed an assistant editor and there is only one vacancy and then because of affirmative action, that position is given to a black journalist.  You do not expect that white journalist to go about singing the praises of affirmative action.  This is the similar situation that the newspapers of the time found themselves.  Newspapers are not objects, the people in newspapers are people and these people were part of the conflict in South Africa and because of the colour of their skin, they were the recipients, they were the people who got the privileges that the apartheid State was dispensing.	Therefore, those people could not, in all honesty, be expected to vigorously fight the hand that gives them these privileges.  So, these newspapers did not have it in them, because their beneficiaries to challenge the media as they should have done.

MARY BURTON: Thank you very much.  I have no further questions, Chair.

THAMI MAZWAI: Rather, to challenge the State as they should have done.  I am sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lewin?

MR LEWIN: Mr Chairman, if I could just raise one point, accepting all that we have heard, one point that I do not think has been raised.  There were, during the or during the run up to the election, there were a couple of very disturbing incidents that took place both in the East Rand in the KwaZulu Natal where the community showed a definite antagonism to journalists and a certain rejection of journalists and the role of the journalists.  Now, there is the old sore about journalists being in the same status as or being second only to second-car salesmen.  Do you think that what you have described, the way in which black journalists, particularly, were denigrated all the time, how they were demeaned in society, do you think that there has been or there is a correlation between the two and is it a danger that we need to face in the future?