Special Hearings — Media Hearings — 1997-09-15

LOUIS RAUBENHEIMER: Before concluding and answering that question may I just raise something which I haven't mentioned, namely, that even "Kommentaar" or comment, or editorial comment, which for many years were regarded as the propaganda mouthpiece of the SABC in my opinion not only had a negative role for those who did experience it as very negative, earlier on in the day it was referred to by Bishop Tutu I think, it was stated that couldn't the SABC instead of referring to terrorism and revolutionary activities have used more toned-down terminology, because it was part of the struggle to some people and therefore this type of terminology choice could be experienced as very negative, but the policy guidelines which I read to you earlier within which we operated and also the terminology that the SABC used, yet I would state for the record that editorial comment and "kommentaar" over the past few years, or the last few years when I was responsible made an undeniable positive contribution to making the people of this country aware of the fact that it was essential to have legitimate, permanent negotiations.  That it was essential to have leaders set free, legitimate leaders who were in prison and similar statements were made in those programmes.  This was not necessarily government policy at the time but these were things that were requirements to get a process on the way to a long term solution underway.  If you would allow me then I would later on like to repeat this by way of a presentation that I will make to you.  To return to your question about what the greatest problems were and how I would recommend they be avoided in the future, Mr Chair that's a very difficult question because the circumstances were so totally different from the present.  I have stated that one of the problems I experienced was the fact that there was a very meagre and inadequate flow of information of what was really going on in the country that was available to the journalists of the time.  Our most important sources of news for the writing of these editorial comments and other background talks were the news items to which the SABC subscribed, the agencies like SAPA etc, which came through per fax on a daily basis.  And I must admit that one of our most important sources of news were the newspapers.  But the real news as it had come to the fore before this Commission I didn't have ready access to, and in hindsight you may accuse me of being very naive, but these were the sources of the news available to us at the time, and that I would like to think as the single most important shortcoming and problem at the time which we as journalists experienced.    And if I could then here plead for something, whether it be the SABC or the written news media, must gain free and full access to a free flow of news and that in no way, by way of legislation or otherwise, any limitation should again be placed or a hindrance be placed in the way of the free flow of news at grassroots level throughout the country.  Secondly, it is obviously true that we functioned within the legislation of the country at the time, the emergency measures of the time which were the product of what was then experienced as the total onslaught, and as one of my predecessors, people who acted here before me would request that whatever we do in this country we should see to it that that kind of emergency measure will never apply again to the media, so that the media will not be hampered in that manner again.  I was a middle management official at the time, not a senior manager and it is therefore very difficult to talk further about the internal organisation or speculate about how things could have progressed differently and perhaps I should stop at those few comments.

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you very much Mr Raubenheimer, I have got no further questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Hugh.

MR LEWIN: Mr Raubenheimer thank you very much for answering the questions.  Could I ask some very specific questions and also one broad question because what puzzles me from your testimony is that you give the impression of, I would almost call it, a culture of comfort within the SABC which you have described in terms of the guidelines and how you reacted to them and how you executed them. And this was a culture of comfort at a time when the country was actually in flames.  And how do you square the two?  How do you square that contradiction?  I mean did you find yourself self-censoring, if I could ask that question, censoring yourselves?

LOUIS RAUBENHEIMER: Mr Chairman I think it would be too strong to say that we all functioned within a culture of comfort.  I think in any news organisation within the broad framework of that organisation there are opportunities for completely various points of view.  I was aware, and I'm still aware of people within the SABC's news department whose political points of view were completely divergent.    One of the points of difference between the SABC's news department and the council of the SABC is about reflecting the degree of violence in the country.  The  news department's point of departure, and I can speak on their behalf because I was involved with the news department, the news department's point of departure was that the public should be informed about the violence in the country.  The council of the SABC with or without the intervention of the government, which I do not know about, they posed certain questions to the news department regarding the handling of the violence on radio and television.    In other words what I am trying to say is that there were certain arguments between the operational journalists of the day and the policy makers of the day about where the boundary was between the necessary reflection of news including violence which was reflectively amply in radio and TV, and on the other hand propaganda in favour of violence.  As far as I know there was an intense debate about where the boundary was.  The standpoint of the news department was that the public should be fully informed, they should know what was going on and this does not mean that the reflecting violence through the news agency of the SABC would be endorsed, but that it was a necessity to portray it to the public.  You may experience it as a culture of comfort but within that environment I have described there was a certain degree of difference between where the boundaries should be.

MR LEWIN: Could I ask, then you talk about this borderline between the two, do you think that - well two questions, do you think that politics, your own politics, your own political awareness or your own political affiliations plays a part in news?    And then going on from that do you think that the SABC's news coverage, say during the eighties, the mid-eighties, do you think that that was satisfactory, either thinking of it at the time or thinking of it now looking back?

LOUIS RAUBENHEIMER: Mr Chairman I can say unequivocally that I think the SABC's handling of news during those times you are referring to was completely inadequate.  But I have also sketched the circumstances within which we had to operate and the absence of the reality, of the political reality during those circumstances.  If you would ask me, disregarding the framework or irrespective of the framework of that time to look back in hindsight of the influence of the flow of news from the SABC to the public, in other words if you are asking me to practice hindsight, I would like to state categorically that I think it was a tragedy that the public was not informed as to what actually happened in this country. But then again that does not apply only to the SABC, at least to a certain extent and I wouldn't like to elaborate on that, at least to a certain extent it also applies to the print and other media of this country.  But certainly that was a tragic part of our history.