Special Hearings — Media Hearings — 1997-09-15

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you Mr Pretorius.  You indicated that you were the Tuinhuis correspondent at some stage, I think during the presidency of Mr P W Botha, do you want to share just some of your, or what your role was, some of your experiences in that regard?

JOHAN PRETORIUS: I can do that Sir.  If you remember correctly there was this altercation between the then President and the previous Director General. Now without going into details but this soured the relations between the SABC and the State President and by implication the whole state apparatus to such an extent, it was a total mess. And then because I'd known him at that stage, I'd known him very, very well, we'd also come through - I myself as a journalist and he as a newsmaker, we'd come through some difficult times together, not as buddies in the National Party but as newsmaker- a journalist, and I think we respected each other and we understood each other. We differed on many things and I think I was just about the only one who could tell him, and I don't want to sound 'grootbek', but I could tell him, I won't to say go to hell but I could tell him, no, and that is one of the reasons that I was asked by the SABC to go down to Cape Town and to sort out the situation, number one, to become the correspondent, the so-called Tuinhuis correspondent and to then make sure that unnecessary  hassles don't arise. It was part of the managing set-up the, or not the set-up of managing the politicians and in the end it worked I think very well. At the beginning it was a bit of a problem but in the end it worked reasonably well and there was nothing like that ever again. Okay, you must believe me now but nowhere along the line since the 14th of August, I think I went down there the 14th of August '87, was there anything like that again.  So it was a managing exercise which sorted it out - it never happened again.

<UNKNOWN>: That's quite an unusual relationship or an instruction or mandate I should imagine to, in a sense, almost make sure that the President is happy.

JOHAN PRETORIUS: No it was not a case of the President is happy, no, no by implication fine, yes but not that the President is happy.  No it was to keep the lines, you see it was to keep the lines open because we as the public broadcaster in those days or the state broadcaster, we had to have access to news and information, and at that stage the relations were so soured through no reason within the control of the journalists, that we had to try everything to open up the lines of communication. That was the main reason. Okay, people read many things into that, yes and I had a hard time, I mean I couldn't show my face sometimes and when I got down there people started doing tsk, tsk, tsk, and shaking their heads you see but in the end it worked out fine, with hindsight it worked out fine.

<UNKNOWN>: But would you say, I mean that's an undesirable sort of role that is thrust upon a broadcaster in the position of the SABC?

JOHAN PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, yes, considering the circumstances, it is, you know the reason why, yes, it is undesirable, totally undesirable because you're placing a heavy, heavy burden on the person who has to do this. And then the newsmaker also has a torrid time because then he has to also adjust his own way of doing things and it's not a very, very advisable thing to do.  What is very good, however, and the principle is not unique to any one country, it's like that all over, in the United States you have your White House correspondents as you know, you have the correspondents who cover Westminster in Britain and the people get to know, they get to trust the journalists and it's all a matter of trust.  Once you have trust between a journalist who has been doing the rounds for a long time and the politician can see he's got integrity, then things calm down, there's no problem. But they get jittery, and any politician does this when he gets the idea that there is a journalist around him who, let's say is irresponsible or is incompetent or whatever the reason, so it is under those circumstances definitely undesirable.

<UNKNOWN>: In that particular stage, sort-of reinforces the perception that the Corporation is manipulated; the Corporation hasn't got a mind of its own; the Corporation is under the control of politicians, particularly the President and that sort of situation, it's also from that perspective that it appears to me as if it's something that one shouldn't encourage to be happening.

JOHAN PRETORIUS: I agree with you, I agree with you wholeheartedly Mr Chairman.  The fact is that you see we had to take decisions and we had to bring in remedial action in those times and as you know if you remember back, you know the, the -.  You see the whole style of government, the whole style of government in those days and my fellow journalists who were with me down there in the those days will remember, the style of government was so stifling, not from the President, I think he was a victim,  many times he was a victim of the people around him. I don't really think he wanted this to be like that, but it's the old story of power, absolute power and the people around him, the securocrats, we couldn't move into meetings down there without encountering a general in a civil service department in a meeting, you see. So the whole set up was stifling, but we had no choice, we had to somehow survive.

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you Mr Pretorius.

MR LEWIN: Just briefly Mr Chairman if I may. Mr Pretorius, I don't want to get involved in any further discussions about MMP and the rest, I just think I would like to recognise the role for instance that CID played in the transformation which has taken place within the SABC.

JOHAN PRETORIUS: CID?

MR LEWIN: Ja.  I mean there was a great, there was a very positive role that those organisations played in the transformation that we have seen over the last few years.

JOHAN PRETORIUS: The Media Monitoring Project?

MR LEWIN: That was one of the components.

JOHAN PRETORIUS: Alright. Yes I presume so, I presume, if they applied the same standards then I suppose it will.

MR LEWIN: No I'd like to take you up on two points, you say that it's impossible for us to get a full picture, I would agree with that.  It's very difficult for us. Would you have a suggestion as to how that picture should be found because it's obviously necessary as has been shown by the considerable debate that's come out around this hearing.

JOHAN PRETORIUS: Ugh, I don't know, beyond speaking to individuals concerned, I can't see how else you can do it, you know.

MR LEWIN: And then the question of the role of the journalist.  I'm very interested in the way you describe your own role and say that you moved towards saying that we managed these people, we had to manage these people. These people at that point were in fact on the one hand your bosses, on the other hand were fairly vacuous as far as their heads were concerned.  Is there not a contradiction there?  Is there not some greater role which SABC journalists did not play during these years of apartheid which they could have done?

JOHAN PRETORIUS: Yes there is.  Just to clarify or to answer your first question.  Maybe I didn't state it clearly or I didn't express myself clearly enough. What I said was, what I meant by managing was, you know like you manage a situation, external factors, external people, politicians. That's basically what I managed.  Inside the SABC, I mean I've got to be careful now because at one stage I was also one of the top management, yes I suppose it's to a lesser extent like you manage anything inside company politics. You know vis-a-vis groups and so I suppose in that sense it's also true, unless I misunderstood you, what you really wanted from me.   Then the second part of the question again?

MR LEWIN: Is the...(intervention)