Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: And, also, Ma'am, you rather look at the FBJ as something that is an anti-thesis to what is happening, to what has been happening in the newsroom in the media houses, you should look at it as something, does that to do away with the status quo, because that is exactly why we decided to come up as one group.  Also, in order for the powers that, the proprietors to know that whenever they want to talk to black journalists, they can always go to a particular body, that is an identity, as opposed to the previous when they would just pick up on their own little boys and girls and go and talk to them in privacy and later claiming to have spoken to a variety of black journalists.  I think that, in so far as us coming together, that make that kind of a selves.

UNKNOWN: Thank you very much for having come forward.  The questions which have been raised are raised because they are very, very important for the future of a media in this country for us and I will give you back to the Chair so that other Commissioners can ask you questions.

MR LEWIN: Could I just ask ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Hugh Lewin.

MR LEWIN: Thank you Mr Chair.  Could I just ask one question in relation to what we heard yesterday about the union side.  You are not, the FBJ is not a union.  That, do you have plans as part of this overall picture to move towards what we are all moving towards, national unity? Is that possible within the journalistic sphere, do you think?

MONDLI MAKHANYA: The national unity as in?

MR LEWIN: As in a unified union structure within journalism?

MONDLI MAKHANYA: Well, look, as I said the aims of the FBJ are dependant, the existence of the FBJ will, okay, let me start again. The aim of the FBJ is to effect change in the media structure in this country, to equip black journalists to be on the on the same par as their white counterparts, those of them who are good, obviously.  We hope that, at some future date, when all that has been achieved, there will be no need for an exclusively black organisation like the FBJ.  We will, if we are successful, we will work ourselves out of existence essentially and that will also be dependent on how the media institutions, how quick they are in implementing change, in co-operation with us.

MR LEWIN: And do you, do you agree with the point that was made yesterday that one of the prime areas for change, where change needs to be introduced as soon as possible is at the top in terms both of ownership and also structures.  It is not just the need for a ground swell within news rooms.

MONDLI MAKHANYA: Yes, we do agree with that, because at this point change and, unfortunately, change has got to be driven from the top and at this point in time the top is white.  So, you have change that is being driven by white owners of, white owners and white managers of predominantly white institutions. So we are basically objects of that change, we are not subjects of it.  So, yes, I, we do agree that it has also got to start at the top.

MR LEWIN: Thanks Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Burton.

MARY BURTON: Thank you Chairperson, Morning.

MONDLI MAKHANYA: Morning.

MARY BURTON: The years of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are covering the 1960 to 1994 period, were characterised by increasingly stringent legislation which affected all journalists and, perhaps, particularly black journalists.  As you have identified that was compounded very often by ownership and editorial policies.  I would like you to say where you think the balance lies between those two different forces impacting on the lives of journalists and then, also, arising from that, where does one put ones energies into finding a better way?  Are we looking at better legislation, for example, freedom of information legislation, but also protection of sources, that sort of thing and I would like to know whether the FBJ is working on that and, you have already talked about the question of addressing the matter of ownership.  Thank you.

MONDLI MAKHANYA: What are the two forces you alluded to at the beginning?

MARY BURTON: The legislation, on the one hand, and then editorial policy within media, on the other.

MONDLI MAKHANYA: Well, in our submission we do state that the legislation did play a very vital role in hindering the free flow of information during those days and, but that is an excuse that is used by people who ran the media at the time for not, an excuse for not having gone further in exposing the atrocities and the injustices that were happening in the country.	The media houses could have gone much further in exposing police brutality in townships, for instance, and they chose not to, they deliberately chose not to.  They could have done much more to challenge those very acts which inhibited the press from doing its job, they chose not to do that.  They, in fact, went into agreements with the Government to prevent the free flow of information and, so essentially the onus lay mostly with the media houses themselves. The Government was an unjust Government, it was an illegitimate Government, it was an oppressive Government and it was expected of them to implement legislation which would restrict the free flow of information.  So, the onus was on media houses to come and challenge that and we saw towards the end of the 80's, the emergence of the alternative press, newspapers which were poor, which had no resources, which had no monies, but which did much more than the much better monied main stream institutions, The Sun, The Argus, The Naspers' of this world.	In challenging Emergency Laws, for instance, we remember in the 80's papers like The New Nation and The Weekly Mail which would push the bounds to the utmost limits, things which main stream newspapers, huge newspapers were not prepared to do. So, that, I think, was the greatest hinderance to press freedom of the time.  In so far as legislation was concerned, yes, it played a key role.  Things like Section 205, things like the Restrictive Emergency Laws, they and various other security legislation but I do not think it was the key thing. The key thing was that the press houses were quite happy with the status quo while the mouthed opposition to it, they were not in a situation of discomfort with the situation in the country.  They were in a situation of discomfort in so far as it impacted on the bottom line, not in so far as there was an unjust system around them.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Commissioner Burton.  Let me just ask one question.  What is your view of the Times Media Limited with regard to ownership and leadership?

MONDLI MAKHANYA: Okay, there is a man sitting in this room, we do ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: And I will not ask them to recuse themselves.