Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

LAWRENCE CLARK: Thank your Mr Ramaphosa.  Our submission places on record what we believe is a proud record of keeping the South African public informed and defending human rights.  Indeed, when I joined the company in 1985 I personally felt very, very proud that I was working for a company which I believed was helping to bring about the much needed change in the country.  We are, however, not arguing that SAAN, TML and its publications were uniformly excellent or equally outspoken.  Perfection is something that many aspire to, but no one ever achieves.  Of course, there were errors of judgement, but we believe the contribution to change made by our papers far outweighs any errors.  On balance, TML was a positive force for change in South Africa and a staunch critic of apartheid.	In particular, we reject any allegation that these papers colluded with the Nationalist Government.  On the contrary, we consistently advocated political change and we did so in the following ways.  We opposed every piece of legislation that heightened oppression, repression or eroded human rights and exposed the consequences of such legislation.  We acted as a safety valve by encouraging dialogue rather than conflict.  We demonstrated daily that not all whites supported apartheid, thus, keeping alive ideals of a just society.  We tried to give dignity to all in South Africa.  Indeed, Mr Mazwai, who testified just before us, then the News Editor of The Sowetan wrote of The Rand Daily Mail in April 1985.  It was the first paper to regard blacks as people.	We provided a communication bridge between polarised communities.  We challenged lying official versions of events such as the Soweto uprising, the death of Steve Biko, Boipatong, the Guguletu Seven and the Uitenhage massacre.  We refused to cower before Nationalist bullying.  We pioneered investigative reporting in South Africa and we provided a platform for courageous and ingenious journalists to chip away at the edifice of apartheid.  For example, for every example where TML newspapers failed in these respects, many more examples can be found of where they succeeded.  	I would like to address the question of editorial culture.  Editorial independence was a golden rule at TML during the days under review and remain so today.  The ethos of SAAN TML has, for decades, been pro-democracy, pro-free market, liberal and anti-apartheid.  Beyond that broad company philosophy, directors and managers do not influence the editors.  Managers do not tell the editors what to write.  They have not done so in the past and they do not do so today.  Thus, SAAN TML, above all the other newspaper groups has bred what Rex Gibson, a former Editor of The Rand Daily Mail and Sunday Express, calls a unique journalistic culture in which a commitment to editorial independence bred generations of editors who were principled, stubborn and doggedly individualistic.  	For example, on the referendum on P W Botha's constitutional reforms, SAANS Johannesburg publications split.  Two urging a yes vote and two a no.  Many people find it difficult to believe, to this day, that the directors and managers do not instruct the editors, but it is true, as the editors here would be able to testify.	The question of the Government.  We must remember that the pursuit of truth took place in the face of a deeply hostile Government.  Ever increasing repressive legislation, several States of Emergency, constant threats of closure, which were very real, bannings or censorship and sustained Government attacks on the English press and TML newspapers in particular.  We did not doubt the willingness of Government to act against the media if given the chance.  Thus, our editors sought to operate within the Law, but looked constantly for loopholes.  Included in our submission is a letter from our long time legal adviser, Mr David Hoff, of Bell Dewar and Hall, who is a co-author of what was known as the Journalist's Bible, namely the newspapers man, newspaper man's guide to the Law, which details the more than 100 Laws which restrained and handcuffed the press.	In his letter Mr Hoff states there was consensus from SAAN TML editors that boundaries of free speech and open debate were to be pushed to the limits and that Bell Dewar and Hall was enjoined to find a way to publish material rather than merely prohibit it.  He continues that during the States of Emergency that prevailed during the 80's, the considered position taken by SAAN TML editors was that the Emergency Laws and regulations were not only unenforceable through vagueness, but were morally illegitimate.  They were, accordingly, largely disregarded and the Law was broken on many occasions, but as a broad principle, SAAN TML tried to act within the Law for two reasons.  	Firstly, it would have been foolhardy to poke a finger into the eye of the Government crocodile which was looking for reasons to close us down and, secondly, as directors we had a fiduciary responsibility to protect interests of our shareholders.  	The question of persecution of editors and journalists.  The fact is that, notwithstanding what I have just said, SAAN TML enjoyed legal persecution at the hands of Government.  Nearly all of SAAN or TML's editors endured prosecution.  Some on numerous occasions for what they published. Some had criminal records arising from executing their professional duties.  At least four were convicted of crimes for publishing what the State wished to hide and at least six journalists were jailed.  Proof of the dedication of journalists and editors can be found in an international recognition of the courage displayed by our newspapers in those days, with a number of Major Global Press Awards going to our publications.	It is often overlooked that our newspapers played a major role in breaking down apartheid not just in eloquent leader columns, but by reporting facts.  We exposed the myth of apartheid by reporting issues such as torture in cells, deaths in detention, Steve Biko's head wound, political assassinations, the Broederbond's sinister influence, massive malnutrition in so-called homelands, prison abuse, forced removals and many, many more immoralities of apartheid.  The result was that we were subjected to a continual barrage of threat, criticism and harassment from Government and many examples are listed in our submission, pages 22 and 23.  	At the end of the day, we fought to stay open and to continue publishing rather than throw ourselves on our own swords.  We believed, and still do, that we served the public interest better this way.  We, thus, strenuously reject any suggestion that our newspapers or our company aided or abetted Government or its agents in perpetrating gross violations of human rights, but there were weaknesses.  We do not suggest that our record was perfect.  There are certainly examples of imperfection and of insensitive and incorrect reporting.  Indeed, with the benefit of hindsight, some of these errors, and I believe they were genuine errors, today seem indefensible, but there was never collusion with Government or moral of support of apartheid.	There was timidity and there were errors made in the heat of the moment.  For it must be remembered that the production of a newspaper is not a measured, leisurely activity.  It is a frantic, nightly rush against deadlines where decisions are taken in haste and, often, with incomplete facts.  The point is that SAAN TML editors were never instructed by their employers to tone it down politically.  	With regard to the editors.  It brings us to the question of the dismissal of editors.  Several editors of prominent publications were, indeed, dismissed by the Board, but this was for commercial and not for political reasons.  This is underscored by the fact that their replacements were people who generally shared the same liberal anti-apartheid views.  	No examination of the role of media during this era is possible without touching on the closure of The Rand Daily Mail.  I was not a member of the Board at the time, but joined the company as Financial Manager in December 1985, some eight months after the closure of The Mail.  What was clear to me then was that SAAN was nearly bankrupt and the closure was an act of economic survival.  The Board had to stem the massive losses being incurred daily by The Rand Daily Mail and, thus, keep the companies other publications alive to continue their fight.  Could The Mail have been saved?  Perhaps, but we will never know.  The reality is that it was not and South Africa, thus, lost a great and campaigning newspaper, but I have not come across anything in my 11 years with SAAN TML that suggests that the decision to close it was made for anything other than commercial reasons.	I would like to, at this stage, hand over to Neil Jacobson, so as to save you from the boredom of my monotone.