TRC Final Report

Volume 4

Chapter 6

Subsection 12

14 The Argus Group and its editors supported the amendments, believing them to be an effort to keep control of the press in the face of the threatened legislation. SAAN editors opposed them, as did most local chapels of the South African Society of Journalists (SASJ).

15 On 21 August 1976, the agreement between the NPU and the Commissioner of SAP was signed.

16 Early in 1977, NPU was given copies of a proposed Newspaper Press Bill, which it rejected out of hand, after which talks with the government broke down. (Some view this move as the first time that the Afrikaans and English press were united in their opposition). Undeterred, Vorster persisted and, through threats, eventually achieved the desired effect: the NPU’s undertaking to include much of the legislation in its own revised code of conduct.

17 On 19 October, the government declared eighteen anti-apartheid organisations unlawful and more than fifty black leaders – mainly from the Black Consciousness Movement – were arrested. A large number of black journalists were also arrested. The UBJ was banned.

18 In November, a NPU delegation met the prime minister and other cabinet ministers to voice the NPU’s strong objections to the Press Council being empowered to act in a “preventative way”, its unwillingness to control in any way foreign correspondents in South Africa, its objections to a government appointed chair of the press council, its objection to allowing the Press Council to prohibit a report on the basis of a complaint, and others.

19 In 1978, in a NPU delegation meeting with the SAP, a system for accrediting senior journalists was discussed and a memo prepared by Tom Vosloo was circulated. SAAN’s general manager Raymond Louw, however, challenged the right of an NPU delegation to accept suggestions without the approval of the executive council. He noted that the accreditation system would censor and allow the police to keep certain kinds of information from the public by creating a circle of “in-people”:

20 Leading representatives of the Afrikaans press called for fewer and not more restrictions on the press in their representations to the Steyn Commission. Once again, the white press appeared to be united on an issue.

21 On 17 September 1980, amendments to the agreement between the Minister of Defence and the NPU were signed. The new agreement set up a joint liaison committee to meet at least once a month “to consider matters of policy and principle” including the amendment of the agreement itself. The agreement provided that the press “must abide by” any request by the defence minister that “no reference should be made to the fact that he had been approached and refused to comment, as even a ‘no comment’ reply could embarrass him”. Additionally, the Minister of Defence was given a right of pre-publication comment. The guidelines further provided that reporters “should understand that there are to be no arguments with the Minister or the [relevant] officers on matters that have leaked out somewhere in their publication. A request that a report or comment should not appear is accepted as such.” In 1980, participation in this agreement was extended to the state-owned arms company, ARMSCOR, which was given a seat on the liaison committee.

22 On 12 August 1981 the NPU-police agreement was amended.

23 In the prior discussions, there appears to have been widespread unease about the increased powers given to the police. In a circular to members, the NPU notes that the NPU delegation which negotiated the final agreement included three editors, and that all were satisfied that the new agreement was the best possible and in several respects an improvement on the previous one. It notes that there was strenuous resistance to attempts to compel editors to disclose names of sources. The circular encourages members to test the agreement, and reminds them that there is no statutory backing for it.

24 In 1981 PW Botha made a veiled threat in parliament:

...we have a right to be proud of the large measure of freedom which the press continues to enjoy here... But I wish to repeat my appeal... Let those who, in common with myself and the government, value sound working relationships between the public, the press and the authorities in South Africa, now offer their co-operation to help put an end to certain abuses which have become unbearable and a threat to the nation.

25 In response to the Steyn Commission, the government tabled a Journalists' Bill in Parliament. It was vehemently opposed by the NPU. After five months of bargaining between the Minister of the Interior, Chris Heunis and the NPU, government withdrew the Bill. The proposed Journalists’ Bill would have required all journalists to be listed on a "roll of journalists". They would need certain qualifications and have to pass certain examinations in order to practise. No one who had been convicted of "any subversive activity" would be allowed to practise as a journalist. Black journalists would have been particularly vulnerable.

26 The NPU then agreed to set up a new Media Council, this time with the powers to reprimand and fine journalists, though not strike them from a register. The government would formally recognise this body. Peter McLean, chair of the NPU, said that the support shown by Afrikaans publishers was decisive in this compromise.

27 In July 1982, the Registration of Newspapers Amendment Act was passed. Key provisions were that the Minister of Internal Affairs could cancel the registration of newspapers if the publishers did not subject themselves for disciplinary purposes to the NPU's new media council. However, in February 1983 Minister of Home Affairs, FW de Klerk, said that the government would keep its promulgation in abeyance to give the South African Media Council — planned by the NPU and the Conference of Editors — a chance to prove itself.

28 On 1 November 1983, the South African Media Council was established. The SABC, the SASJ and MWASA all declined to become members. At its November congress, the South African Students Press Union (SASPU) opposed the establishment of the Council.

29 On 2 November 1985, emergency regulations were published which effectively outlawed television coverage of township unrest. Print journalists would only be allowed to cover these events if they were accredited, and had to be escorted by the police.

30 On 12 June 1986, a national state of emergency was declared with new regulations severely limiting the freedom of newspaper journalists and editors as well as photographers and radio and television broadcasters. During this time, the government, in discussions with the NPU and the Media Council, was attempting to persuade the mainstream press to submit itself to a revised Media Council code of conduct in exchange for exemption from the emergency regulations. Within the NPU, proprietors were willing to do so, while some editors were not. Consequently, it informed the government that it could not agree on the proposed changes to the Media Council constitution.

31 The government’s efforts to tempt the NPU into this agreement were seen – along with the confidential discussions between government and the NPU – as part of a strategy to secure the support of mainstream newspapers against the vigorous alternative press.

32 On 11 June 1987, the state of emergency was re-imposed. Police powers in this emergency were substantially augmented. The partially successful attacks on the media regulations of the 1986 emergency led to restrictions being reintroduced in the 1987 regulations.

33 On 22 July 1988, at a meeting called by the Anti-Censorship Action Group and The Save the Press Campaign, it was agreed that journalists and agencies who registered in terms of the latest emergency media regulations could be considered government agents.

34 On 9 June 1989, the state of emergency was reimposed. Media regulations similar to those of 1988 were promulgated. They were perceived to be the “application of prior censorship in its most stringent form."