TRC Final Report

Volume 4

Chapter 6

Subsection 3

■ THE PRINT MEDIA

The English-language press

39 The commercial newspaper industry had its origins in colonialism and was modelled on its British equivalent. From the early twentieth century, mining capital played an increasingly dominating role in the newspaper industry. Although there were a number of independent papers, these were gradually swallowed up by the two main publishing houses: the Argus Printing and Publishing Company (now Independent Newspapers) and South African Associated Newspapers (SAAN) – now Times Media (TML). In 1920, these two publishing houses agreed to split the market between them, leaving the morning papers to SAAN and the evening papers to the Argus Group. Even so, the relationship was fairly incestuous: for example, the Argus Group was the single biggest shareholder in SAAN. Anglo-American had effective control over both newspaper groups.

40 During the period under review, the publishing houses reflected the broader apartheid structures. Ownership was exclusively white. The term ‘opposition press’, used to describe the English-language press, was a misnomer. Within this then bi-polar world, there was only one viewpoint propounded in the mainstream press and that was a capitalist perspective. Independent, black, liberal, socialist and Communist publications were either banned or folded under commercial pressure, while the so-called mainstream press prospered and grew.

41 In later years, ‘township editions’ became an integral part of the English press. There are differing opinions as to the credibility of these publications, which carried news felt by white management to be appropriate for ‘people of colour’. On a par with these township versions were the papers owned by the publishing houses aimed at the black market. Until such time as black editors edited the latter, and interference by white management diminished, the content of these papers was also determined by white perceptions of what they believed black people wanted to read.

42 This focus on very specific black-white issues tended to dominate the hearings. Surprisingly, most of the testimony – and most of the discussion about the print media – centred on the role of the so-called ‘liberal’ or ‘opposition’ English-language papers, their stance vis-à-vis apartheid, and conditions for black journalists working on those papers. Other issues tended to take second place to the expressions of anger and frustration felt by black journalists. Although these feelings were previously known, the extent of the anger felt and the pain endured had not, before this hearing, been clearly expressed. Nor had they been properly understood by whites in the media, who showed considerable insensitivity in their inability to empathise with their black colleagues.

43 Despite the criticisms of the English mainstream press under apartheid, many came to its defence. Former SAUJ president Pat Sidley said that, although a great disservice was done by a number of individuals and a couple of institutions, there were many – fellow journalists and a few editors – who did a great deal to open up thought-processes in the public mind. There are a number of examples of this. One well-known incident was when Tony Heard, then editor of the Cape Times, published an interview with Oliver Tambo on 4 November 1985. Quoting banned persons was illegal in terms of the Internal Security Act (of 1982 as amended). Heard reported that SAAN eventually offered him a severance agreement and, when he refused it, he was fired on August 1987.¹

44 Jon Qwelane, the most severe critic of the mainstream media, acknowledged that it was the English-language newspapers whose journalists demonstrated “periodic flashes of courage and brilliance” by exposing the gross injustices perpetrated by the system of apartheid. He cited examples such as reporting on the inhumane conditions in South Africa’s prisons, the Information (‘Info’) scandal, the unmasking of the Civil Co-operation Bureau (CCB) and the exposure of Vlakplaas.

45 Cyril Ramaphosa, chairperson of TML and previously a unionist and anti-apartheid leader, agreed that English newspapers in the main played a courageous role, imparting information when the government was trying to restrict it. He also paid tribute to specific journalists who focussed on the struggles of ordinary people.

46 SAUJ president Sam Sole said his organisation believed that there had been serious shortcomings in the mainstream English press regarding their coverage of apartheid and the forces opposing it. Many of these shortcomings were the result of institutional weaknesses rather than personal culpability. He said that media institutions were, both then and now, weakened by fragmentation, especially along racial lines.

47 In its submission, TML argued that it had challenged the versions of “lying officials” on events such as the Soweto uprisings, the death of Steve Biko, Boipatong, the ‘Gugulethu Seven’ and the ‘Uitenhage massacre’. It claimed that its papers had refused to cower before NP bullying and had pioneered investigative reporting in South Africa. The papers had also provided a platform from which courageous and ingenious journalists could chip away at the edifice of apartheid.

48 Journalist and editor Moegsien Williams said the English press was an opposition press in the sense of white sectarian politics only:

49 Thami Mazwai cited an example of mainstream “media hypocrisy”. After the banning of The World in 1977, The Star’s editorial decried the banning but said it had always felt that The World had gone too far in terms of journalistic responsibility. There was also a feeling that the government would go for a black newspaper and ban it, but would not ban a white paper because parliamentary politics continued to dominate political coverage over the years. Parliament, Mazwai reminded Commissioners, was one of the few censorship-free zones in South Africa.

Accusations by black journalists

50 The following accusations from black journalists were collected from pre-hearing submissions and evidence at the hearing, and are listed by way of a checklist against which current practices can be measured.

a Terminology: newspapers used terms such as ‘terrorist’ instead of ‘guerrilla’ to describe those fighting the liberation struggle.

b A selective approach: stories that made the police look like villains were spiked or rewritten. Furthermore, the black journalist’s version of a story was always questioned. Stories featuring whites were given preference to those that involved blacks, even if the latter were more newsworthy.

c Two days leave or pay was deducted when black journalists went on a march. White journalists were never penalised for protesting.

d There was an acceptance of the restrictions on the media under the states of emergency. Consequently, other organisations were left to challenge them.

e The actions of senior newspaper personnel suggested they were happy with curbs. For example, there were constant angry admonitions to ‘tone down’ or ‘be objective’, even though the stories were 100 per cent true. Numerous stories were spiked because they highlighted police and army atrocities in the townships.

f Even legal protests by black people were denied space in the papers.

g There was a lack of training for black journalists, and a denial of promotion because of lack of training.

h There were allegations that the apartheid mindset and hypocrisy continue to the present day.

i Hypocrisy of management: editorials decried apartheid, while practising it against black staff with regard to facilities and salaries.

51 An interesting addendum to the problems faced, particularly by black journalists, emerged in the accounts of what happened in the 1980s when the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) were at war with each other. Tremendous pressures were put on black journalists by both sides involved in the dispute, making them terrified to write anything about the feud.

52 This lack of reporting had an unfortunate corollary. The communities concerned saw that their journalists were not reporting honestly and accurately on black issues and turned against them.