TRC Final Report

Volume 4

Chapter 6

Subsection 8

■ CONCLUSION

100 The myriad of apartheid laws which controlled the media workplace may explain some of the racism black journalists experienced in the newsrooms of the major publishing houses. It would seem, however, that discrimination went way beyond what was required by apartheid legislation. Individual testimony to the Commission confirmed this, validating the allegations made by black journalists.

101 Evidence presented to the Commission tended to support what the Media Monitoring Project noted in its submission:

The English press, whilst predominantly positioning itself independently from the government, and significantly opposing the government in certain instances, continued to report within the political, social, and economic discourse defined by the apartheid state. The state legitimised itself within that discourse, and by not challenging its centrality or providing significant oppositional utterances to it, the English press wittingly or unwittingly validated the apartheid state.

102 Thus, even though some of the media may have opposed the government, the social and political system created by apartheid was sanctioned by the media. The media analysed society from inside that system and did not provide alternative perspectives and discourses from the outside.

103 As predicted by the chairperson of the Commission at the start of the media hearing, the absence of the Afrikaans press led to its being condemned as an extension and willing propaganda organ of apartheid.

104 By not reporting honestly on the human rights abuses of the NP government, the Afrikaans press as a whole stands condemned for promoting the superiority of whites and displaying an indifference to the sufferings of people of colour. Despite a limited number of individuals who rejected the system, and despite examples of resistance to the policy of slavish reporting on government and race related issues, exceptions to the long history of actively promoting the former state and its policies were minor ones. (Their heirs, significantly, made a significant gesture towards reconciliation by making personal submissions of regret following the absence of their employers from the hearing.)

105 At the SABC, a blatantly pro-government and apartheid institution, it did not come as a surprise that black people were treated so appallingly. Here management and staff went beyond anything that was laid down in law and gave their own racial prejudices free rein. The notorious section 14 may have provided a regulatory framework, but it did not direct white staff to behave in the manner in which they did. For instance, the practice of sjambokking staff – something that was not public knowledge before the media hearing — was abhorrent and will, it is hoped, be further investigated by the SABC itself.

106 The mainstream media also ignored the question of gender. This comment from the Independent Newspapers submission indicates just how unimportant the issue was perceived to be within the male enclave of management:

Why were there no women editors? The simple reason was society dictated it. There were no all-round women journalists. It was not that the newspapers kept them out, there were not any trained in society.

107 Asked about this comment at the hearing, the representative gave an inadequate response:

It is an enormous gap and I apologise for it. It is something I am extremely uncomfortable about and something, I think, we will in future work even harder to fill.

108 An additional point was made at the hearing. The influx of Rhodesians of a particular mindset at the time of Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980 contributed to reporting in the mainstream media which actively tried to advance the cause of white supremacy in the region.

109 The hearing underlined that the relationship between the government, the state and the media continues to be problematic. As one journalist put it:

I don't think we want to have a relationship with politicians, but I think the line should be open. I think in an age of transparency, we should be able to pick up the phone and ask for a statement. That is what we want. I don't think we are looking for a lovey-dovey relationship with politicians, no. As journalists, it is to report what is going on. But if there is a need for them to respond to our stories, then they should do so.

110 Two initial questions were asked before the media hearing began. Could the media under apartheid be held responsible for the perpetration of gross human rights violations? Moreover, to what extent could they be held responsible for creating a climate in which violations occurred unhindered?

111 Former Vrye Weekblad editor, Max du Preez, who made the final submission to the hearing, provided possibly the most direct and complete answer to both questions:

If the mainstream newspapers and the SABC had reflected and followed up on all these confessions and revelations, every single one subsequently proved to have been true, the government would have been forced then to stop, to put a stop to the torture, the assassinations and the dirty tricks. It would have saved many, many lives.