SA still needs to talk despite crooked spin

Bell Pottinger should be sorry, not for the conversations it started here, but for those it has stopped. It is a rare British public relations (PR) firm that can offend South Africans on the left, right and in the centre who, not surprisingly, reject the stoking of racial tension to protect the backs of people accused of buying ministers.

But justifiable outrage at Bell Pottinger and its Oakbay campaign has also spawned a myth that makes it harder for society to face its problems.

Much of the reaction assumes that the company invented the notion that there is racial exclusion in the economy, that it created division where none existed and that the idea that the marketplace in SA is still stacked against black participation was purely the figment of a PR campaign.

However, many black business people and professionals know the company did not invent anything — it simply exploited a divide that already exists.

PR campaigns try to get their message across by tapping into issues that worry people – if there was no widespread belief that the economy is still dominated by the racial minority that controlled it under apartheid, no one would have tried to defend the Guptas by fingering “white monopoly capital”.

While Bell Pottinger’s campaign seems to have persuaded no one that the solution to their frustrations is to support the Guptas, many black people in business and the professions agree that the problem it raised is real.

A widespread sense that race still dominates business is obviously an issue about which the country needs to talk — racial biases and tensions probably cost the economy more than any other obstacle. Talking about this in a way that moves us forward has never been easy. But the Bell Pottinger campaign has made it more difficult because it is now easy to portray those who want to talk seriously about race in the economy as apologists for state capture.

By manipulating a genuine concern, the company has discredited conversation about one of our most pressing problems. This has done far more damage than a failed PR campaign.

Much the same can be said of another product of the campaign to defend state capture, although presumably not one dreamt up by Bell Pottinger — the attempt by a small group to bully journalists they accuse of racism. Again, this has united people across a wide spectrum who are presumably relieved that the courts and police minister insist this crude attempt to silence opinions will not stand. You don’t have to be an expert in democracy to work out that freedom won’t last long if journalists are harassed because people (in this case very few people) do not like what they say.

But again, the effect is to make more difficult a conversation the society needs. Mainstream media are not exactly eager to discuss their biases — any attempt to challenge them to look at whether they are telling the stories of all South Africans is met with a defensive claim that the critic is determined to close down media freedom. This makes the convenient mistake of assuming that anyone who criticises an important public institution wants it policed by the state.

Again, this closes down a much-needed discussion. While media here may have a high opinion of themselves, there is little evidence that most citizens share their enthusiasm. The view that most media reflect the experiences and prejudices of only some of us and are often out of touch with how most people live is not the preserve of a few disgruntled academics — it is widely held and the media’s refusal to discuss it ensures this trust gap is never addressed.

Obviously, this defensiveness is greatly enhanced when bullies make life miserable for journalists to punish them for what they say or write. We can now expect critics who wish the media no harm, but want it to reflect the reality of townships and shack settlements as well as suburbs to be compared with bullies as well as politicians who want media tribunals.

Again, this may turn out to be far more damaging than a harassment campaign that seems to have been nipped in the bud by the courts.

In both cases, there is an obvious way to minimise the damage caused by Bell Pottinger and those they served — to insist the conversations happen despite the attempt to discredit them. We can reject state capture, but take seriously calls for a fairer economy. We can reject the bullying of journalists, but want to talk about media bias.

Those who believe SA needs these conversations will need to make it clear that they reject the behaviour that makes the discussion more difficult, but that we need it to begin despite Bell Pottinger and the bullies.

BY MANIPULATING A GENUINE CONCERN, THE COMPANY HAS DISCREDITED CONVERSATION ABOUT ONE OF OUR MOST PRESSING PROBLEMS