Media lead witch-hunt by taking Winnie claims as fact
The problem with encouraging a witchhunt is that you may become its victim. Media organisations are understandably worried because journalists have been accused of working for the apartheid government, based on little, if any fact.
The claims misread a statement by the late Winnie Madikizela-Mandela that journalists whose reporting angered her were “doing the work” of Stratcom, an apartheid government security unit. That is very different from claiming that they worked for it — it means they played into its hands even though they did not work for it.
The claims also rely on an allegation by a former apartheid security policeman that he paid 40 journalists to libel Madikizela-Mandela. This was treated as a statement of fact, ignoring the possibility that one of apartheid’s secret police may not be entirely credible. Who needs 40 reporters to defame one person?
Media representatives are therefore right to dismiss a story that, on the flimsiest of grounds, threatens the reputations and safety of journalists. But they ignore the role they played in making the witch-hunt possible and giving it a wide audience. The media saw no problem in airing an account of MadikizelaMandela’s treatment by the ANC and the United Democratic Front (UDF) that found much of the leadership of the fight against apartheid guilty on the strength of untested claims.
The account, which portrays her as a victim of the ANC and UDF leadership, is contained in a documentary aired by a television channel. It offers Madikizela-Mandela’s account of events but ignores that of the political figures it targets. This did not stop the channel airing it without offering the version of events of those the documentary names.
Other media were happy to take up the story and to treat it as fact. They also eagerly highlighted comments on social media denouncing the politicians and activists whom the documentary attacks.
This ignored the difference between a documentary, particularly one that presents only one side of the story, and a court hearing or a thorough research project. The film’s version of events are simply claims until the other side of the story has been heard.
Media should also have known that, in the days after Madikizela-Mandela’s death, it was highly unlikely that the other side would be heard. When former president Thabo Mbeki offered a different version in response to an interviewer’s questions, he was vilified. This must have convinced others to keep silent, at least until the emotion that followed her death was less raw. That is surely why one of the journalists named, Thandeka Gqubule-Mbeki, said she would not reply until mourning had ended, and why former minister Sydney Mufamadi also waited until after the funeral to respond.
A sizeable section of the media were happy to take as fact untested claims about much of the leadership who ended apartheid. It was they who began the inquisition, which soon targeted journalists as well as politicians and “struggle” activists.
When complicated moral issues such as those raised by Madikizela-Mandela’s life are wished away by blaming everything on the treachery of political leaders, the inevitable result is a witch-hunt that seeks to find “traitors” and make them pay. Once this begins, the list of targets keeps widening as people add their favourite enemies. Thus the media may begin by blaming people on the strength of untested claims but end up becoming victims of that which they helped to begin. This can cause immense damage.
Is it too much to hope that the media will learn from these events to present both sides of the story and place accuracy above attention seeking?