The voice of reason

Journalists had a difficult and dangerous task covering former president Jacob Zuma’s attempt to evade arrest and what later morphed into wanton rioting and looting.

It was brave to venture into Nkandla, which police were seemingly giving a wide berth. In that precarious environment anger was at times directed at journalists for merely asking sensible questions on our behalf.

They asked what the response would be when police swooped in on Zuma to make their arrest and how social distancing would work in the crammed environment. They were really talking to a human wall surrounding a wanted man. To give airtime to both sides of the story some literally pursued Zuma lieutenants like Carl Niehaus and Mzwanele Manyi. Was a line crossed there? Zuma supporters increasingly began to sound as though they were using media for their own mobilisation through direct inflammatory statements. Some journalists started referring to the former president as “President Zuma”, which is problematic. Surely, in that context, this emphasis was to undermine the incumbent.

During the rioting and looting, some community radio stations were not spared. It is the way of insurrectionists to try and control the narrative by shutting out the voice of the community. Journalists pursued looters as they loaded stolen goods on their shoulders and makeshift trolleys imploring them to explain themselves.

This I found dangerous and brave, as police were not always present. They were the voice of reason and morality.

They also seemed to encourage restraint.

With pen and microphone in hand and those ever-present cameras, they served the public with their mere presence, which seemed to say to law breakers and law enforcement alike: “We see you, and SA can see you”.

— Phethu Soga, via email