Hlaudi’s flawed history lesson

Perhaps history was not one of Hlaudi Motsoeneng’s stronger school subjects on his way to not getting a matric certificate. Had it been, Motsoeneng might have been aware of the bracing irony of his decision (though he is ostensibly “chief operating officer”, for some reason he seems to be the de facto head of the SABC) that its television stations will no longer show footage of service-delivery protests where property is destroyed.

This was a classic censorship tactic of the apartheid regime of President PW Botha. And Botha’s reasoning was exactly the same: showing pictures of violence and arson would encourage copycat behaviour.

In the 1980s, SA experienced a state of emergency and a level of violence and arson that in some countries would have been described as civil war. Botha’s government euphemistically referred to this as “unrest”.

Then, as now, the SABC was instructed not to film the violence and the police actions that made it worse.

Now, Motsoeneng is right that activists often seek publicity, and TV is a medium that is powerful and persuasive. Anti-American protesters in the Middle East would be unlikely to continue burning US flags if there were no cameras to record the act, for example.

And recently, on a more frivolous level, rugby producers took the decision not to show viewers the antics of naked streakers on the grounds that these show-offs (often braced by a few beers) were doing it just to get their picture on TV.

But the undeniable fact is that TV cameras do not create poverty. They don’t create appalling living conditions and the desperation of unemployment.

And the media has a duty to report on the state of the country — not to peddle a particular version that moves closer to fantasy the longer it is perpetrated.

If there is any merit to Motsoeneng’s copycat argument, it is heavily outweighed by the need for, and rights of, the citizens of a democracy to be told and shown what is happening in the streets. Once the principle has been accepted that news coverage will be selective — crucially, based not on editorial judgment but on administrative edict — a slippery slope lies ahead. A taste of Soviet-style control and manipulation of the media soon creates a hearty appetite.

Already, we’ve seen an incremental shift towards this slope. The TV coverage of parliament has recently been censored so that the disruptive antics of Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters will be hidden from the voters.

What will be concealed next? The speeches and activities of opposition politicians like Malema? Exposure of corruption? Xenophobic murders of foreign citizens?

Ultimately, Motsoeneng’s tsar-like behaviour won’t work in the same way that the SABC’s overt bias and censorship managed to sway opinion in the 1970s and 1980s.

Back then, the broadcaster was a virtual monopoly. Today, there are competing TV and radio stations, not to mention Twitter and Facebook. Everyone with a cellphone can become an instant reporter — as China has found out to its detriment.

But there also remains the issue of integrity — in particular, how can we trust Motsoeneng?

In 2014, public protector Thuli Madonsela reported that he was not competent to run the national broadcaster, partly because he had lied about having passed matric.

The Western Cape high court ruled he should be suspended and face a disciplinary hearing. That SABC internal hearing duly cleared him so, entirely unembarrassed, he continues in the position, having inflated his own salary. To the world, he seems politically and financially untouchable.

More’s the pity, given how vital his position remains for our democracy.

Television came more than 20 years too late to SA. Arguably, apartheid’s gross injustices — such as intimidation of pass-law offenders, or the uprooting of communities under the Group Areas Act — might have ended sooner if those images had been exposed to the world.

Motsoeneng’s decision does no credit to him, the SABC or the ANC government. They are wrenching us back in time as they dismantle what is left of the credibility of the “public” broadcaster.