A RIGHT TO BULLY?
Media freedom was shafted
THE role of the media, particularly in a democracy, is a distinct one.
Their primary obligation is to deliver information and opinion to society. Society, on the other hand, has a right to receive, or be exposed to such information and opinion, so that they can make informed decisions about how to conduct their lives and affairs.
This right is enshrined in our Constitution.
But one of the great conundrums we have to face is that the right to freedom of expression is not the only right or freedom.
We therefore have to find a balance between all the rights and society should still be able to function. Exercising these rights often puts the media on a conflict course with the government and this past week was a particularly sad one for media freedom, and the freedom of expression and tolerance.
A weekly newspaper was forced to remove a painting depicting the President of South Africa with his private parts exposed following boycott threats and, the editor says, other forms of threats to both herself and her staff.
Granted, it was not the government itself, but the ruling party and some of its alliance partners that led the charge.
Last week I wrote in a column that if I had to make an editorial call on whether to publish The Spear, I wouldn’t have published.
This sparked a response from readers Lehlohonolo Moagi and Ben Lekalake, who slammed my position as one of neutrality on a matter that needed me to nail my colours to the mast. Indecisiveness, Moagi wrote, is in itself a principle position. He then went on to point out that the painting was not an original concept, being an almost photoshopped poster of Lenin.
He argued that it therefore cannot be claimed to have aesthetic merit. It uses, he said, biological and colonial (noble savage) theories and sexual innuendo to justify and perpetuate racism.
Then he quoted Frederick Douglass, writing in A Tribute to the Negro about white artists: Negroes
“can never have impartial portraits at the hand of white artists. It seems to us next to the impossible for white men to take the likeness of black men without most grossly exaggerating their distinctive features. The reason is obvious. Artists, like other white persons, have adopted a theory dissecting the distinctive features of Negro physiognomy.
“This perceptive observation reflects the prejudiced attitudes of some white artists influenced by misinterpretation of Darwin’s evolutionary theories and the long legacy of racism.”
For him and for Lekalake, the work was deliberately provocative, and they question the artist’s motive. Also, the artist simply removed Lenin’s head from the original, replaced it with Zuma’s head and added the private parts.
Moagi therefore asks whether this is not plagiarism and therefore not worthy of all the publicity.
The media is often described as the “trustee” of the people, while government defines itself as the mandated representative of the people. Sometimes, society argues that the media does not fairly rep- resent them or their interests.
The media’s responsibility is to provide a truthful, comprehensive account of the day’s events.
The newspaper under fire had simply, in my view, done this.
Indeed, if they had not published the painting there might not even have been an issue to rally the activist troops around.
Media content determines its relationship with both society and government and fuels their adversarial relationship with them.
But is there a place in democracy for boycott politics? Should people’s lives and property be threatened when we disagree with their position?
The media communicates with the nation and lays the basis for a commonality of interest. It creates a social consensus that enables us to share the same information and to shape our responses.
The capitulation of the newspaper was described as a victory by some, but the question we should ask ourselves is how marches and boycotts will influence the political regime in the future.
Already, there are threats that freedom of artistic expression laws will be revisited. Will we change laws every time we feel aggrieved?
Will we now see a media that is perceived to be bullied by government or the ruling party, or by any other societal structure that feels it has the power?
In all of this a new environment will emerge that could result in a form of prior restraint, where editors think long and hard about the consequences of publishing information rather than looking at its news merit and the right of citizens to such information.
Readers can e-mail the Public Editor at latakgomoj@avusa.co.za to log concerns, complaints or issues, or fax 011-280-5151 or phone 011-280-5112.