In the recent months the established "news media" has been under attack from what, in Zulu military strategy, was termed "the horns of the buffalo". The first attack came from Government in respect of the Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunal, and the second from the intended launch of The New Age newspaper. To counter these two "horns" (i) SANEF has met with Government and (ii) the Independent Newspaper Group has launched a nationwide campaign to counter the arrival of The New Age. Both initiatives are filled with the rhetoric of "right to know, free speech, media freedom, truth, good journalism, fairness" etc. It seems that SANEF is genuinely concerned about media muzzling (the editorial line) and the Independent Group about circulation (the bottom line). Interestingly, in both there is very little talk of concomitant responsibilities and even less of what constitutes news and what represents the truth.
In his book "Flat Earth News", acclaimed British journalist Nick Davies examines the state of journalism in today's world. He deals extensively with the issues of news and truth. What he has to say is pertinent. In respect of "news" he argues, "Modern journalism is the rapid repackaging of largely unchecked, second-hand material, much of it designed to serve the commercial and political interests of those who provide it... The mass media are constantly vulnerable to being infected with falsehood, distortion and propaganda".
In respect of "truth" he says, "Journalism without checking is like the human body without an immune system. If the primary purpose of journalism is to tell the truth, then it follows that the primary function of journalism must be to check and to reject whatever is not true. But something has changed, and that essential immune system has started to collapse. In a strange, alarming and generally unnoticed development, journalists are pumping out stories without checking them, stories which then circle the planet. As David Broder, an American political reporter said in 1979, "the newspaper that drops on your doorstep is a partial, hasty, incomplete, inevitably somewhat flawed and inaccurate rendering of some of the things we have heard about in the past 24 hours - distorted". Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel in "The Elements of Journalism" write, "In the new century, the likelihood of untruth has become so much more prevalent".
Nick Davies concludes, "we see a kind of madness, a kind of psychotic society which has started to lose contact with reality and believe its own delusions. Ignorance is at the root of media failure. Most of the time most journalists do not know what they are talking about. Their stories may be right, or they may be wrong: they don't know because they work in structures which positively prevent them from discovering the truth. The ethic of honesty has been overwhelmed by the mass production of "ignorance"."
Chilling words indeed.
Does this happen in South Africa? Well, sadly, I came across many examples of this "madness". Hardly a week goes by in which either a talk show host or a journalist talks of some South African attribute being "the worst in the world". Our corruption, our murder rate, our divorce rate, our HIV infection rate, our child malnutrition, our maths and science education, our state hospitals, our alcoholism, our driving - to name a few, have all earned this negative accolade. With Google it is so easy to interrogate these claims, there are surveys on just about everything, none of them though include all the world's countries and very few go beyond 130 of the world's 250 nations. The "'worst in the world" claim is always delusional. Let me give one example.
A researcher at the South African Institute of Race Relations came across the Progress in Reading and Literacy in Schools (PIRLS) report which contained the results of a survey in 40 mostly developed countries. There were 120 questions put to the students around reading and literacy. There was one question on "school climate" which read "Do you experience violence, injury or theft more than twice a month, less than once a month or somewhere in-between?" Four percent of South African learners answered "more than twice a month". In 14 out of the 40 countries, between 5% and 8% of learners answered "more than twice a month". In answer to the question "less than once a month", 23% of South African learners affirmed this. In respect of the "less than" question we ranked 38th out of 40. Out of this "research" the SAIRR published "South African schools the most violent in the world - only 23% of South African school children feel safe in school". This headline was printed, repackaged, second-hand in all our newspapers and in many abroad.
Make up your own mind. Was this story checked? Was it a distortion? Was it mass produced out of ignorance? Were the facts interrogated? It goes without saying that the potential damage of such a headline is significant even if it is difficult to quantify.
As I have previously stated - this happens frequently in our print, television and radio newsrooms. So do we need to have a debate around what constitutes "news"? Why are we served up a daily meal of ‘bus accidents in Bangladesh' at the expense of our own positive achievements? Why are the editors, who set the news agenda, in the habit of "if it bleeds it leads" and "good news is no news"? Why is our national narrative so focused on what's wrong with so little reporting on what's right? Why in the South African national Editors Forum Press Code do we read "the press shall be obligated to report the news truthfully, accurately and fairly...in context and in a balanced manner without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts" but we see so little evidence of it? Why does the Independent Newspaper Group claim "We believe in celebrating each and every South African success story" when they don't? Why do they claim "A world without bad news is a world without the truth" and not say the same about good news? Why do they profess "not to rest is our relentless mission to always bring you the truth" when they don't? Why are they out to discredit The New Age before it has even been launched - is their concern the editorial line or the bottom line?
As you may have seen, The New Age has, in preparation for their launch posted a number of billboards with headlines as follows:
- Police brutality or crime crackdown?
- Protest of Freedom of expression?
- Half full or half empty?
- Traffic jam or bustling metropolis?
- Hawker or budding entrepreneur?
The Independent Newspaper Group has, over the past two weeks, countered these with three adverts (that I have seen):
- Why standing for the truth means never standing down
- Why reporting only good news is bad news
- Brave Judge escapes crash unhurt (Judge Mothata)
The copy below these adverts reads as follows:
"Don't get us wrong. It's not that we're against good news. On the contrary. In fact, we believe in celebrating each and every South African success story. But when good news is the only news that gets reported there's something deeply wrong in the world. It's what makes our jobs so important. We see it as our responsibility to being you the news, regardless of whether it's good or bad. In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any bad news. But we don't live in an ideal world. And while we'd love to only report on the good stuff, a world without bad news is a world without the truth. We won't rest in our relentless mission to always bring you the truth, because ultimately that's what separates good journalism from bad."
I wrote this letter in response with copies to the Cape Times, The Star and the Sunday Tribune. As far as I am aware, only the Tribune published my letter:
Sir,
I was intrigued by your full page advertisement "why standing for the truth means never standing down" (October 17). Seems like a bit of self-rationalisation. But it does, importantly, raise the debate of what constitutes "news" and what represents the "truth"? If Jim Morrison is right "he who controls the media controls the mind" then surely the role of the media, if it is in pursuit of the truth, will enable an informed narrative of both the good and the bad, and give as much editorial space to celebrating the good as to confronting the bad. You are correct when you say "a world without bad news is a world without the truth" but I would have thought the same applies to good news, "a world without good news is a world without the truth". Reporting both would at least approximate the truth and give balance to the daily course of events. That, as you say, is your "responsibility". But we all know that newspapers don't do this. And what we are increasingly beginning to understand, as Nick Davies describes in "Flat Earth News", is that newspapers survive by playing to the agenda of their owners; write in a way that is preoccupied with sales; and sensationalise in a way that attempts to out-compete their rivals. There is no problem with this, most businesses behave this way. But please don't dress this up as being "a relentless mission to bring you the truth". The casualty is the truth. If the good is not celebrated; sensationalism is in favour of the bad; and only this selective part of the "news" is exposed, then we, the reading public, are not being told the truth. So I need to ask, why are you running this campaign? Is it because of your concerns regarding the Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunal? Is it an attempt to deprecate the launch of The New Age newspaper, whom I am sure will argue that they too stand up for the truth? It seems odd that barely a month after launching LeadSA in which you appealed to all citizens to act positively and "stand up" that you choose to run this "bad news is good news" campaign.
What intrigues me about both these campaigns is that they both centre around the "truth"; The New Age claiming that the "truth" is represented by balance and how one sees the world, the "glass-half-full-glass-half-empty" logic; the Independent Newspaper Group claiming that the truth is represented by ensuring that the bad news is always revealed.
Yusuf Abramjee, Chairman of the National Press Club, said in a recent address to Tukkies journalism students, "The National Press Club will continue to fight for media freedom and for free speech. We will continue to be fair - we will continue to praise - we will continue to condemn."
"The shortcomings within the Press Ombudsman system needs to be addressed urgently and the areas of concern need to be sorted out. There is no need for a Media Appeals Tribunal."
"We in the media have a job to inform, to educate and to entertain. We have to reflect government business and I believe the media can do a bit more. However we should not become government puppets just for the sake of it. We must highlight the good and the bad. It is important for us to keep a balance."
"Media has an important role to play in social-cohesion. The LeadSA initiative, which is a joint partnership between Primedia Broadcasting and the Independent Media Group of Newspapers, is making its mark. We need to create a better South Africa. By joining hands, we can tackle many problems and create a better nation."
I couldn't agree more. But right now most of our newsrooms are not doing this (there are some notable exceptions) Our national narrative is uninformed, gloomy and overwhelmingly pessimistic. The reading and listening public know little of our achievements and have an overwhelming sense of disaster and despair of our progress.
The editorial line has indeed given way to the bottom line.
If our news media are going to live up to "playing a role in social-cohesion, creating a better South Africa and joining hands to create a better nation", they need to redefine what constitutes "news" and they need to constantly check that their stories, are in fact, the truth.
By Steuart Pennington of www.sagoodnews.co.za
Steuart has done some 500 talks on South Africa's progress since 1994 and SA's prospects for the future' 
