Media Monday - hot topics and topics that make us hopping mad! 12 December 2011

Posted: 12 December 2011 | News - Newsletter | Categories: Democracy and Governance, Media Freedom and Performance

Here is what’s on the menu this final Media Monday for 2011:

  • SABC’s COP 17 protest disservice?
  • SA woman executed in China – what difference could media have made?
  • Publishing of matric results in newspapers – does it take lives?
  • Protection of State Information Bill: the latest
  • And, your 2012 Media Wish List: final part

SABC’s coverage of COP 17 protests: biased or fair? 

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) staged an election on November 28 which saw President Joseph Kabila win. International observers said the elections lacked credibility as they were marred by irregularities. Congolese nationals living in South Africa also staged a protest in Durban during President Jacob Zuma’s briefing. Zuma was speaking to civil society on the state of negotiation. Protesters urged Zuma’s administration not to endorse the elections as they were rigged.

BUT that is just what an SABC report of the event has us believe! The question then is, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT COP 17? See this clip here…

According to the clip, the protest was NOT about DRC elections whatsoever, and NOT against Zuma, but a mere statement to Zuma to be firm on Africa and her issues! The call here was for the President to have a position on African issues and to stand with Africa. What then followed was a scuffle which ensued as COP 17 security official kicked out picketers who had placards, with one security official seen spitting in the face of one protester Rehad Desai.

But how did the SABC get a different end of the stick to what the clip shows? Is SABC biased against the protesters? Is it fair? Looking at both the SABC report and the “What Really Happened at COP 17” video clip, what do you think?

Could media pressure around execution of SA woman in China have made a difference? 

Some 10 years ago a Nigerian woman was convicted of committing adultery after having a child out of wedlock. The woman was subsequently sentenced to death by stoning, a sentence that sparked worldwide outrage. Human rights advocates and groups widely condemned the conviction and sentence. The woman, Amina Lawal, was eventually freed after a court ruled that her conviction was invalid.

Lawal’s case not only created an international storm but also widespread media frenzy. It is never easy to measure exactly how much influence media had (and have) in swaying decisions but it is a known fact that extensive media coverage and pressure does tend to make cases such as Lawal’s reach even the most remote corners of the earth, causing uproar from pressure groups the world over. That, if not the media itself directly, amounts to media creating enough pressure to eventually see decisions overturned.

Now let’s bring it closer to home. Latest news is that a South African woman was executed in China this morning following a drug-smuggling conviction. Janice Bronwyn Linden was caught at a Chinese airport with more than 3kg of crystal methamphetamine in November 2008, and was reportedly sentenced to death early last year (2010).

News of the reality of her execution only resurfaced over this past weekend that a lethal injection was to be used today (Monday). For a story that dates back to 2008, followed by a sentencing in early 2010, we only got to hear about this woman’s fate with just a day or two left?

Did or didn’t our media drop the ball on this one? Following the resurfacing of the story, calls were made to President Zuma’s office to intervene, but it was a little too late to call for action. Wasn’t it? And with Amina Lawal’s story in mind, do you think some difference would have been made had the media upheld the pressure after learning of Janice’s conviction and sentencing and what fate awaited her? Would earlier pressure on The Presidency have yielded much more desirable results? What do you think? Facebook or Tweet us your thoughts on this…

Does publishing of matric results in newspapers result in suicide? 

The Department of Basic Education released a media statement in September this year justifying reasons for publishing of matric results in newspapers. At the same time, the Department was willing to have this practice debated following concerns by some sections of society.

Student body, Congress of South African Students (COSAS) called on matriculants to boycott newspapers that published matric results. Reason for this was that it was the cause of unnecessary trauma for students, resulting in some taking their own lives.

Young Communist League (YCL) also argued against the move, saying it was a private matter not to be published in newspapers. YCL said this caused an embarrassment to millions of matriculants, and resulted in them becoming the laughing stock of the townships.

But the South African Depression and Anxiety Group denied the link between teenage suicide and matric results, or the publishing thereof in national newspapers. SADAG said teenage suicide rate was constant throughout the year, and said that “there was no evidence to support that there was an increase in teenage suicide during, or when matric results were released”.

It was reported this weekend that a North West Province pupil drowned himself after failing grade 11. However, grade 11 results are not published in newspapers, meaning the young man took his life although he received his school results in his own privacy. We know this is no laughing matter as it talks to a very concerning issue of teenage suicide, but it does somehow feed into the above-indicated debate of publishing matric results in newspapers, and whether it’s right to do so.

Could this actually be proof enough to concerned parties such as YCL and COSAS that publishing of matric results has no direct impact on teenage suicide? Does this actually prove SADAG’s statement that cases of teenage suicide do not soar around the time of the publishing of matric results? Where do you fall in this debate: should newspapers publish matric results or not; and why? Send us your views on Facebook and Twitter…

The latest Protection of State Information Bill – what do you think? 

About two weeks ago, we learnt that Parliament has named an ad hoc committee that would deal with the piece of legislation widely-dubbed the “secrecy bill”. The 15-man committee will see the Bill through to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) which is where it is now headed following the National Assembly voting it in.

The committee is reported to comprise 10 members of the ANC, two from the Democratic Alliance, and one member each from Cope, the Independent Democrats and the Inkatha Freedom Party. That the Bill was actually voted in by the National Assembly (in which the ANC holds the majority vote), and the ad hoc committee that is tasked with seeing it through the NCOP is also an ANC-studded affair, may bring a bit of a discomfort to many, or those opposed to the Bill in particular. Should it though? What do you think? Do you think the dominance of ANC members in the committee already means a walk-over for the ruling party at the NCOP stage of the Bill?

Anyway, moving along, the ANC has now indicated that it planned to take the Bill to ordinary citizens in the rural areas. The party said it planned to consult ordinary, rural citizens on the Bill and move it away from the elites (in urban areas) where much debate around the Bill has dominated. This basically means that public hearings are in the pipeline, and all nine provinces will be consulted on the Bill.

But can we trust such public consultation? The ANC pulled the Bill off the National Assembly when it was due to be voted on earlier, saying that public consultations were needed on it. What happened to those; anybody heard? Won’t the same thing happen with these ones; will we hear how the process went? What is the exact plan on how the process will go? Who will spearhead it and how? How do you think the process should be conducted? Find us on Facebook and Twitter to communicate your thoughts and suggestions on the public consultation process…

Your “2012 Media Wish List”: the grand finale… 

Two weeks ago in our debut 2012 Media Wish List feature we asked you what your wishes were for the SABC in 2012. And last week in our 2012 Media Wish List Part Two we asked you what your 2012 wish was for media freedom in South Africa (and the world, even!). As we have reached the end of the year, with this being our final Media Monday Bulletin for the year 2011, we bring back our 2012 Media Wish List once again.

And this week, in this final Media Monday Bulletin, we ask you: what is your 2012 wish list for us, the Media Matters? How would you like to see us bring you controversial media debates in 2012? What media debates would you like to see in 2012? Any tips and suggestions you have for us? And while at it, do send us your wishes for the media in general for 2012! As always, we are on Facebook and Twitter for all your valuable feedback; so get in touch with us…