Media Monday - hot topics and topics that make us hopping mad! 18 April 2011

Posted: 18 April 2011 | News - Newsletter | Categories:

So here’s what we have in store for you this Media Monday:

  • Vying for election headlines: Monkey Moves v 12 million children in poverty
  • A protester’s death in pictures – and the media debate it sparked
  • Juju’s heavily-armed agents
  • And our newest MMC!

Tweet-ups tackle how media can side step mudslinging, monkies and intangible political promises  

Its local election time is South Africa with people going to the polls in exactly a month, and campaigns are heating up. Its political promises, mudslinging, name-calling, and dancing all around, BUT, are we getting the right messages or empowering information in the process? Are the issues that affect the electorate being put to the fore and elaborated on? Do people know what if any plans parties or candidates have to effect positive change in their municipalities? Indeed are the media asking questions about these issues?

Take for example our most vulnerable citizens, our children. What plans do the candidates have for children and issues affecting them? What programmes and policies do the parties have in place to deal with child poverty, their safety or poor educational facilities? Do you know? Has anyone ever asked the politicians these questions?

What about how we treat women – is this an election issue? According to Interpol we are a world leader in rape. That’s not a statistic to be proud of. But have your read in a newspaper recently what parties or politicians are committing to do to make women safer? Shouldn’t we be?

And what about basic services? Time and time again we read about “service delivery protests,” usually when they turn violent and most recently in relation to the tragic death of Andries Tatane. Frequently media makes it clear that people are upset about “service delivery” or indeed the lack of it, but how often do we hear about the particular issues that they are complaining about. And if we don’t know what people are upset about, how can we demand commitments from politicians that they will address these concerns?

Perhaps it is because we are not asking the right questions. Well as of Wednesday we’re hoping that will change.

On each of these three issues, children, gender and service delivery - Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) and yours truly, MediaMattersZA, are teaming up with Daily Maverick and Institute for the Advancement of Journalism (IAJ) and expert partners to launch 'Piercing the Promises – Election Accountability Packs' for journalists.

Each ‘Election Accountability Pack’ is being drawn up with the help of a panel of experts to come up with questions politicians can’t wriggle out of, and we’re hoping these could make for interesting election headlines.

The first of these packs looks at children and was drawn up in partnership with Leadership and Innovation Network for Collaboration in the Children’s Sector (LINC), their panel of experts put together a list of questions to address issues affecting children, political shortcomings in providing services for our youngest citizens, and potential room for improvements at municipality level.

The first pack will be released this Wednesday at 12pm at the IAJ in Jo’burg, and live on twitter. Then the fun starts!

You are also invited to join in on the discussion, either in person or twitter, about whether children are or should be on the election agenda, and how the media can make that happen. “But why should I care?” you ask. Well, consider these statistical facts: According to http://www.childrencount.ci.org.za, there are 19 million children in South Africa, 12 million of which live below the poverty line, that is, they live on less than R570 a month.

Given this little piece of information, it is evident that not only do children make up quite a chunk of our society, but also that they bare the brunt of poverty in the country. Isn’t that what politicians should be talking about? Isn’t this worth dominating our headlines? How can we hold our candidates accountable if we don’t channel them into having these kinds of discussions, instead concentrating on petty things like mudslinging in the run up to the elections?

You have the chance to change all that, or at least just try, by taking part in this initiative. Event details are as follows:

Time:12pm
Date: Wednesday 20th April 2011
Location: 9 Jubilee Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193
Hashtags: #MMAEAP
Follow: mediamattersza

And we’ll be launching the other 'Piercing the Promises – Election Accountability Packs' in the coming weeks. Look out for “Service Delivery – An Election Issue?” and “Gender – An Election Issue?” on the 4th and 11th May 2011, respectively). You are invited to take part in these too.

Coverage of police brutality: the good and the bad 

On Wednesday last week, SABC news reported on a service delivery protest story that had been on the news for a while. But this time, there was an even more pressing issue about the story, which resulted in it grabbing the nation’s attention: the death of a protester who died at the hands of the police who were captured on SABC cameras beating the man, and allegedly shooting him in the process, resulting in his ultimate death.

SABC was applauded for breaking a clearly public interest story and capturing the brutality on camera as evidence, but was also at the receiving end of a critic or two. First was the ANC who condemned the actions of the police involved, but went on to express concern about SABC’s airing of what it called “shocking and disturbing” images of the incident, calling on the broadcasting regulator, ICASA, to investigate whether SABC has not overstepped its mandate in this regard.

Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) also released a statement to that effect. MMA applauded SABC for the story and the debate it stirred and the reaction it caused from the likes of the ANC, especially SABC 3 for contextualising the issue and recognising it as police brutality, and for warning the viewers about the sensitive and violent nature of the footage. SABC 2 also did well by warning the viewers, but SABC 1 was a different story.

SABC 1 failed to introduce the issue as that of police brutality, failed to warn the viewers about the nature of the images they were about to see, and went further by showing images of the man getting beaten up, and included a moment when he collapsed.

According to MMA, SABC is held accountable by its editorial policies, which state clearly that broadcasting of violent images is only justifiable if it portrays legitimate information or context. Was the ANC on the money then, by calling on the regulator to conduct an investigation? Anyway, the failure to warn viewers of the violent footage is what got the SABC 1 in hot water; and was exactly that got the channel to apologise. They ran a crawler on the screen during their flagship soap, Generation, apologising to the viewers for not warning them beforehand about the graphical nature of their images. MMA welcomed the apology.

Then on Friday morning, some newspapers carried on their front pages images that prompted MMA to release another statement making clear their concern at the newspapers to publish on front page images of a man in his last dying moments, and in the arms of a man who was clearly stricken with grief. MMA called for measured consideration and clear explanation as to the reason why violent images are published, and also called for the newspapers to explain their use of such a graphic image.

But the debate that emerged from that report was something else though! Media Matters enthusiasts joined the debate both on our Facebook and Twitter pages, with many thinking SABC was not in the wrong in showing the images as they did

On the usage of such images by SABC and how different channels used slightly different images, Toki Mohoto said: “Aren't they suppose to operate as separate stations? Their target audience is different and maybe even the structure has to answer that dynamic. We definitely live in a "police state" and democracy is a myth.”

 And when asked whether by that she meant SABC 1 audience was more suited to seeing more violent images than SABC 2 and 3 viewers, she said: “Not at all. I've happen to watch the news at the 3 channels (SABC 1, 2 and 3) and I'm always drawn to 3, as its content and presentation resembles that of e.tv. SABC is predominantly a youth station with a largely "black" viewership and per...haps the news related to service delivery protests, and the unwarranted murder of a protester, would serve a certain. Not only informing the viewership, but appealing to their emotions with regards to voting and investing their efforts in building the country. Without sounding "racist" or unnecessarily insensitive; SABC 2, 3 services a largely white/ mixed population, whom you'd hardly see protesting and perhaps such news wouldn't affect them as it would a "black" person who sees these struggles everyday.”

When ANC called for ICASA investigation into SABC’s actions, this is what some of you said on Facebook:

Lesoli Makhele wrote:

“Over stepped its mandate? Come on now, SABC did well to show us South Africans the brutality of our Police, we can't continue sweeping sensitive issues under the carpet. Our authorities needs to know that they also have boundaries that they ...mustn't over step. I speak this as a concern South African, yes!! Our people can strike and show their grievances and do that peacefully, and if they strike and intimidate others that's wrong and they need to be disciplined not be killed.”

Sue Grantsaid:

I think that our police force over stepped their mandate. We need a police service not a police force.

And Koketso Moeti wrote:

Well, isn't it funny how the SABC has "overstepped its' mandate when showing us what we need to know, but there's complete silence when the SABC spews propaganda. Terrible precedent being set against dissent here...

Our commentators did not agree with MMA on their position regarding the use of the images by both SABC and newspapers.

Joshua Maboea said: “It is as warranted as when The Witness published photos of the burning man in the May 2008 xenophobic attacks. It is crucial that South Africans know, although the images are difficult to look at. I think the discomfort we experience when we see the images is part of the function of these images. They are as abnormal and abhorrent as the events as they unfolded in Ficksburg”

Mzukisi Ka-Gwata wrote “Absolutely, we saw the image of a burning Mozambican over and over on tv, where was this outcry? MMA reminds of what CNN likes to do...show us the US bombarding a country, e.g., Iraq or Afghanistan, and we are never shown what those bombs actually did on the ground. The fact of the matter is that bombs kill, and do so badly! And when Aljareeza shows the stuff to the world, the US bans it. On whose behalf is MMA speaking, when it asks SABC to apologize? As a viewer, i see no reason why it should do so.”

 

Lisa Olding wrote: “I can't understand what the uproar is about. Its relevant news issues that we the public are meant to see considering we still have freedom of speech etc etc .... why wouldn't they want us to see this? Censorship on the way I'm guessing”.

MMA’s view, as we understand it, wasn’t that the images shouldn’t be covered or shown, but that hey needed to be sensitively dealt with, warnings issued where necessary and that emphasised the issue of police brutality over the sensation of the violent images.

Irrespective of where you stand, we were delighted by the debate and diversity of views, so keep them coming. It is through debate that we can learn and have our eyes opened to other possibilities.

Another crucial issue raised by MMA with regards to this story was how the story was only reported as service delivery protest. How often do you see a story about “series delivery” protest, where you actually know what the people are protesting about?  This seems to be a term that covers all manner of event and issues, and there are implications to this.  Do your think that:

·       if no context is provided to the story as to what developments lead to a protest;

·       no mention of why people are protesting;

·       no mention of the services that the people are protesting for or against;

·       no sourcing of the protesters to voice their concerns;

·       no member of the public or of the protest action spoken to on the issue of police brutality, or government response or lack thereof, and how it has affected them;

If one or all of these factors aren’t covered by media, does this help inform or undermine your understanding of service delivery?

Do you think there is a bias in how “service delivery protests” are reported? In the run up to the local government elections, is it not a bit suspicious that people are seen chanting and yet all too frequently only government officials are accessed putting out the fires and explaining what they will do to rectify matters? How much are these issues “service delivery” issues compared to them being election matters? If they are election issues but are not labelled as such, then the media is failing to join the dots! Do you agree?

Remember our #BiasPatrol #ElectionWatch initiative that we started a while ago? We would still like you to bring to our and Media Matters enthusiasts’ attention any form of biased elections reporting by the media.

Malema’s security arrangements questioned 

Last week Julius Malema’s bodyguards hit the headlines. The armed guards carried automatic machineguns during the ANCYL President’s court appearance in the Johannesburg High Court. Malema was scheduled to appear before the Court in relation to his hate speech case which resulted from his singing of the now infamous “Shoot the Boer” chant.

Court proceedings were scheduled to take place on Monday, and Malema turned up flanked by heavily armed men, sporting black suits and red matching ties but that’d didn’t complete the outfit. Their choice of accessories were  far from what you’d  call a girl’s best friend or anyone’s best friend for that matter!, The men carried fear evoking assault rifles that some of us only get to see in action movies.

Much of the reporting about this was resulted from the armed men getting booted out of the Court following objections made by a co-complainant in the case. Proceedings had to be halted as the judge ordered the rifle-wielding men out of the Court. But where was the real story behind these men, their job and their machines?

IOL’s "'Who is Malema at war with?'" explored some of these issues, getting views from a variety of experts on the legality and the safety issues associated with this public demonstration of force by a private security team.

Online news updates can sometimes come across as rushed updates, but Media Matters salutes IOL for taking the time to look at the issues involved in this extra-ordinary armed court appearance and for accessing people who asked the interesting questions of Malema and his armed entourage. Feel free to share with us any media you have seen that dealt with this issue at greater lengths. Don’t be shy to alert us about stories where you think media has done a bad job as well!

And our MMC for this week! 

Chris Yelland combines his career as a registered chartered engineer with his particular interest in media issues and media law. He has a number of media accolades under his belt, thanks to his journalistic acumen and for using his pen to make sure IT and media meet. As a result of his contributions, commentaries and active participation on our Facebook page we want to award him with MMC status this week. Join in the discussions on our facebook and twitter pages, and add your voice to our media debates, who knows, the next Media Matters Commentator could be you!