Media Monday - hot topics and topics that make us hopping mad! 31 October 2011

Posted: 31 October 2011 | News - Newsletter | Categories: Democracy and Governance, Media Freedom and Performance

Here is what we have on the menu thin Media Monday:

·         Media out to discredit Malema, ignores real issues

·         Is Fikile Mbalula’s sex life in the public interest?

·         Zuma’s axe-wielding tactics: just a normal day in office or act of heroism?

Media criticism of Malema crass 

African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) leader Julius Malema last week staged a march that grabbed media’s attention. The march for “economic freedom” was planned to take place over two days (27 and 28 October 2011) in both Johannesburg and Pretoria. The march ended peacefully despite security concern. What followed then was media’s coverage of the march, Malema himself, and the cause he claims to fight on behalf of the poor and unemployed in South Africa.

Whether or not Malema’s organizing of the march was a genuine concern for the unemployed youth and the poor, and the youth’s concerns, is something you will have to decide for yourself. Whether or not this was Malema’s effort to show Zuma and the ANC that he still enjoys lot of support in the country is also a bone you can chew on your own or with colleagues and friends over a cup of coffee (or any drinkables). Feel free to debate among yourselves with fellow commuters on way to work and school whether Malema planned this march with his eyes set on the ANC’s elective conference in Mangaung, or on his disciplinary action. The media coverage thereof is what we would like to pick on.

We noticed a couple of ‘tweets’ following the march tweeting that Malema had climbed on the back of a truck or bakkie (whatever he climbed on) during the proceedings, leaving poor old, unemployed follower to keep walking while he enjoys the ride. That was on Thursday the first leg of the two-legged march. We almost believed that as we were not there, until the next morning Daily Maverick’s Phillip de Wet rubbished such claims in an interview on a Gauteng regional youth radio station, Yfm.

According to de Wet, Malema went the distance, on foot, suffering the heat and foot sore out in front, he showed himself to be a man of the people. In his curiously rolled-up tracksuit pants and his nifty shoes, he walked, and walked, and walked, wrote de Wet.

And then the march ended its second day, peacefully as indicated above. Malema consulted his diary and realized he had a wedding to attend and decided to do just that: honour the invitation. He went straight to the airport to jet off to the wedding at which he was one of 300 guests, it was reported.

Report of Malema’s dash to Mauritius following the march was portrayed as wrong and as defiant of his earlier calls for fight for economic emancipation. The Sunday Times report spoke of how Malema jetted out of Johannesburg “JUST two hours after leading thousands of desperately poor people on a march for "economic freedom". And what is the problem with a man leading the poor in a march and then later deciding to go on an all-expenses-paid trip to a friend’s wedding? We fail to see the problem there…

Why not focus on why Malema does what he does and why is it wrong? What picture he is painting for instance, where he gets his money and how he gets it and what is wrong about it. He leads the youth and enjoys a huge following, but flashes his ‘bling’ in the face of the youth. That could signal to the youth that they must strive to get rich, which is not the principle of the ANC and the ANCYL. Instead, the focus is on how much walking he does during a march, and how he went to attend an expensive wedding after leading the poor.

He is said to have used blue light convoy so he could get to the airport quickly, and that is one of the things that should be questioned and criticized. The media instead put much focus on what he wears, which is his choice, and on whether he is hypocritical to be rich and claim to fight for the poor. Malema could be wrong or right, or we could feel he either of those, but the media should do more than focusing on petty things that it make sit appears that some media are just out to discredit him by whatever means. Is the media’s criticism of Malema crass? What do you think?

Has media crossed the public interest line with Mbalula sex scandal? 

The City Press reported yesterday about a sex scandal that involves the National Sports Minister Fikiile Mbalula and a model who claimed she was pregnant with the minister’s child. According to the publication, Mbalula has had unprotected sexual encounters with the model on two occasions, impregnating her in the process. A battle ensued then as Mbalula reportedly wanted the baby aborted.

When City Press sent questions to Mbalula to comment on the claims, he approached the courts to try to buy more time to offer a response. His spokesperson said they were not trying to stop the newspaper from running with the story. The minister has since apologized to the public, the ANC, government for the scandal and promised to deal with the matter privately. He also asked for the media to afford him privacy so he can deal with the matter.

So the minister had unprotected sex with a model. So what? Why is it of any interest to me and you? What is the public interest angle to the matter?

The City Press’s angle to the story was that the minister was not practicing the gospel of faithfulness he preached to the youth. Mbalula is said to have told the youth in Sebokeng, Gauteng, to be faithful at a World Aids Day event last year, something he fails to do obviously.

The Sowetan Sunday World report excluded such an angle to the story that speaks of Mbalula being an advocate of safe sex and monogamy, leaving us wondering how then, is the story of importance to us. Nowhere does the story mentions Mbalula using the taxpayer’s money in his encounters with the woman, and the potential issue parental responsibility and maintenance (which would have made it a legal issue as opposed to just a moral one) is ignored.

In the absence of inclusion of angles mentioned above, some of the reports amount to invasion of Mbalula’s privacy. The minister in that case, would then be well within his rights to take any publication that lacked the public interest side of the story to the Press Council.

But do you feel that the story was in the public’s interest? Do we care what the minister gets up to and does with his private time (except the faithful gospel he preached, of course)? Tell us what your thoughts are on this issue; we would love to hear from you.

Zuma the hero? 

“Chuck Norris, meet Jacob Zuma” was the headline following President Zuma’s axing of Sicelo Shiceka and Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde (Ministers of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, and Public Works respectively), and suspension of the National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele. This followed a report by the Public Protector Thuli Mandonsela that found that both ministers were guilty of corruption. The media then reported the cannings and suspension as acts of heroism by Zuma who took decisive action and showed good leadership. But maybe he was just doing his job; don’t you think?

The Citizen’s editorial though called for all not to read too much into it. The editorial indicated that if Zuma was serious about corruption he would have acted a long time ago. Also indicated is how Bheki Cele’s “thugs” acted initially when Thuli Madonsela did her probing, and yet there seems to be little accountability for these actions.  Perhaps in addition to the President, the media should be the ones receiving a pat on the back for exposes into the corrupt deals.

Government talks about how serious it is about rooting out corruption, and the media exposes into the police leases and Shiceka’s spending patterns were also about rooting out corruption. That means then that the media works to help government and exposing corruption, and thus deserve to be commended.

Media Matters ran a poll last week where we asked you who you thought should be celebrated for Zuma’s decisive action against corrupt public service officials. Majority of votes went to Thuli Madonsela, followed by the media and Zuma coming third.

Feel free to also join in on the discussion and tell us who you think has outdone self and led to acting Zuma took. Has the media according to you portrayed Zuma as a hero? Or was he portrayed just as a man doing the job he is supposed to be doing anyway?

To raise your voice on all these and other media debates and discussions join us on our Facebook and Twitter pages.