海角大神

I had the rather dubious pleasure of attending a discussion on the matter of the proposed media appeals tribunal and Protection of Information Bill at the University of Johannesburg. Let me warn you from the outset: If you want intelligent, honest, and frank discussion, do not go to these events. Just don鈥檛. 鈥淗onest鈥� discussion you鈥檒l find alright, but it isn鈥檛 of the frank and intelligent sort.

This particular panel discussion was pitched to the public as a matter of media freedom. 鈥淚s media freedom really under risk?鈥� the bumf read. Professor Adam Habib, the referee at this discussion, admonished the gathered parties to speak 鈥渨ith鈥� each other, rather than 鈥減ast鈥� each other. The professor wanted a meeting of minds.

It鈥檚 precisely what he didn鈥檛 get.

The panelists were Mondli Makhanya, editor-in-chief of South Africa's Avusa Media (newspapers); Baleka Mbete, national chairperson of the African National Congress (ANC); and Richard Louw of the Freedom of Expression Institute. Things got a bit personal between Mbete and Makhanya. But more on that later.

STORY: In ANC bill, South African media see threat to press freedom

Each panelist was given 15 minutes to make opening remarks (fashionable disregard for time limits deferred to). Makhanya and Louw made the expected pro-media and pro-transparency noises. Mbete made the obligatory pro-media appeals tribunal and pro-Protection of Information Bill noises. The battle lines were set. Everyone knew who was for whom, and who to clap for.

As any person who frequents this sort of gathering knows, the sparks only really fly when the floor is opened up for audience members to make remarks. The panel chairperson always says 鈥渜uestions,鈥� but almost everyone interprets this as 鈥渞emarks.鈥�

Mbete immediately set the tone by accusing Makhanya of having a personal hand in her own negative experience with the press. She said his paper had erroneously reported that she had fudged up her , and when she had requested her assistants to submit records to the journalist who erroneously reported on her, the journalist in question had refused the proof that she was 鈥渃lean鈥� so that he could continue writing false allegations against her. Mbete said that she had approached the Press Ombudsman in order to settle the matter, and the eventual apology that had issued forth from the newspaper in question, as a result of a ruling by the Ombudsman, was far from satisfactory.

Clearly then, according to Mbete, something was wrong with the current system of redress against false media allegations. Or more to the point, Mbete and the media are not exactly the best of friends. The former deputy president didn鈥檛 seem to keen to engage with Makhanya and Louw on matters concerning the media appeals tribunal, but focused on nitpicking examples raised to illustrate broader issues, rather than tackling with the issues themselves.

The discussion was quite poorly attended, the politically interested chattering classes perhaps convened in their numbers at the , but a group of student hecklers made it out nonetheless. They sat right at the front of the auditorium, a few meters away from Makhanya, and interrupted the Avusa editor quite a few times, forcing Professor Habib to intervene.

Despite the overall poor impression that the talks made, several key issues could be extracted from the exchanges:

• The government has at least conceded that parts of the Protection of Information Bill are over-reaching and draconian. The key issue is the 鈥渘ational interest鈥� clause, which is so vague and broad that it is encompasses anything. A suggestion is that the government should frame the Protection of Information Bill as a 鈥渘ational security鈥� issue, rather than a 鈥渘ational interest鈥� issue.
• There is no such budging on the issue of the media appeals tribunal. The ANC seems quite adamant on this one. For its part, the media are just as adamant that the tribunal is about muzzling critical reporting, rather than protecting those victimised by the press.
• There is consensus from the ANC and members of the public that the Press Ombudsman is toothless. There is agreement that an apology from a newspaper for inaccurate reporting is not enough. The media say that an apology is quite hurtful and is the best and most accepted system of redress, and the governing party would like to see harsher penalties. However, the media and Press Council concede that the complaints procedure may need redress, but not of the statutory kind.

Knives are out for newspapers. The most concerning thing is that the public seems to be for the media appeals tribunal, either because they genuinely believe the ANC鈥檚 contention that people have lost jobs, family and careers because of untruthful journalism, or because they cannot yet stomach 鈥淲estern-style鈥� reporting that does not revere 鈥渆lders鈥� and leaders.

It鈥檚 going to be a long fight, and could get quite nasty.

(Stephen Grootes was at the same event 鈥� read his assessment in the .)

Sipho Hlongwane blogs at the . You can follow him on Twitter: @comradesipho