Colonized Information,Technology, and Technique In Service of Neo-Apartheid Against Africans

8/18/2019 Colonized Information,Technology, and Technique In Service of Neo-Apartheid Against Africans

1/66

Colonized Information,Technology, and Technique In

Service of Neo-Apartheid Against Africans

Suppression and Propaganda

The advent of the Internet has finally given some racist White South Africans something to say whichthey have nave not been able to say for many decades. It is not like the South African Apartheid

government did not use the media to defend its case against it s detractors overseas. There are

ample examples of the how they did so.

They spent billions buying media conglomerates in the United States and Europe to present their

case. It is worth noting that people say that they want the truth, but what they really want is a

confirmation of what they already believe. People tend to define history through personal memories.

There are some White folks in South Africa who believe that African history should be dealt in a

positive light deemed right by them.

According to these White people, dwelling on the negative(meaning those that expose Whites and

their blaming Africans for everything) only reinforces negative images of Africans among themselves

and other races and also re-opens the "blame" wound that makes Whites uneasy That is some logic

there! Perhaps the most important factor in public uneasiness is the knowledge gap.

Most people's images of Apartheid in South Africa and elsewhere is what the Radio, newspapers,TV

and the Internet tells them it is or should or could be. Some define history in a political context,

based on propaganda. Still others define history through mythos, a collection of interpretations of

the past carried in expressive media such as songs, dances, movies, words-of-mouth and the

internet.

But then, there is real history, the one which is analytical and it is also done through academic

research. History will always be critical of mythos and memory because they have little to do with

standards of evidence. It is this gap between how the average person perceives Apartheid - a

simplistic White oppressor, Black Victim Story - and the much more complex historical record that

poses a dilemma for many people. A lot of people, African and White, are afraid of a greater

analytical view of these very problematic things of the past because it will not conform to their

strongly held mythos.

So, what they do is conflate the feelings that they have today with what they imagine people feltduring Apartheid. Most whites who are busy attacking Africans and African history of South Africa

on the Net do not understand how difficult survival was and is-Spiritually emotionally and physically,

for Africans - and that, that survival was strength and is still strength for Africans, today. And in this

mix, one can begin to add the new ANC-led government, and its history will be dealt with below that

of the one on Apartheid.

In Defense of the 'Vaderland' and the 'Volk' in the Media

Historical Perspective and Academic Analysis of Apartheid Media

In order for us to understand the Media Propaganda flourishing on the Internet by many Racist and

unapologetic detractors of African people, we will be better served if we really put Apartheid Media

into a proper Historical Perspective. To understand the present vitriol on the Web against African


2/66

people in South Africa by White people, we will delve into some research in order to paint a much

clearer picture.

Today it is very easy for White bloggers and Internet users in South Africa to assail African people

from every angle conceivable. It is true that of the 45% of Internet users in South Africa, fewer than

3% are African users. This is due to imposed poverty, ignorance and many other shenanigans

applied by those who still uphold the values and life-style of Apartheid and will not let it go.

In order for South African Africans to understand this concentrated and vicious effort against them it

is important to put the history of the South African press into a propers perspective; African people

were not included nor consulted on their opinions or points of view by the colonial government of

the day. When the Afrikaners undertook their "Great Africa," they did so with the hope that will

create Republics conducted to their own liking.

But the discovery of diamonds and gold brought about fortune seekers who began to intrude on how

these new "Boer Republics " were run, and the intruders were backed-up by the Newspapers they

brought along with them. In 1800, The Cape Times Gazette made its debut. It carried government

notices and paragraphs of news. Within three months, the governor withdrew its printing monopolyand bought the press. Lord Somerset proceeded by sending the press to a remote 'frontier' village in

Graff Reinett on the Western Cape Coast, where it was used to print government forms(Varley,

1962)

By then, Thomas Pringle and John Fairbairn, in January 7, 1824, ran the first issue of South Africa's

first independent press, 'The South African Commercial Advertiser.' The Commercial Advertiser

printed proceedings of a court case that dealt with allegations of corruption in Somersert's

administration. By this time, the governor had just returned from leave in London. Before he left for

England, the Governor had asked Pringle and his colleague to submit proof sheets to his office

before publication.

The issue duly appeared under these conditions. Pringle was summoned before the governor,whom

he found with the South African Journal lying open before him. Pringle wrote: "'So , sir,' he began,

'you are one of those who dare to insult me and oppose my government,' and he launched into a long

tirade of abuse; 'scolding, upbraiding and taunting, with all the domineering arrogance of mien and

sneering insolence of expression of which he was so great a master'(Pringle, Narrative. p. 89)

Despite further difficulties, the press won when in April Somerset was recalled to London.

From then on, papers rapidly expanded into the interior. A list of newspapers listed in the Colonial

office of Cape Town in 1891 included names of more than 125 assorted journals(Cory, 1913). In thispart, one begins to see officialese arrogance and harsh attitude and stance being taken by individual

people in power, and in the later years that spun into policy and then law.

The reaction of the Dutch Settlers and Colonists was to set up a journal to counteract Fairbairn's

newspaper. De Zuid Afrikaans appeared in 1828 and according to an Afrikaner historian, was

obliged from the outset not only to fight against "radicalism of the negrophilist philanthropists," but

also frequently to defend the name of the Dutch residents against libel of the British in the

Cape(Greig, 1963) and to fight and preserve the Boer Culture and the "Vaderland"(Fatherland)

through the press. To the Dutch, the terms "free press" and "independent press" came to mean

dominating African populations and the control of intellectual property and content and academicsuperiority and superior complexes over African people.

In 1858 Cape Town had eight newspapers of Which the Cape Argus, a commercial newspaper


3/66

survived and spawned Africa's largest newspaper chain. Before long, The Argus was the only

triweekly in the Cape and claimed the largest circulation. This newspaper printed a special

supplement prepared by correspondents in London. In 1876, The Argus, together with the mining

and commercial interests formed The Argus Printing and Publishing Company. The discovery of gold

in 1872, in the eastern Transvaal and in 1886 in the Witwatersrand(the areas of what is today known

as Johannesburg[or Gauteng]brought about hundreds of prospectors and fortune seekers.

The diggers or "Uitlanders"[Foreigners], as the Boers called them, had little sympathy for the Boer

government. Pro-digger newspapers like the Gold Fields Mercury and the Argus were very critical of

the government, denouncing it as corrupt and inefficient(this theme , as will be seen, is recurring

today against the ANC-led government in the South Africa press). In 1889, the Argus Printing and

Publishing Co., limited was formed. It was a collusion of English newspapers in Johannesburg,

Kimberley and London.

The Cape Argus was then called the Star, and changed from a triweekly to a daily

newspaper(Neame, 1956; Rosenthal, 1970). The British and the Boers were on a collision course.

The merging of big British capital and the British newspapers brought resentment from the

Afrikaners, and this is what partly led to and culminated into the Anglo-Boer war at the turn of thecentury.

One of the key players in this war was Cecil John Rhodes. He was one of the richest men in South

Africa at the time. In 1871, he opened diamond mines in Kimberley, known as the De Beer

Consolidated Mines. As a private citizen, Rhodes also had gold mining interests in the Transvaal.

Using that toehold, he developed a plan that he hoped would bring about British power to the

Transvaal Boer Republic. He sent some of his Henchmen to stir up unrest amongst the "Uitlanders,"

getting them to agitate for voting and other rights. In 1895, acting on his orders, Rhodesian

troops(today known as Zimbabwe) staged a raid on the Transvaal with the hope that it would set off

a revolt which would finally oust he Boers from power.

This attack, which came to be known as the Jamieson Raid - because it was led by Jamieson, was

botched, and Rhodes' plan failed(Caldwell, 1975; Le Seur, 1913). The Jamieson raid damaged

relations between the Boers and the British beyond recall. The raid affected the press. In 1896

President Kruger passed a law requiring the press to disclose the names of printers and publishers.

This law also gave the State President the right to ban the distribution of publications which were

perceived to be breaking the law of the Transvaal Republic. Kruger took these moves to protect his

government against the British press attacks.(van Jaarsveld, 1961)

The reasons for the Anglo-Boer War lay in a combination of strategic, political and economic factors.When the war started in 1899, the Kruger government shut down the British Press. On the other

hand, the British arrested Afrikaner editors and shut down the circulation of Dutch newspapers in all

British colonies. When the British defeated the Boers, they were sure that the press would never be

anti-British again.

They put the press under the control of the Argus Company. (Pemberton, 1964) It is in this tradition

of 'robust British-type press freedom,' established in the last century, and has come under pressure

in the 20 Century, that the press found itself caught in conflicts of a deeply polarized society, to-date

in the 21 century. It was a press caught between a divided English and Afrikaner public, and both

the English and Afrikaners caught between African nationalism of the 20 century, and the newneocolonial, post-apartheid petit African bourgeoisies of the 21 century.

The Afrikaners emerged from the Anglo Boer War a defeated and impoverished nation. The war was


4/66

a White man's war. But, rarely discussed, was the participation of Africans in the war- and that is for

another topic in another Hub. Nonetheless, it has been recorded that Africans helped on both sides

of the war and thousands of them died in concentration camps, but their contributions as fighters

was not and is still not yet acknowledged. Nor had any nations that were conquered by the Whites

during the late sixteen hundreds had a chance to seize the moment of white division. British armies

had crushed African resistance and black power structures and were also in a position to impose

their will on the Afrikaners (Sol Plaatjie, 1974)

But two of the most successful Boer Guerrilla leaders, Smuts and his commander-in-chief,General

Louis Botha, led a movement for conciliation. The liberals in London and the Afrikaner 'conciliators'

revived the idea that they should amalgamate. They set about forming a united South Africa in which

the English and the Dutch speaking people would bury their differences. Africans were not included

nor invited to these talks. The others that were included were the gold mining companies and a

growing class of Afrikaner large-scale farmers who needed a stable permanent settlement and a

large cheap labor force.

To secure a government that would guarantee both, they formed an alliance of gold and maize. With

the British looking on benignly and helping where they could, the leaders of South Africa assembled.They had many differences, but within a couple of years, Afrikaners and the British framers and

mine owners from the interior, traders and plantation owners from the seaboard, agreed to merge

not as a mere federation, But a Union, with overriding powers given to central government (Le May

1965).

The Afrikaners were quick to mobilize their political power against the British Imperialist gestures.

They refused to serve on the proposed legislative council, declaring that self-government alone

would satisfy them. In fact, by 1904, several hundred Afrikaners in Pretoria established their first

major political organization, "Het Volk." It focused on Afrikaner grievances over restrictions on their

use of the Dutch language and over the administration of relief funds.(Davenport, 1966)

The devastation of the Anglo-Boer War had turned the Afrikaner in the Transvaal and the Orange

Free State into an impoverished people. The landless poor whites had become a serious problem into

he Transvaal even before the war. Many Boers were no longer self-sufficient and independent.

Consequently, these barely literate indigent Whites began another Great Trek.

They moved from the rural outbacks into the burgeoning towns and cities. They arrived with

essentially no better skills that the Africans who also left the rural areas to seek urban employment.

In other words, Whites in South Africa were on equal footing with the Africans. Many of these poor,

uneducated and unskilled Afrikaners gravitated towards the famous war veteran, General B.Hertzog.

He eloquently articulated their fear that their 'civilization' would be obliterated by the

technologically superior civilization of the British Speakers. Hertzog crystalized the Afrikaner

movement in 1914 with the formation of the 'National Party'. From that time to this day, the

National Party has been the major vehicle for Afrikaner Nationalism(Vatcher, 1965) The movement

was further boosted in 1915 with the founding of he newspaper, Die Burger in Cape Town, under the

editorship of D.F. Malan.

This was the first daily Afrikaans-language paper in South Africa. It was complemented in 1938 bythe Transvaaler, edited by Hendrick Verwoerd. Die Burger began in less than promising

circumstances. The country was under martial law and Die Burger was suspected of pro-German

leanings. During the First World War, Die Burger was cautious to avoid suppression. Its readership


5/66


6/66

In short, it was a 'patriotic' press in the narrow context of the ethnic political movement it served.

When the Nationalist government came into power, the press was still expected to be loyal and

patriotic when it came to larger 'national interests'. This included reports on the implementation of

Apartheid and the international reactions to it; the press was expected to be loyal and patriotic at all

times. Under traditional authoritarianism, the press operated outside of the government and was

permitted to gather and publish news, but it had to function for the 'good of the state'.

The government usually left the press alone if it did not criticize authority or challenge the

leadership in any way. If the press attacked or embarrassed the government. Then the political

authority intervened, imposed censorship or even closing down publication and jailing editors. The

government arrived at this logic at a position where it was apparent that the dissemination of

information, ideas and opinions among members of the community necessarily had a negative effect

towards the government. Sometimes, as we shall later see, this effect was immediate, and at other

times 'remote' also, we'll see this play itself out in the same manner under the ANC-led government.

In fact, what the media restrictions limited most was the ability of its receivers to know the full story

of events that lay behind newspaper editorials.

Other Apartheid's Myriad and Media Laws

The Nationalist Apartheid government immediately began to implement racial segregation or

Apartheid through a series of laws. The Prohibition or Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 made

intermarriages between races illegal the population Registration Act allocated every South African

to a specific racial group. The immorality Act made sex across color lines illegal. The English press

reflected the human suffering wrought by Apartheid legislation on the society.

This made for sensational headlines: prominent people committing suicide after being arrested

under the immorality Act; families split under the Population Registration Act; Arrests and banning

under the Suppression of the Communism Act. The English press through this type of reportage,continued to believe that it was practicing its traditional press freedom and in the process

embarrassed the government even more. The Nationalist government perceived this as disloyalty

prepared to damage national interests for the sake of partisan political gain. The government

increased political pressure to control this inveterate disloyalty through close government

monitoring (The Star, 1950)

The press commission was set up in 1950. It sat for eleven years as an intimidating inquisition. Its

charge included the concentration of control of the press and its effect on the editorial opinion and

comment and the presentation of news. The press had been served a notice that it activities were

under scrutiny ad was warned to watch its steps.(Giffard, 1975) This sound like and look like thedirection which ANC is going with its proposal of a Media tribunal.

J.G. Strydom succeeded Daniel Malan as Prime Minister in 1954. By this time, segregation had been

enforced in almost all public places: libraries,churches, theaters and so on. The Extension of

University Education Act set up four ethnic colleges for Africans, but restricted admission of other

races into the traditional White universities. Africans were compelled to carry passes or reference

books(got scrapped towards the end of Apartheid).

Multiracial Congresses were shut down. Inevitably, the press reflected in its reporting and

comments the growing polarization in the land. Strydom regarded the English press as the enemy of the government. But at the same time, the government remained relatively unfettered by the

negative reporting about Africans. (Hepple, 1974) Apartheid had in fact suppressed authentic

African politics, which were really the politics of opposition. This suppression systematically affected


7/66

both institutions and the press.

A key measure in achieving this shut-down of the opposition was application of the Suppression of

Communism Act. This Act prohibited newspapers from quoting the utterances, past of

contemporaneous, of any person place under a special restriction called the "Banning Order".

Similarly, newspapers could not publish anything deemed to further the aims of any banned

organization. This was he law used to ban the ANC, PAC, BCM and 37 other organizations.

This made it impossible for newspapers to report authentically to report on African politics for over

20 years. The copy-edition of the White newspapers were constantly on the alert and kept an up to

date list of 'banned' persons in a tickler box on the copy desks(Phelan, 1985; Mathews, 1971;

Mathews, 1981)

Slowly the net tightened. Defense matters were placed out of bounds, except when publications

were authorized by the Defense authorities themselves. The Official Secrets Act was tightened under

the title of "The Protection of Information Act"(The ANC is using the same terms and Act to create a

media tribunal). Reporting on activities of the police ad on prison conditions was made hazardous

through a cunning position that reversed the onus of proof: 1.e., newspapers had to prove that theyhad taken 'reasonable steps' to establish that what they published was rued.

This meant, for example, that newspapers could be

prosecuted for publishing any 'untrue matter' about the

police. For example, if a policeman tortured, assaulted or

killed someone, the press wold have to ask the police

themselves whether the allegations were true. If they denied, which they routinely did, the

newspapers could publish that information at their own risk. This in turn cost them large sums inlawyer fees and tied up senior editors and key reporting staff for months on legal consultation and

court appearances(Pollack, 1981; Potter, 1975)

All these laws were in force before the special press restrictions were enunciated in 1986. The laws

of the 1986 State of Emergency were already enough to fill a thick legal volume that every South

African journalist kept on his desk as an essential book of reference. There were more than 120 laws

restricting what could be reported in may areas of activity; for example, the police, defense,prisons,

official secrets, key points, oil supply, nuclear energy, the quoting of banned organizations or

promoting their aims, the quoting of a banned person/s, remarks held to foster racial hostility,

photographing and or publishing pictures of prisons, prisoners and so forth, are a few areassubjected to restriction. (Moseki, 1988; Stuart and Klapper, 1982)

To avoid the implementation of these threats, the newspaper proprietors agreed to establish a press

Council in the early 1970s. It was created to enable the press to monitor and censor itself. And it had

powers to reprimand and fine the newspaper found guilty of breaching the code of conduct (McKay,

1988)

According to Percy Qoboza, "Reporting and editing a newspaper in South Africa in the 1980s was

like walking through a minefield blindfolded". (Qoboza , 1984) A journalist who wanted to get ahead

was expected to show that he was at least half a businessman who understood and had a finelydeveloped sense of what pleased the Ad agencies and paper owners. The journalist was expected to

take this into account before exposing police brutality or the torture of detainees. On the other hand,

they had to be wary of security agents and government legislation. (Hachten, 1979)


8/66

In the final analysis, the press got entangled with immediate-future preoccupations, viz.., the

economics of circulation; rationalization between publishing companies and an increasing

concentration on business journalism; news that was politically safer and economically more

sensible was fully exploited. Maintain and holding tight to Ad agencies Only through a genuine social

revolution could there be a return to Pringle-Fairbairn press tradition.

But until then, the press under apartheid faced an authoritarian and recalcitrant regime. Further on

we will show the press has been used by White people to blame the victims of apartheid(Africans)

which they say that the condition they find themselves in, meaning Africans, was their own doing.

The African Press Under Colonialism and Apartheid Rule

The first newspaper for Africans in South Africa, Imvo Zabantsundu(African Opinion), was founded

in 1884 by John Tengo Jabavu. By the 1930s,the number of registered African newspapers were 19.

At about that time, literate Africans constituted about 12.4 percent of the adult African population.

This reading intelligentsia was made up of members and office bearers of proliferating independent

African political and cultural or economic organizations that sought to generate accoutrements of

middle-class lifestyles. The voluntary organizations which they established and the activities whichthey became personally involved were publicized in their journals survived the Great Depression of

1929-1932. After 1932, The Bantu World was founded and came to represent African point of view

and reportage(Switzer, 1979)

After 1932, The Bantu World was founded and came to represent in form as well as in content all

issues African. But it was owned by the Argus Company, a White, inevitably capitalist firm, and could

not be trusted. The Bantu World attracted corporate and financial interests that provided the

newspaper to develop rapidly as a business enterprise with fully fledged editorial, advertising,

accounting, printing and circulation departments.

At the same time, the newspaper became a resource center for training Africans in the skills needed

to run a successful business; for example, they were trained to work as printers, truck drivers,

typists, clerks, salesmen, advertising personnel, as well as journalists(Walshe, 1971). Social control

in the newsroom did not have to be communicated officially because Tema, the editor and

subsequent editors of the "Bantu Press" and those that followed conformed to the policies of the

newspaper proprietors(Couzens, 1977)

The Bantu World became a trendsetter from an elite to a mass audience. By 1946, African literacy

had increased to 21.3 percent. Only the Bantu World and Unmteteli wa Bantu(Speaker of the

People), were regarded as national papers. The former circulated mainly in the Transvaal andSwaziland; the latter circulated in the Reef(Johannesburg and Vaal Triangle, Ciskei, Transkei,

KwaZulu and Bophutatswana(Friedgut, 1949; Couzens, 1977) Suppression of African perspectives,

even in bland and moderate forms was considered essential to the maintenance, and by extension,

the very survival of Afrikaner dominance.

During the 1960s and 1970s, newspapers expanded coverage of African news (an area long ignored),

but was gradually recognized by some White newspapers who began to publish 'specials' or 'extras'

for African readers. As a result, the English papers in particular, began using African journalists, and

in the process, reported more Black news in the 1960s and 1970s.

Though no independent African or White press existed during the Apartheid era, there were

publications that were edited and published with the African reader in mind. What can be called the

African Press in during the realities of Apartheid South African could be described this way:


9/66

1. The English press became a 'surrogate' press for Africans especially in papers like the Rand Daily

Mail(banned) Daily Dispatch, Sunday Times and others.

2. There were weekly African orientated papers such as the Imvo Zabantsundu(Xhosa) Ilanga (Zulu)

Bona(See - in Sotho, Zulu and Xhosa people and the Cape Herald [For Cape Coloreds].

3. Bantu world, came to be known as The World, World, (both owned by Argus) was banned in 1977,

and was succeeded by Sowetan. It was produced by an African staff and edited for Africans .

4. Golden City Press, s Sunday paper for Africans in Johannesburg, founded in 1982 (which was

filling a void of the banned Post) and was owned by the Argus. (Switzer, 1988)

Thus, there was no independent and free African press in South Africa during the hey-days of

Apartheid rule. A combination of political pressure and economic failure saw them closed down or

taken over. In its determination to silence the African political opposition, the government had

closed eleven newspapers in 40-plus years. Five of them newspapers specifically for Africans, and

the other six were left-wing papers with a high African new content. It is therefore clear that the

Apartheid State was bent of crushing African Press, its content and existence in a period of forty years or more.

Other African newspapers either went out of business or were taken over by White commercial

companies, some of them went pro-government Afrikaans Press Companies. For example, Imvo

Zabantsundu was now published by Perskor, the most racially conservative of the Afrikaans

newspaper companies. City Press and Drum Magazine, both publication of honorable provenance in

the African struggle, were owned by a rival Afrikaans publishing house, Nasionale Pers(Naspers).

The Sowetan, a daily paper, was owned by the English-language group, The Argus Printing company

newspaper, which in turn was effectively controlled by the giant Anglo American Mines(Rubin,

1981).

The African press was less free, during Apartheid , to print the news it saw fit to print. This was

partly because of White ownership, encouraged by Apartheid legislation. And inevitably, the African

press reflected the White perspectives and perceptions in its reportage of news. The government

kept a hawkish eye on the African press because it considered it a potential enemy. Joe Latagkomo,

former editor of Sowetan, neatly summed the Steyn Reports accusations that the 'black press

meaning Sowetan, and some few others fomented discontent and lacked loyalty, responded in 1982

thus: "We do not believe any of these statements to have been true either for the The World, The

Weekend World, Post, Sunday Post or now for the Sowetan.

What those newspapers did was precisely what this same commission suggests the Afrikaans press

did not do: The Afrikaans press failed, the report says, to adequately report on the hopes and

frustrations of the black community. We reported on those hopes and frustrations. We did not call on

the government to pull down shacks and leave people in the cold They came and we reported it. We

did not create community councils such as that which received a disastrously low poll in Soweto. The

government did and we reported it. We did not detain people without trial, ban them, deport ethem.

The government did and we reported it. We did not fail to provide housing for the people.

The government did and we reported it. We did not make racist statements at public meetings. Some

government people did, and we reported them.... Who creates the climate for labor unrest, for schoolunrest? Why did thousands of kids flee from the country of their birth to take up arms? The

government created all this. We will report it. The government suggests there are a great deal of

"moderates" who are "embarrassed" by our newspapers. We would suggest that both the


10/66

government and the commission are out of touch with the situation. We know the hatred. We know

the bitterness that this system creates. We are part and parcel of it. We feel it; we sleep it.

I am convinced that nobody will be able to run a black newspaper which serves as a mirror of society

without threats from the government. There are too many government-created ills which cannot

simply be washed away. The government must stop deluding itself that there are thousands of

"moderate" backs who would buy an alternative paper which would dish out the news a la TV 2 and

3"(Black TV channels)

The laws that were administered in an attempt to regulate the press were not theoretically blind, so

was their administration not biased and not blind. Even before the State of Emergency, when no one

could keep up with the more than eight thousand general detentions (officially admitted by the

administration under parliamentary pressure), the number of detentions and arrests among black

journalists, relative to all other journalists, was markedly greater. Up to early 1987, no Afrikaner

journalist had ever been detained.

From 1976 to 1981, the period immediately before Mr. Latakgomo's editorial, fifty black journalists

were detained for up to five hundred days; ten were detained more than once; ten were banned; andone was arrested, tried, and sentenced to seven years on Robben Island(where Mandela was

imprisoned), known as the South Africa Devil's Island. In the same period, white journalists suffered

suffered one detention, one banning and one six-year jail sentence.

When one realizes that, during the period analyzed, there were fewer than two hundred and fifty

mainstream black journalists,but over thirty-five hundred white journalists, the disparity in applied

pressure is unmistakably enormous"(William A. Hachten and C. Anthony Giffard, 1984) Black

journalists were often assaulted and tortured in their encounters with security forces. Few have

escaped this brutality and several have suffered permanent injury as a result of it (Lelyveld, 1985).

The clamping down of African resistance in the sixties crushed black journalism too, and for a while

it went into decline. However, it recovered and entered a new phase with the demands of the 1976

Soweto Uprisings. At this time, racial explosion and violence made it impossible for White reporters

to enter Black Townships. For months on end, Black reporters risked their lives to get the story.

They continued to do so throughout the 1980s State of Emergencies, up to the time when Mandela

became President.

In the Area of official information and propaganda, the Nationalist Party has used public

communication to persuade and influence pubic opinion and perceptions both in South Africa and

abroad. From Daniel Malan, J.G. Strydom, J.B. Vorster, P.W. Botha to F.W. de Klerk, all have beenclosely linked with Afrikaner newspapers, the government created and information vacuum on Black

politics to its White electorate. South Africa was a divided country and it is still a divided country

even today.

The political opposition that was silenced was also segregated. Africans were physically removed

from the presence of those who had power, except to the extent that they met in their working

relationship. 'Thus, the White people, who were voting, did not see the consequences of the policy

they kept voting for. They did not see the consequences of the violent repression meted out on black

in the Townships, just a stone throw away. Life in their White suburbs was tranquil, orderly and

affluent' (Crapanznao, 195)

There was no sense of commitment as the race problem became abstracted into a subject during the

evening meal, on the part of Whites. In this vacuum, the government had indoctrinated the White


11/66

population over time to regard black majority rule as unacceptable.

With TV, the press and radio closed and controlled, blacks could not counter this smear campaign or

get themselves heard and judged in their own right. The same is true today, due to poverty and a

predatory African-led government, Africans cannot defend themselves adequately because they

cannot afford computers nor pay for the Internet so that they can counter the smear that is viscously

and heartlessly used with callous vitriol and information to smear them, nor will they be able to be

heard and judged in their own right, for a long time to come. Meanwhile, on the Web,

contemporaneously, the same campaign used by the Apartheid government to put down Africans in

the eyes of the world, is being used by ordinary Whites, on the Internet, to carry on that African

Smear Campaign vociferously packed and packaged in hideous and damning vitriol.

Apartheid Was Good For Africans...

Apartheid and Technology

The colonization, gathering, dissemination, spin, and control has been within the purview of the

Colonial and Apartheid media from the 1800s to today. The Hub above gives the history of the pressand many attempts made to control it then and for 2010 years. The Apartheid rulers upped the ante

when they passed a series of laws designed to curb, censor and dictate what could and should be

reported. The Apartheid government in South Africa was uncomfortable with both the freedom

permitted the independent press and the criticism the government drew from restricting the press.

The cultural shape freedom of expression assumed in the legal structure of South Africa was of

unique interest. The South African media system exists within a symbolic Apartheid system of its

own. At one hand of the media spectrum was the South African Broadcasting Corporation(SABC),

the state monopoly for all television and almost all radio, and served as the arm of the state. On the

other hand were the print media and organs of the African labor unions and communities, whichfocused on particular grievances caused by living under apartheid. In the middle was the

establishment press: there was the Afrikaans loyalist press along with its assertive and dissenting

wing on the right.

Next came the English newspapers and magazines which ranged from apolitical sex and soccer

tabloids, to brave antiApartheid journals mostly from the left. Also, there were student and church

publications with political viewpoints; usually from a sharply left or right perspective. Lastly, there

were the non-broadcast audiovisual media, from rock to reggae, 'volk' to Mbaqanga music, live

theater and movie houses and funeral orations to community-based meetings and rallies, and the

like.

The technological communications media ecology was dominated by SABC, which was fiercely loyal

to the Apartheid government. It accounted for nine out of ten radio listeners and TV viewers. It was

also dominated by a section made up of four commercial media corporations, similar to those that

dominated print media. Only three of the country's two dozen racially and linguistically targeted

radio stations were not controlled by the Pretoria regime through the SABC. Of the three, two were

owned by the Homeland governments: Radio Bop(Bophutatswana) and Capital Radio(Transkei). The

third one was owned by the Press Conglomerates and operated from the Bophutatswana Bantustan

(Tomaselli R. and Thomaselli K., 1987)

Four of the country's five TV Stations were run by SABC. The fifth was controlled by the four print

media groups. With the exception of two Bantustan stations and the press owned M-Net TV Station,

which broadcast nondescript content and substance; both radio and TV in South Africa broadcast


12/66

words and images of the world that were powerfully pro-government and pro-Apartheid. All

broadcast media was commercial because they all relied on advertising and consumer revenues. The

press barons had not been slow in recognizing that bad new meant bad business.

And South Africa's print media involved first and foremost, business ventures, as has been discussed

above. Print media ownership, as stated above in the Hub, was concentrated in the hand of four

press groups, and three of these, Argus, Times Limited(TML) and Nasionale Pers were owned and

controlled by Anglo American Corporation and Sanlam Giants, respectively of English and Afrikaner

Capital. (Giffard, 1980). Anglo and Sanlam also owned or controlled, through their press of

subsidiaries, the country's paper cartel, its three print media centers, network and the national news

agency wire service(Lacob, 1982). The fourth of the print media giants, Perskor, was equally tied

into Afrikaner capital through effective control by the Rembrandt Corporation and the Volkskas

Bank (Pogrund, 1976).

Clearly all organs of media companies were white owned and controlled, as is still the case today.

By this time, the Argus newspaper, the biggest of the four, accounted for more than 55 percent of all

daily newspapers bought in South Africa. In surveying the media environment in South Africa, itmust be borne in mind that most South Africans had limited access on what they read. South Africa,

with a largely educated white population - 3 million,(See My Hub on "African South Africans and the

June 16 1976 Revolt: Sad Times, Bad Times - Aluta Kontinua, AMANDLA, POWER!), and a middle

class of only 4 million Africans who were literate out of 30 million Africans and has a low circulation

of print media (Sparks, 1988)

By 1960, twelve years after the Nationalist came to power, the police fired on African demonstrators

in Sharpeville, and this came to be known as the 'Sharpeville massacre. The police slaughtered

people like cattle; shooting them from behind as they tried to run away, and it was officially

estimated that sixty-eight people died from that massacre. The Suppression of Communism Act,passed shortly thereafter, gave the government power and excuse to execute demonstrators. But the

violence did not abate after the law was enacted. The hot points on the the calendar of grievances,

form the 1960 massacre,to the 1985-1987 States of Emergencies, resulted in thousands of deaths

and detention (Spong, 1986)

A sampling of the powers that the government held and has exercised, indicates the scope of the

restraints on the freedom of the press:

a. The government had unlimited power to close down newspapers as it did in 1977 with The World

and the Weekend World, and the successors, The Post and The Sunday Post(1979), New Nation(1987), Rand daily Mail (1986), etc.

b. A more insidious power, because its exercise was not widely known or understood, was the

requirement that a new newspaper register and deposit R40,000.00 ($20,000.00), as a guarantee of

'good behavior' which may be forfeited if the publication errs in the opinion of the government do

the day. An untold number of small papers, reflecting African and dissident opinion, had in effect

been smothered in the cribs by this extreme form of registration power.

c. Authorities can achieve a measure of press control by banning the journalists themselves those

whose stories, associations, or activities displease government officials. This power has beenexercised with great frequency in the 1980s, particularly against black journalists associated with

black trade union, MWASA. Banned persons could not attend meetings, whether political, social, or

business. And this was done as an effort to put people under 'house arrest'. The banning of a


13/66

journalist, black or white, was a harsh action, denying them jobs, livelihood, and severely restricting

their personal freedom in general.

d. Even harsher than banning was detention, especially if the dreaded Section Six of the Terrorism

Act was invoked. Detention provisions were devoid of due process. They included arbitrary arrest

and incarceration without charges of trial for indefinite periods of time. Journalists could and did

disappear for long periods, as a number of black reporters did while covering the Soweto Uprisings

in June 1976 and in 1984.

e. Further, journalists were subject to prosecution under sweeping laws such as the Official Secrets

Act, Terrorism Act, Prison Act, Defense and Police Acts. This were particularly onerous to the press

because reporters must in effect get Ministerial permission to publish any story in these important

areas (Mathew, 1981)Much of the laws restricting the press and journalists were related to the vas

legal and bureaucratic structures that maintained the Apartheid regime.

Understanding press controls in Apartheid South Africa required an understanding of the political

system by which the country was governed. Legislative power was, until 1984, vested in a central

parliament consisting of a lower house (House of Assembly), the President's Council and the StatePresident. (In 1981, the Upper House [Senate], was replaced by the President's Council.)

Political power was concentrated in the House of Assembly made up of 165 White members, elected

by White voters only in single member constituency. The State President was Constitutional

ceremonial figure-head with powers similar to the Queen of England or the Governor general.

In the general elections of 1981, the National Party registered its ninth successive victory, scoring

the biggest electoral margin since 1910. The party was returned to power with a majority of 97

seats, winning 131 of the Assembly's 165 directly elected seats. On September 9 1983, the

Nationalist, with Botha at the Helm, pushed through parliament a new constitutional structure thatwould dramatically reshape the Westminister parliamentary system. Under the system, segregated

chambers were set for Coloreds and Indians, but Africans were left out.

By 1984, the African majority had not yet been represented in the Central Parliament and the

Provincial Council which had limited legislative power over the four Provinces(Natal, Transvaal,

Orange Free State and the Cape). This was due to the fat that by the 1970s, the state of White rule

in South Africa was not democratic, but authoritarian. It could be aptly described as a

"pigmentocracy'' in which all political power was vested in the White oligarchy, which was controlled

by an Afrikaner elite. This condition remains to this day in some form or another.

The liberal Press was reduced to insecurity and near impotence. It did not have the power to attack

Apartheid contradiction. The English dailies were impeded from discovering and reporting critically

on Constitutional reforms. The direction of laws over the past forty-plus years had ensured that, to

the extent South Africa remains a democracy,it would be a progressively less accountable one.

Mathews noted: "When absolute power is versed in the political authorities, a carping press seeks to

present fundamental alternatives. Its role becomes subversive in the minds of men who are not

accustomed to having their judgement qualified or seriously called into question by others.

The press tends to focus on the moral shortcomings of government policy and actions. It is a kind of

moral mirror in which the government sees its own image and the sight was not a frequently prettyone. This explains the irrational outbursts against the newspapers. They produce a discomfort of

conscience which is irrationally countered by transforming the press into a traitorous enemy ranking

with, if not, beyond the Communist, the ANC, etc. (Mathew, 1981) This is precisely what is


14/66

happening with the ANC and its coalition partners in its relationship with print media and various

other media organs.

Elaine Potter had earlier observed that: "In the Nationalist government's campaign against the

independent press, the government had two primary objectives: First, it sought to safeguard its

political principles; and second, to ensure its ideology was not merely the policy of a political party

which chanced to be in office, but a fundamental 'truth' against which only the press was

blasphemous. The importance of this for the press was the growing tendency to identify all

opposition to Apartheid with subversion and criticism of it defender with treason.

Thus, in seeking to secure itself in office and to eliminate all serious opposition to its Apartheid

ideology, the Nationalist government arrogated to itself very extensive powers. There can be little

argument that the government had provided itself with machinery to limit freedom of its institutional

opponents(Potter, 1975) The ANC is beginning the baby-steps of arrogating power to itself by

proposing the Protection of information Act and have a media tribunal answerable to the Parliament.

The multitude of wide-ranging laws enacted over the past fifty something years, created very

immediate and practical problems for reporters and editors attempting to gather and publishnews.These laws imposed a sense of self-censorship on the part of the press. Below a review a short

summation of the laws that controlled and created an Apartheid Media are Environment are

discussed(both Print and Electronic):

1. The Internal Security Act

Enacted in 1950 as the Suppression of Communism Act, this Act made it an offense to advocate,

advice, defend, or encourage the achievement of any objective of communism. The Act provided that

any newspaper deemed to be 'furthering' the objectives of Communism can be banned. This Act

made it an offense to publish anything said or written on any person banned under the Act.

2. Sabotage Act

This Act was dealt with under the General Law Amendment Act of 1962 which required that care be

taken to ensure that news reports, articles, or stories could not be construed as incitement,

instigation, or aid to endanger, among other things, the maintenance of law and order. Under this

law, journalists could be detained incommunicado for up to 180 days or indefinitely. Habeas corpus

was specifically rendered impossible. There was also provision for a 14 day detention, renewable

indefinitely, for 'interrogation'. Under this provision, the police had to place an affidavit before a

judge to justify any detention. The detainee was not allowed or entitled to know the allegationspresented to the judge by the police. Again, habeas corpus was excluded.

3. Terrorism Act

This Act regarded terrorism as any action which would endanger the maintenance of law and order;

causing general disturbance; furthering any political aims (including social or economic changes) by

forcible means or with the aid of any foreign government or body causing feelings of hostility

between Whites and Backs; promoting the achievement of any objective by intimidation; prejudicing

the operation of industry and commerce.

In this instance, the state had to show that the accused intended to endanger law and order. Thus

the onus shifted to the accused to prove that he or she did not have that intention. A finding of guilty

under the Terrorism Act meant a compulsory minimum of five years imprisonment; the maximum


15/66

penalty was death. The impact of this statute was immediately apparent. Letters to the editor,

advertisement, political columns, editorials, and news stories containing matter which might be

construed as conspiring, procuring to overthrow the state, were prohibited. This law intended to

bolster the Apartheid regime, and also posed great dangers to journalists merely trying to report

what was happening.

4. Unlawful Organization Act

This Act was enacted in 1960, and it was used to ban the AC and PAC. This Act proscribed

newspapers from publishing ANC and PAC views abroad, or their underground material. Related to

this legislation was the Affected Organization Act of 1974 which made it illegal or an offense to

canvass foreign money for or on behalf of declared to be banned. Newspaper kept lists of such

organizations as protection from harassment by the state.

5. Riotous Assemblies Act

This 1956 Act dealt with the area of 'promoting hostility' between races as the Bantu Administration

Act of 1927 had made it an offense for anyone to promote hostility between blacks and whites.Secondly, if a person was prohibited from attending a meeting, nothing he or he said wrote, whether

it was in the present, past or future, could be reported. Thirdly, a newspaper could be banned it in

the government opinion, any cartoon, picture, article or advertisement was deemed to endanger

race relations. Fourthly, it was an offense to publish anything that could have the consequences of

inciting others to violence.

6. Official Secrets Act

This Act proscribed the communication of anything relating to munitions of war or any purpose

prejudicial to the safety or interest of the Republic of South Africa. Penalties were severe up tofifteen years imprisonment. In practice, it served to place severe restrictions on reporting anything

to do with security. This was put into effect in conjunction with the Defense Act of 1957, which

restricted reportage of military matters, including reprinting reports appearing in foreign

newspapers. Newspapers were not allowed to publish stories which 'alarm or depress' the public.

7. Prison Act of 1959 and 1965

The key section of this law affecting the press, prohibited publication of any false information about

the experiences in prison of any prisoner or ex-prisoner or administration of any prison without

taking reasonable steps to verify such information. The burden of proving that such steps weretaken, were on the accused. What constituted reasonable steps was not clearly spelled-out. The

reporter was expected to first very everything he or she wanted to publish, first with the prison

department, and could only publish if the prisons department confirmed the story.

8. Police Amendment Act

The most oppressive was the second Police Amendment Act of 1979, which made it an offense to

publish 'any untrue' matter about the police 'without having reasonable ground for believing that the

statement was true.' The onus of proof was on the newspaper and the maximum penalty was

R10,000.00($1,500) fine or up to five years imprisonment. This Act spawned distrust because it gaveimmunity to the police from the press and public scrutiny. The Prisons Act affected a relatively small

community, but the Police Amendment Act affected very much larger proportion of the population.


16/66

9. Advocate General Act

This 1979 law created the office of the Advocate General. Under this law, no person may, without

permission of the Advocate General, disclose to any other person (journalists included) the content

of any document in the possession of the Advocate General. The Act did not interfere with the

traditional freedom of parliamentary debate. However, in practice, government members of

parliament may, when confronted with alleged corruption, merely referred the accuser to the

Advocate General; this, in effect, replaced the opposition's role as the watchdog over corruption with

investigation by the Advocate General.

10. Protection of Information Act

In June 1982, parliament passed the Protection of Information Act which provided for several wide

restrictions on the public's right to know. It provided jail sentences of up to ten years for the

unauthorized disclosure of information relating 'security matters or the prevention or combating of

terrorism'. The onus was on the editor to prove that any facts he published could not be construed as

prejudicial to state interests.

11. National Key Points Act

The National Key Points Act was a 1980 law permitting the government to designate certain crisis

areas, such as the scene of the terrorist bombing, as off limits for journalists. This bill was keeping

within the present legislative policy of suppressing information about hostile acts directed against

the state and strategic installation. The intent of the Act was to subject news of an act to sabotage at

any 'key' installations (such as the Sasol Coal and gasification project) for approval by the military

authority before publication.

12. Petroleum Products Amendment Act

This 1978 Act was another law restricting press coverage. Journalists faced fines of up to

R20,000($2,800) and seven years imprisonment for publishing without Ministerial permission,

information about the source, manufacture, or storage of any petroleum produced or acquired by

South Africa. Similar restriction concerning the stockpiling of strategic commodities were imposed

under the National Supplies Procurement Amendment Act of 1979. This Act empowered rather than

obscure government officials, The Minister of Industries, Commerce and Consumer Affairs, that

whenever they deemed it expedient or necessary, publish a notice in the Government Gazette,

prohibiting the disclosure of any information regarding any goods or services.

13. The Atomic Energy Act of 1973

This Act imposed severe penalties for unauthorized publication of information about uranium or

thorium, nuclear research, and many activities of the Atomic Energy Board by the press.

14. The Hazardous Substance Act of 1973

This statute made it an offense for anyone, journalists included, to refuse to give information about

such material to an inspector who demanded the information or explanation. Broadly speaking, a

hazardous substance is one which had toxic, corrosive, radioactive or flammable propertied, or is anelectric product.

15. The Radio Act of 1952


17/66

This Act made it an offense to intercept and publish radio communication which a person was not

authorized to received. News reporters were not allowed to monitor the ambulance, police, the fire

department, or army signals to pick up tips.

In short, all the above stated laws fell into three categories:

First, were laws that curtailed individual freedoms in such a manner as to harm press freedom as

well. The Internal Security Act provided for the 'banning' of individuals, and preventing them from

writing or being quoted by the press. The Unlawful organizations Act made it an offense to publish

anything that was construed as 'furthering' the aims of proscribed organizations such as the ANC,

PAC, etc., (this law was later scrapped).

Laws of the second type forbid publication of certain information without permission, on topics such

as atomic energy and oil supplies. Reporting on the South African Defense Force was drastically

limited by the Defense Act. In 1975, this law was used to keep South Africans from knowing the

army's full scale war in Angola. The publications Act empowered a government agency to ban

'undesirable' material. Undesirable material was defined quite broadly, and included matter

considered prejudicial to the safety of the state, or the general welfare of the society

The third category of laws included those that do not ban sensitive topics outright, but instead,

created legal hazards for publishers who might choose to cover them. For example, the Prisons Act

made impossible and an offense to publish false information about prisons without taking

'reasonable' steps to ensure it's accuracy. A similar law governed reporting on may areas of activity

such as police, defense, prisons, official secrets, key points, oil supply, nuclear energy, the quoting of

banned persons, or promoting the aims of banned organizations, or publishing on prisons and

prisoners(Stuart, 1982)

From the above laws, the government erected a more rigid mechanism of control. Despite theselaws, the South Africa press was able to exploit a wide margin to publish news and comments that

were critical of the government. The public had the English press as an alternative to propaganda of

the state controlled television, radio and film (Tomaselli R. and Tomaselli K., 1987)

On July 20, President Botha declared the firs State of Emergency. It authorized the police to close off

areas in the Townships, and to block the publication of news or comments concerning the State of

Emergency or its enforcement. The State of Emergency also barred publishing names of detainees

without authorization. These emergency powers buttressed the already existing draconian

legislation through enabling the security forces to operate under conditions resembling martial law

in thirty-six affected areas. But the State of Emergency did not crush popular insurgency.Ominously, in the firs month after its declaration, the number of deaths attributed to political

violence tripled(New York Times, 1985).

In August 1985, the bloodiest moth during the State of Emergency, more than 160 people were

killed in politically related violence. By November 2, 1985, Botha clamped down on the media. He

decreed that print reporters in unrest areas first seek police permission from the police. He forbade

all camera crews, photographers, and radio reporters in the areas covered by the State of

Emergency(Christian Science Monitor, 1985) - Also, read my Hub on: "Apartheid Genocide on

Children: The Killing of African South African Kids from 1985 to beyond Y2K", and visit the picture

gallery of the Hub to see what Botha was trying to avoid to be captured what they were doing in theTownships. In the Comment Section of the Hub I wrote: "Cry the Beloved Peoples: An In-Depth View

of How the Apartheidizers Blame the Victims in Contemporary South Africa."


18/66


19/66

e. no unauthorized reports on conditions of detainees, or on various forms of non-violent protest

activities, and on unlawful local political structures, such as the 'peoples courts.'

Any journalists who violated these emergency decrees were punished by a fine of up to R20,000 or

ten years in prison. In some cases, both. These press restrictions were aimed at thwarting one of the

essential components of a democracy: the free flow of information and ideas that enabled citizen to

make informed political decisions. The government sought to achieve this objective in three ways.

Firstly, these restrictions aimed to calm the White minority by keeping them ignorant o the events in

the Townships. Botha's government was politically dependent on appearing firmly in control while

pursing is gradual and very limited program of reform.

Secondly, the government wanted to deprive the foreign audiences of information on what was

happening in south Africa in order to diffuse international political and economic pressure.

Thirdly, by hampering the abilities of the press to cover most activities of the anti-Apartheid

movements, Botha was able to distort political life by denying access to the media of the country''s

main political forces.

By purposely making the restrictions vague, and by enforcing them unevenly, the state managed to

keep journalists off-balance. Most editors had stopped trying to clear their copy before publication,

but erred on the side of caution when running the story, thereby acquiescing de facto in the

strictures. Eventually, those restrictions containing loopholes and inviting circumvention, were

usually closed-off by the publication of amended executive orders under the State of Emergency.

Finally, it was fact and information more than opinion that were restricted by these regulations.

What these media restrictions limited most was the ability of South Africans and the World to know

the full story of events that lay behind the editorials of South Africa as dictated by the ApartheidState legislature, capital and military interests, through coercion of Africans. Those who trumpet the

virtues of Apartheid and its shenanigans, are mere adding insult to injury on the African people who

are still suffering the 'after-effects' of Apartheid.

The whole new thing of Blaming the Victims of Apartheid on the Internet, is another one of the many

abuses that Africans have to suffer, and the world, through the World Wide Web, have to listen to.

Articles like this one,are written with the History of Apartheid in mind, and the new media under the

ANC-led government,and trying very hard to show the differences and progress that has been made

thus far, and yet seems to be plodding down the same road as Apartheid's muzzling of the media.

Post Apartheid Democratic Free Media

Between 1950 and 1990, more than 100 laws affecting the media were passed by the apartheid

regime. It is important to note that in 2004, South Africa was marking ten years of operation in a

free legal environment of democracy. This has had a positive impact on the media, and the media, in

a way, has helped to consolidate tis new democracy. But this relationship, that of the press, vis-a-vis

government is a very mixed one. The quality of journalism under this new ANC-led government has

begun to change. At this juncture,it is important to look at the past 16 years of journalism in south

Africa, and what is happening today between the ANC-led Government and the media.

To put this history in perspective, the KAF Democracy Report of 2005, stated that: "South Africa has

an adult population (people aged 15 and over) of 26 million about 12 to 13 million had less than a

full general education; about 7.4 to 8.5 million have less than grade 7(often used as an education-


20/66

level indicator of sustainable, functional literacy) and about 2.9 to 4.2 million people are estimated

to have had no schooling at all, and are presumably functionally illiterate. These are the leftovers of

and affects of the Apartheid rule which created poor educational infrastructures, especially in the

rural areas. The Present government has begun to address the backlog by providing adult basic

education and training(ABET) and compulsory schooling for all children from grades 1 to 10."

This is important , but if one were to look much more deeper into the newly created Educational

system, there seems to be more failures and in schools and chaos as it regards the curriculum. With

education being overhauled, we look at the short history of the Media and communication organs in

the era of the ANC-led government.

The History of the Media in the Age of ANC-led Democracy

The New Media Structure under Apartheid:

The KAF Democracy Repot of 2005 further informs us thus: South Africa enjoys a great rage of local

and national independent media compared to other countries on the continent. The National

Broadcaster, The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) owns 21 radio station of whichseveral broadcast in the country's 12 official languages. SABC also own four TV Stations - SABC 123

and SABC Africa, which beams out via satellite company DSTV into the rest of Africa. The

independent Communications regulator, ICASA, recently gave SABC two regional television stations

that will broadcast local content exclusively in the country's indigenous languages.

There are 80 functional community radio stations operating in the country's 9 provinces; a recently

published White Paper has been published which proposes the framework for the establishment of

community television in the country. There are 14 private commercial radio operators that broadcast

in a range of formats from adult contemporary music, to jazz, classical music, youth and current

affairs. The footprint stretches across major metropolitan areas and provinces.

However, no private commercial radio station have been licensed to compete wit the public

broadcaster monopoly. Recently, during the past two years leading to 2010, SABC has been

embroiled in corruption wherein about R10-billion has been lost and the ANC has decided to insert

their Man at the helm of the organization, and this has had some form of chilling affect and the giant

monopoly is still facing an uncertain direction in its programing and management, that is, as of the

writing of this Hub.

KAF Report continues: "E-TV is the country's only licensed free to air alternative programming to

that of SABC. MNET is the country's only terrestrial pay-TV channel, while DSTV is a subscriptionTV Bouquet, broadcast via satellite to South Africa and several African Countries. Both MNET and

DSTV are owned by Media Group Naspers, which is also a major publisher of South Africa

Newspapers and Magazines."

This entity will also be given a brief historical look so as to understand its role in contemporary

Media environment or ecology within South Africa and elsewhere. Nearly 20 daily independent

newspapers titles are published in the country's commercial hubs and provinces. Only a handful of

daily and weekly titles are circulated throughout the country , and this is due to the high costs of

distribution. In 2001, an estimated 147 free sheets of 'knock and drop' papers became affiliated the

now defunct Community Press Association.

These knock and drop titles, have a majority of them now owned by the media group, Caxton, are

now being distributed freely to urban dwellers, generally those in affluent neighborhoods and


21/66

districts. Newspapers are still a source of information for some urban dwellers that the buying and

reading of newspaper is still one that is deeply entrenched in the urban readers.

Radio is till a very popular medium amongst South Africans, and it provides news, weather, musical

programs, talk shows and religious services and music to a very part of the South African

population. The KAF Democracy Report informs us that: "Radio is dominated by the three largest

players, Kagiso, Primedia and African Media Enterprises, and newspapers by the print giants,

Naspers, Johncom, Independent News and Caxton.

"These companies have diversified their interests into other media areas as well, including outdoor

advertising, cinema and film distribution, advertising sales, Internet Publishing and magazines.

Several are are looking northwards and intend to expand their empires into the rest of Africa."

The KAF Report continues to add that: "No political party own its own newspaper, except of the

Ilanga, a newspaper printed in Zulu in KwaZulu Natal the Mandla Matla Trust, it is owned by the

Inkatha Freedom Party. Although it is claimed that the owners do not interfere in the title's editorial

independence, but the paper's allegiances are sometimes question due to its political Affiliation "

Community ownership of newspapers in South Africa, along with TV and Radio, are still out of thequestion.

In essence, the structure of the media as it has been crafted under Apartheid, transitioned as it was

into the new Age of the ANC-led government for the past 16 years.

When it comes to the Internet, the KAF Democracy Report states: "Political parties have used the

Internet as an inexpensive means of disseminating their opinions in the public domain, with the

ANC's online newsletter, ANC Today, becoming primary reading material for any political

journalists. There is no censorship for online newspapers, the majority of which are shovelware for

their print counterparts.

"The South Africa Advertising Research Foundation's All Media Products Survey(AMPS) estimates

that almost 28 million people tune in to radio(of this figure, community radio accounts for about 4.5

million listeners) Due to the high costs of access, however, the Internet remains an elite medium.

"Research company, Worldwide Worx estimates that approximately 3.5 million South Africans (about

7.5 per cent of the total population) have access to the internet. The cost of television sets and the

limitations of signal distribution means nd access to electircity mean only 14.6 million South

Africans have access to television.

"An audience media survey conducted by South African NGO Genderlinks to look at news and

current affairs consumption patterns among men and women in South Africa showed that: 49 per

cent of women and 40 per cent of men get their main news fix from television [very often: 4], 34 per

cent of men and women regard radio as the primary news source [often: 3] and 21 per cent of men

and 15 per cent of women use newspapers 9 [occasionally: 2]. The Internet, by contrast is almost

never used." (Berger)

Also as distinct from the pre-Apartheid era, the 1990s saw the rise of the Internet as another mass

medium. While access in South Africa remans limited only mainly to the middle class white

community, this outlet with its participative dimension has meant another way in which different views can be expressed, debated and disseminated. The state has generally sought to improve

access to the use of ICTs through the development of multi-purpose centers in Townships and rural

areas.


22/66

There is no censorship of the Internet though the Interception and Monitoring Act does allow the

government to snoop on people's Internet usage and email among other things. Low internet access

(about 3.5 million) is a consequence of poor government planning and a telecommunications

monopoly by Telkom that has seen South Africans reportedly pay the highest on average call cost in

the world.

Over the decade, there has been a drastic change in the media freedom environment. Government

and media have attempted to engage constructively with each other, especially at national level

through the South African National Editors Forum. However, tensions between government and the

Fourth Estate do persist. Since 2000, a number of positive legislative changes have occurred which

strengthen the media. These include the establishment of the Media Development and Diversity

Agency (MDDA) and the promulgation of a Freedom of Information Act.

In broadcasting, the publication of position papers on ownership and control of broadcasting

services, local content quotas, regional and community television broadcasting, subscription

broadcasting services and convergence legislation should strengthen and guide the sector and

bolster South Africa's position as a world class broadcaster. Up to now, there was virtually no fear of

repression, but there was trouble for the media looming in the immediate future: Media tribunal....

Hiding Bad Governance Behind Draconian Laws

South Africans, through the financing model at SABC, are inundated with cheap US programming

and less indigenous talent, despite the local content quota. In the past few years, SABC wanted to

separate itself into commercial and public service wings, with profits from government subsidizing

SABC. This complex disentangling has been complicated by the fact that the public service wings

will still carry advertising.

Overall, the impact of this funding model on democracy in the narrow sense is not necessarilynegative. However, it means insufficient resources for programming in diverse languages, this could

have repercussions on the language of empowerment and on the informational divide amongst

citizens in South Africa. Another factor that endangers the credibility of journalism in South Africa

has been the increasing commercialism of the media industry. Even SABC as a public broadcaster is

substantially skewed in its contents due to this dynamic.

Part of this picture has also been an indiscriminate 'dumbing down' of content, and increase in

sensationalism. But overall, the subsidized media including SABC - are independent and critical

towards the government, but to a point. Further, the democratic standing of the media has been

undermined by numerous violations of the boundary between advertising and editorial orprogramming content. Further, to an individual, editors complain about how much they have to

concentrate on the business side of the media, such as on sales or on attracting audiences as ends in

themselves, at the expense of being able to focus on editorial content and its intrinsic value.

This situation in turn reflects the historical decline in the power of the editors who nowadays report

to a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or to a board. Editing content is now often subservient to

commercial agendas, and democratic consideration come second . (KAF Democracy Report 2005)

Some now feel that the new government, because of its dysfunctional role as a government, is now

using the Media tribunal as a deflection from the malfunctioning of its state policies.

The state that the government is hiding its bad governance behind draconian laws akin to those of

the Apartheid era. Joe Thloloe puts it this way: "The started in the early 1960s when the National

Party government was threatening to regulate the media in the same way the ANC is doing now. To


23/66

ward off that threat, the industry decided to create a media council."

Thloloe adds: "It is much of a political game than a real issue. There is no way of strengthening the

Ombudsman as it is now functioning. The suggestions that are being thrown in the ANC Alliance at

this point do not make sense. The jailing of journalists is absolute rubbish. Fining publications is a

possibility, I don't think it will serve to improve the quality of journalism out.

"The sad thing is that if they go ahead, it will mean the taxpayers' money, as well as money from the

newspapers, will be spent on lawyers fighting the matter right up to the Constitutional Court. I

believe very firmly that the Constitutional Court will not uphold the statutory tribunal for the simple

reason that it goes against the principles enshrined in the Constitution."

"The present government is not addressing issues of corruption, cronyism, nepotism and the

tenderpreuners scandals that are putting it in a bad light both locally and internationally. This have

made the poor Africans and other minorities in a tenuous position." John Porter on the M&G public

comment boxes wrote: "The ANC have absolutely no bloody clue how to govern, or what government

means, or how it works or what a democracy is."

To say something like 'we to have a right to express ourselves,' (as echoed by Mthembu when

addressing the press in Johannesburg), is utterly farcical. This really beggars belief and shows the

kind of stupidity we are dealing with since the ANC sees itself as a party, as state, as liberators, as

the public as running all aspects of South African civil society. This kind of arrogance is bordering

on lunacy clearly we see the delusional ANC for what it is. The ANC has lost the plot, and there is no

hope as long as they are in power.

New Threat To Media Freedom

The Mail and Guardian reports that, "The Law Society of south Africa (LSSA) on Friday expressedconcern about the draft Protection of Information Bill and the proposed Media Tribunal, saying they

were 'unconstitutionally suspect'." Max Boqwana and Peter Horn said in a joint statement that the

two measures threatened to undermine press freedom, which was a fundamental pillar of

democracy. They said that the draft Bill and tribunal had the potential to erode transparency,

accountability by public officials, and the public's right of access to information and media freedom.

They also saw the Bill as suffering several defects which rendered it Constitutionally suspect and

which needed further consideration. The stated that it was so broad that it could potentially cover

every aspect of a citizen's life. The thresholds for classification set out in the Bill were unacceptably

low and would allow for information to be classified on the basis of harm that was hypothetical andspeculative. For example, a document could be deemed as "classified" it "maybe harmful" to the

"national interest". Mail and Guardian, 2010)

The Bill allowed classification of commercial information held by the state, including commercial

information belonging to private companies. (Maybe this includes Naspers, whose information and

connections to the world economy and media, and the ANC will be discussed bellow my addition).

Boqwana and Horn say that the Bill also did not provide for an independent oversight mechanism to

review classification decisions.

It has thus left the final decisions in this regard in the hands of state officials who might well have aninterest in continuing to conceal certain information. The Bill would further legislate a number of

criminal offenses, without proposing any public interest indemnity or these criminal offenses. The

result is that the offenses will inevitably censor the publication of matters of public interest by the


24/66

media and others.

Whereas the LSSA recognizes the legitimate need for every government to take steps to protect

information that is crucial for national security, such legislation should be narrowly tailored and

should not be drafted in a manner that fails to take into account the important role played in a

democracy by the media, and indeed every citizen who seeks to expose corruption,

nepotism,hypocrisy and maladministration," Boqwana and Horn said.

The Mail and Guardian continues quoting Boqwana and Worn who went on to add that they accepted

that the media had a duty to report fairly, objectively and responsively. This was so in view of the

powerful position the media occupied in society, However, the LSSA was greatly concerned bout the

suggestion that the media required external regulation.

They say that what appears to be envisaged is a government-appointed 'independent' tribunal which

would serve as a forum for appealing decision made by the press ombudsman, and which would be

accountable to parliament. The fact that the tribunal would be accountable to Parliament was cold

comfort. Ultimately what this would amount to, was, government oversight over the media, which

could not be countenanced in a democratic state.

Looking at the media today, one sees a self-targeting and self-selecting media of the wealthy classes

with papers like the Sunday Times, The Argus and the Mail and Guardian. According the David J.

Smith:

"They don't speak to ordinary people of this country. You and me may think of ourselves as everyday

blokes, the man on the street, but we are not. We have the Internet, we have a street, we have a

house and a car and all that.

"I am talking about the guy who walks the street, catches a taxi to work, gets his pay cheque in amanila envelope, has an ID book and not a passport. These are the people who can actually change

governments in this country, these are the people who brought down the last government and they

can bring down this government.

"But the only newspapers aimed at them are hokey tabloids like the Daily Sun and Die Son. Papers

that think a story if a headless chicken possessed by demons is more interesting than a government

possessed by demons.

"Even a paper like the Sowetan that does a fairly good job of straddling the middle class and the

working class , spends most of its energy covering celebrity news and glitzy bling blah. If the mediais going to actually make a dent and fight corruption, it needs to speak to JZ's voter base.

"The people who are NOT reading this blog post on their boss's dime. Tell them why our government

is rubbish, talk to them about the corruption that runs through the halls of Parliament. Speaking to

people like me and you is like backing the DA. A waste of time.

"If the media is going to actually make a dent and fight corruption, it needs to tell the people why

our government is rubbish and what it is not doing and doing that which is right and wrong." The

people are smart enough to sort out the information disseminated to them, along with their own

personal experiences inserted,by them, in the mix and midst of their analysis of the news, orreportage."

This proposed Information Bill proposed by the ANC has proponents pointing out that this Bill is


25/66

unconstitutional because freedom of the press is enshrined in the Constitution. They add that it is

essential for any liberal democracy to have a free press and an independent one. They observe that i

Documents

Colonized Information,Technology, and Technique In Service of Neo-Apartheid Against Africans