Friday, June 28, 2013

Our fucked up history!


Madonna of Excelsior. PACOFS production at the National Arts Festival.

Our fucked up history! That’s the gut-wrenching sense with which one walks away from this production, based on a story by Zakes Mda which itself was based on the Immorality Act case involving residents of Excelsior in the Free State.
In the 1970s, 14 black women became involved in illegal relations with five white men. When the women gave birth to fair-skinned “coloured” babies, they were arrested with the men under the Immorailty Act, which forbade sexual intercourse across apartheid colour lines.
The charges were later withdrawn, presumably because of the prominence of the white townsfolk implicated in the case.
Kobus Moolman’s script for this production comes alive around the identity quest of Popi, one of the “coloured” babies and now a councilor in the democratic Excelsior town council: Who is she and, perhaps more importantly, who is her real father?
Despite her achievements in the new South Africa, Popi is hobbled by her physical appearance - the fair skin, straighter hair and hairy legs – and the whispers within the community about her ancestry. The "boesman meit" (Bushman maid) slur from the white racist Tjaart cuts deep. Popi’s mother, Niki, was one of the women arrested in the Excelsior Immorality case but, together with the other women in the community, she has buried the past away deeply. Now Popi forces her mother to reveal all.
It is a painful story which reflects on the worst aspects of our past and brings into sharp relief the pain which affects all South Africans almost two decades after democracy. The chorus singing across languages is haunting and moving and a number of the actors stand out, although other characters require perhaps a more nuanced handling, especially where the power interplay between Boer men and African women is reflected. Most disconcertingly was the audience's laughter during extremely painful moments in the script.
Moolman's script needs to be tightened - I think fully 20 minutes can be shaved off quite easily without losing the sense of the story. The set is well-conceptualized but presents a hugely dysfunctional scene as the play progresses - I don't think this was director Roel Twijnstra's intention, although it becomes a clever metaphor for the "mixed Excelsior" storyline. - Ray Hartle

National Arts Festival 2013

So day 1 (Thursday) of this year's National Arts Festival in Grahamstown was a bit of a wash-out, mainly as a result of the growing concern that former president Nelson Mandela was on his way out.
The question most often asked by one festino of another is: What have you seen? This year, most people are asking me: Have you heard anything qbout Madiba?
Apprehension wasn't helped by a patently false Guardian report about life-support machines having been switched off and the ailing statesman having died on Wednesday night.
The presidency hasn't quite got the message yet that a daily (perhaps twice-daily), pre-arranged media briefing by a real person who is able to speak with authority on behalf of both family and state is the only way to manage the extremely high interest in news of Madiba, beloved here at home and hugely respected globally. Of course that requires a little creativity, perhaps, in dealing with the challenge of not having anything to say today which is different from yesterday. And creativity is not another word for spin-doctoring. it means telling the truth, giving credible information, no matter how meagre the circumstances demand.
But it is essential. Instead, we get regular reprimands about how the media are not respecting the privacy of the former president and his family.
Returning to the substance of the festival, it amazes me that, true to past iterations when it was on cue with what was happening in our country, the 2013 festival has managed to weave Madiba, his life and dying, into the programme.
In both considered as well as more unconscious ways. Mandela is very much a part of this year's festival. - Ray Hartle

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Steenkamp: Chequebook journalism clouds ethics

Chequebook journalism, the practice of securing exclusive rights to information from a news subject by paying them handsomely for it, is practised increasingly in some media quarters, despite ethical concerns about it.
While many look askance at the practice, there is sympathy for those caught in the middle of a so-called media circus and who succumb to the pressures of interacting with journalists seeking an exclusive interview.
In a statement issued through their lawyers last week, Barry and June Steenkamp, the grieving parents of slain model Reeva Steenkamp, spoke about the difficulty of dealing with many media organisations across the world “who wanted to interview us about our life and precious time with Reeva”.
They had been “overwhelmed” by the number of media requests and as a result had elected to appoint a British agency to manage the dissemination of their story for a fee.
Paying for stories has always been an option open to journalists, albeit frowned upon by many practitioners.
Competitive British journalists especially are notorious for using any tactic to get “the story”, going back to the early political scandals of the 1960s, using lines such as “you can tell your story in your own words”.
The most significant payment in recent years of more than R10 million reportedly went to Rebecca Loos, who allegedly had an affair with soccer star David Beckham. The practice has also thrown up a cottage industry in media advisers and negotiators like Max Clifford, who work to get the best payment deals for their clients.
But whipping out a chequebook to pay a news source or subject for a story is not without controversy. As an incentive to perform, chequebook journalism can degenerate into a race to the bottom of journalism ethics.
There is a sense of emotional blackmail associated with the practice. The subject buys into the deal in the hope that they can preserve their dignity in the face of whatever traumatic experience they have gone through. Their hope that they can somehow control the story by using a paying contract with one media house often ends in tatters since the one who pays the piper generally dictates the tone of the coverage that emerges from the exclusive deal. And while it is hard to prove, those critical of paying for stories point to the danger of news subjects embellishing or even inventing accounts of their experiences to curry favour with a sponsor, especially where the story must fit the sponsor’s news genre or agenda.
And there is likely to be little comfort for the subject who thought that “giving in” to a media house dangling a big cheque would keep other media off their backs. The converse is that the rest of the media pack may take a less sympathetic reporting stance towards a subject who has cut an exclusive deal with one journalist, digging into the story angles that may not have been told, or have been glossed over. Having agreed to an exclusive payment deal, the news subject is regarded as fair game by other journalists.
In some instances, payments to news subjects potentially risk affecting the outcome of criminal proceedings where those subjects may be called on to testify. Lawyers have challenged the validity of a witness’s testimony in court on the basis that they had been paid to tell their story – or a version of it – outside court.
On the other hand, pointing to Rupert Murdoch’s empire, some argue that these media companies make huge profits off the stories of ordinary people and say it is entirely appropriate that subjects share in the financial rewards of having their story told.
A critical nexus is “the public” who, despite suggestions that they are appalled by dodgy conduct by journalists seeking an exclusive story, lap up every sensational episode of the story.
Chequebook journalism is not widely practised in South Africa, although celebrity weddings have been targeted by print and broadcast media with money to offer – and the enticing prospect that an exclusive deal will get the rest of the media pack off the celebrity’s back.
Various professional codes guiding journalists and media organisations in this country prohibit payment for stories to persons “involved in crime”. But where professional practice codes exist, more often than not they are ignored. It’s unlikely the practice will simply disappear, as some journalists argue that the end may justify the means, especially in a story which, allegedly, has strong public interest.
Invariably, however, news that may be in the general public’s interest is confused with news which may simply be interesting or even titillating to some.
The case of a newspaper paying racist killer Barend Strydom for an interview in 1988 is often raised as the most significant example of chequebook journalism in this country.
Wits University journalism researcher Susan Stos suggests though that the limited examples of paid-for news stories points to South Africa’s relative protection by virtue of its distance from international markets, where the practice is the norm, or the “relative lack of competition” among media organisations in this country.
She has argued that local journalists need to reflect on “their responsibility to be accountable, encourage dialogue about methods used and educate the public about the process of journalism”.
- Ray Hartle, Weekend Argus

Friday, June 14, 2013

Naming and shaming only part of battle

“Finally” may well be the response of the vast majority of South Africans who have no vested interest in corruption and fraud, to government’s “name and shame” initiative to expose fraudsters.
On Sunday, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe released the names of 42 people from across the country who have been convicted of fraud against the government. Given what the public has come to know through media reports about the extent of the fraud by government officials, those named represent the tip of the iceberg of the scourge of criminal activity by those in positions of trust in the public service.
Radebe’s department says the 42 were linked to priority cases which were fast-tracked because of the huge amounts involved. But a staggering 3600 government officials have been convicted of defrauding the state in the past financial year alone, with a combined financial value reaching R1 billion.
Such a tsunami of corruption in the public sector – and focusing on corruption in this sector does not exonerate private sector fraud - has serious consequences for our country. The analysis underpinning the National Planning Commission’s work identifies “rising corruption” as among key indicators of a declining country.
It was a notable feature of earlier post-apartheid governments that the policies which were developed took account of global best practice. This is best exemplified by our constitution, the envy of democrats in many jurisdictions. It became patently clear, however, that government’s ability – and desire - to apply policy evenly and consistently was sorely lacking.
An example of good policy is the law which probably underpinned the convictions thatRadebe disclosed, the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act. This legislation has many useful features, including the register of tender defaulters. It was passed in 2004, yet apparently it has taken almost a decade for it to have any significant, widespread effect.
Sadly, today, it cannot even be argued that government policy will always be in the best interests of the majority – and fully recognise all the basic rights of minorities. Special interests, perverse self-aggrandisement and party political policy blind spots have put paid to that. As a result, it is not unreasonable to fear that weak policy formulation will combine with feeble application of the policy to ensure continued, wanton plundering of State resources.
Radebe’s department has correctly stated that these corrupt officials earn huge salaries even as they defraud the government entities employing them. As disgusted as we must be by the direct loss to the fiscus of their actions, it is the potentially more deleterious impact on the progress of service delivery in our country which must alarm all South Africans.
When resources are diverted into the pockets of crooked officials and their associates, it is the poorest of the poor who suffer, as the provision of a host of services is severely curtailed or completely dumped.
Absent the schemes to steal obscene amounts of money from the public purse, our citizenry way well have been more understanding – up to a point - of government’s faltering efforts to change their parlous conditions. But the large-scale evidence of fraud and corruption over almost two decades of democracy has seriously undermined the faith of ordinary citizens in our democratic process and put paid to any patience that disadvantaged South Africans mayhave had that their lot will change.
An ethical disposition was at the heart of the Batho Pele (people first) principle which government applied for a period and then booted out and there must be renewed efforts to promote virtuous service in our public sector.
In addition, there are signs – for example, Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index – that South Africa’s international standing – not least as an investment destination - has taken a serious knock since 1994 as a result of the endemic fraud and corruption in our public sector.
In his Budget speech this year, Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan made an astoundingly defeatist admission: Efforts to combat corruption in the State procurement system had “too many points of resistance” and officials’ failed efforts to staunch the illegal outflow of State funds had “yielded rich pickings for those who seek to exploit it”. Well, of course it had. Did he or anyone else in the democratic government seriously think fighting corruption – like any other initiative of a post-apartheid regime - was simply going to be a walk in the park?
(Ironically, that speech also linked corruption and the need to address employee grievances in the R71.4 million allocation to the Public Service Commission.)
Human Rights Watch has raised the importance of governments holding all representatives of the state subject to the rule of law. In South Africa, until now, there has not been a reasonable expectation on the part of crooked officials that their misconduct would land them in court.
So, there are sufficient reasons to fully support signs of a flexing of muscles by government towards those who willy nilly divert resources from the poorest of the poor to their own well-lined pockets.
However, a caveat to this support is necessary:  Unless corruption is tackled at the highest levels of the government and not simply confined to functionaries in the bureaucracy, efforts to change our society through naming and shaming or any other initiative, will be hamstrung.Governments – to coin a phrase – rot from the top. And, yes, Nkandlagate in all its aspects,does come to mind.
Importantly, politicians must also be held accountable for incidents of crime which happen on their watch within their ambit of responsibility. Self- or party-serving executives at local, provincial and national levels who pursue vulgar cronyism must be held accountable.Anything less will not rid our country of this collective shame of corruption.
Gordhan also said in his Budget speech that there are “too many people who have a stake in keeping the system the way it is”.
Damn right. - Ray Hartle