SABC under fire again
THE embattled SABC has come under fire again, this time over claims that some journalists have been assigned stories because of their political affiliation.
The public broadcaster has denied that three journalists — Mpho Tsedu, Mzwandile Mbeje and Tshepo Ikaneng — were demoted or taken off stories because of their support for African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma. But the SABC itself is widely perceived as being biased in favour of President Thabo Mbeki, and has been accused of such bias for years.
“Journalists shouldn’t be removed from stories on political allegiance alone. Obviously if their allegiance would interfere with the story, and there is clear evidence to support that, then there may be grounds to re assign journalists,” says Jane Duncan, executive director of the Freedom of Expression Institute, responding to the SABC’s denial. But in general, she says, journalists should not allow their political views to interfere with their work, and that principle should be taken as a given.
“It is ironic that the SABC stands accused of acting against journalists for being pro-Zuma when their own coverage leaves a lot to be desired and they have been less than impartial themselves,” she says.
Duncan cites a Media Tenor report which found that although the SABC’s coverage of Mbeki was neutral after the ANC conference in Polokwane last year, its coverage of Zuma was strongly negative.
Other media coverage was negative towards both leaders, but were less negative towards Zuma after Polokwane, and the gap between the two was starkest with the SABC.
“SABC News thus appeared to be portraying Mbeki as a more capable leader, whose good points were balanced out by negative points, but the same level of balance was not accorded to Zuma, who was thus presented as a less-capable leader,” the report reads.
Duncan says there had been several incidents before the Polokwane conference where the SABC had appeared to show bias, including the airing of an interview with Mbeki across all radio platforms, the removal of a song supporting Zuma from UkhoziFM’s playlist, and the non-screening of a Zuma interview on the eve of his rape trial.
There is widespread acknowledgment of the tension between the ideal of objectivity and the conditions under which journalism is practised.
“Objectivity is extremely difficult to achieve, especially with ethical judgments,” Duncan says, adding that the dictionary definition of “objectivity” was about a process of discovering the truth, and that journalists should be able to rise above subjective elements in order to make editorial judgments. “Perhaps a better word is impartiality. It’s more accurate to say that journalists should strive for impartiality,” she says.
Media commentator Tawana Kupe says although there is “no such thing” as objectivity in social science, journalists should get as many views on the story as possible. “Taken together, those views constitute journalistic objectivity.”
This ideal, he says, is expected of the public broadcaster at all times.
Veteran political commentator Allister Sparks prefers to talk about fairness rather than objectivity.
“I don’t think there’s such a thing as pure objectivity. Every individual is a creature of culture, upbringing and education and has a particular world view which shapes how he or she views almost everything. But I think the idea of objectivity is very important,” Sparks says.
“As soon as you decide what to report or what not to report, you enter the field of subjectivity,” he says. In deciding which stories to lead on, newspapers have to make judgments, which are influenced by how they view news values and their different readerships.
“That is why there is no such thing as objectivity. You must be disciplined by the need for fairness, and that’s where the prospect of political bias enters the picture. What do you emphasise, de-emphasise, or leave out completely?”
A typical TV news bulletin would consist of 10 to 12 stories, but there are millions of stories available. “Which do you choose, and which points of view do you emphasise?”
He says if absolute objectivity was achievable, all newspapers would be the same, as would all radio and TV. “Discipline requires fairness, and that’s doubly important when it comes to the public broadcaster which should not be pitching to a specific audience.
“It is under an obligation to report what is of particular consequence to the country. Its job is to keep the public informed of what is important, and even that requires a judgment call.”
While there is room for opinions in journalism, especially in news analysis, column and comment pieces, these should always be labelled as such, he said.
British journalism, which has heavily influenced South African journalism, tends to be far more lax than its American counterpart, says Sparks.
“What is important is the discipline of journalism. You must subject your world view to make a professional judgment on what is in the public interest. Every newspaper has a target audience. With the public broadcaster, the audience is everyone. Governments come and go, but the public stays forever.”
Scott Baldauf, Africa bureau chief for the Christian Science Monitor in New York, describes fairness and objectivity as “almost a religious thing”.
“We defend the right to free speech. If we deliberately leave out points of view, then we’re not doing our jobs as we should,” he said.
Baldauf says the principle of objectivity is also protected by commercial interests, in that publications wanted to reach the biggest audiences possible. Depicting only one viewpoint would eliminate some of these potential readers or viewers.
“Objectivity is more of a goal we should strive for, but it’s devilishly difficult to achieve. If you’re aware of personal bias, you should be extra fair to the side where you may not feel as much sympathy,” he says.
Loading ...