OPINION: Ed Herbst analyses the recent media fracas between the ANC, Chris Vick and the Mail & Guardian, and as well as the ongoing attacks on DA leader Helen Zille over the Cape Times.
“Your article, sadly, is the kind of unreliable fabrication that makes it very difficult for professional communicators like myself to convince ANC decision-makers that there is not a disinformation ‘agenda’ against the ruling party, and to make them believe that political journalists should be taken seriously.”
Chris Vick, ‘This is just crap journalism’ Mail & Guardian 13/3/2015
“But what of the simple rule that calls for granting subjects of an article the right of reply? Why couldn’t the writer simply call one of the many ANC communicators or government communicators for verification? Why didn’t someone think of calling Vick, who had already been named in the article anyway? He would have given the version that was later published anyway and readers would have been allowed to make up their minds who to believe.”
Pinky Khoabane, Where’s the love when it comes to both sides of the story? Sunday Independent, 15/3/2014
Last night on the eNCA television news programme, the Justice Factor, the presenter and host, Justice Malala, made Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille a Loser of the Week. This was because of her much-debated and much derided request that departments in her provincial government should not renew subscriptions to the Cape Times once they have expired.
Anyone who doubts her contention that the Cape Times has had a catastrophic quality implosion should read @waitingducks – it makes macabre reading.
Despite this, Malala asked: “What would happen if the Premier of Gauteng did the same thing?
Well actually, the Gauteng Premier was apparently complicit in not only ending the subscription by the Gauteng provincial government to one newspaper but, in April last year, to all publications to which its departments had previously subscribed. ‘Capetonian’ provides the documentary proof in a comment below a Politicsweb posting by Zizi Kodwa (of whom more anon) attacking Zille for her actions.
1 April 2014
Dear CoJ Employee
The current newspaper contract between CoJ and the Service Provider is ending on the 15th January 2015. Reference is made to National Treasury Instruction 01 of 2013/2014: Cost containment Measures: Annexure A, . .more page 7 paragraph 15 which states that “All newspapers and other publications for employees should be discontinued. In instances where a department, constitutional institution or public entity has an existing contract for the supply and delivery of newspapers or other publications, such contracts should not be renewed.
It is based on the above mentioned instruction from National Treasury that CoJ employees are informed of the implementation of the instruction effective by the 16th January 2015 after the expiring of the current contract.
Your co-operation should be appreciated in adhering to the above.
Issued by
Vuyo Mlokoti
Group Executive Director
Group Corporate & Shared Services
City of Johannesberg
Perhaps Malala could be forgiven if he missed this because Sanef was silent at the time when Mlokoti issued this edict.
Was the spokespinner spun?
I read Chris Vick’s articles avidly.
While he derives some of his income, as I understand it, from his work as a media consultant to the ANC, he has never hesitated to raise uncomfortable concerns about troubling features and happenings in an increasingly troubled – by its own admission – political party.
This is why, last Sunday, I read a letter by Moshoeshoe Monare, deputy editor of the Mail & Guardian, to the Sunday Independent with interest.
The closing paragraphs of Monare’s letter encapsulate the premise on which this article is based – that Vick did not know that senior office bearers in the ANC had refused to answer queries about the party’s media workshop when contacted by Mail & Guardian reporters and, that had he known, he would never have written his “crap journalism” letter to the newspaper. Two quotes from that debate anchor this article.
Here is how Monare concluded his letter: “… (Pinky) Khoabane concludes that the reporters did not attempt to grant ‘the subjects of the article’ the right to reply in line with our code of conduct.
“The reporters tried, several times, to reach ANC spokesman Zizi Kodwa and Minister Lindiwe Zulu in her capacity as head of the ANC’s subcommittee on communications. Neither returned the calls. The reporters managed to contact the ANC’s head of communications, Keith Khoza, but he refused to comment on an ‘internal ANC workshop’.
“We appreciate debates and criticism of our reporters and conduct, but it would be beneficial for both Khoabane and your readers if such debates were based on accurate and true facts.”
Timeline
A brief timeline as background:
22 February: The ANC holds a workshop at Luthuli House to assess its communication policy;
27 February: The Mail & Guardian publishes an article headlined ‘ANC wants SABC to show JZ more love’ based on what its reporters had gleaned from ANC members who attended the workshop.
13 March: Vick writes a scathing letter to the Mail & Guardian in which he says nothing of the sort happened. He concludes that the article, in its entirety, is evidence of “crap journalism”. The newspaper’s editor, Angela Quintal, refers the matters to ombudsman Frans Krüger, takes cognizance of his findings and apologises.
15 March: An article by Pinky Khoabane is published in the Sunday Independent and she asks a very valid question:
“But what of the simple rule that calls for granting subjects of an article the right of reply? Why couldn’t the writer simply call one of the many ANC communicators or government communicators for verification? Why didn’t someone think of calling Vick, who had already been named in the article anyway? He would have given the version that was later published anyway and readers would have been allowed to make up their minds who to believe.”
22 March: Moshoeshoe Monare responds to her article and makes the point that the three reporters did try to get hold of the relevant ANC officials who did not answer their phones and did not return calls or refused to comment.
Sounds of silence
In my article, ‘Spokespinners – the Sounds of Silence’ published on this website in early April, I gave more than four dozen examples stretching over several years, of how, in a gross dereliction of duty the ANC’s cadres who are deployed at all levels of government as spokespersons, routinely switch off their cellphones whenever there is a crisis in their department or questions are raised by reporters. They also do not return messages or respond to emails or faxes. The latest examples by Zulu and Kodwa simply mirror that trend and the daily experience of the country’s reporters. Here is what I said:
“What you find here is the country in microcosm. Huge amounts of taxpayers’ money being siphoned off by people who, in many instances, provide nothing of consequence in return. Everything from Robben Island to the Nelson Mandela funeral arrangements has been turned into a trough. Some of these silent spokespinners are just parasites, leeching off the body politic like the ANC members who spend their time in the House asleep or painting their fingernails. In summary, since the ANC took control of the country in 1994 with a promise that there would be the sort of transparency and accountability that was lacking during the apartheid era, billions of rands have been fruitlessly blown on the salaries, perks and golden handshakes of such ‘silent spokespersons’.”
As an MP, Zulu earns close on a million rand a year with perks which probably save her in excess of a hundred thousand rand a year and Kodwa probably earns almost as much. Despite this they did not have the grace, the courtesy and sufficient pride in their work and regard for their duty to the electorate to respond when contacted by the Mail & Guardian reporters. They were seeking clarity, ironically, on the ANC’s communication policy….
Did Vick contact these senior ANC office bearers before writing his letter of protest to the Mail & Guardian? If he did not, would he not have made himself guilty of the very professional shortcoming which he accuses the newspaper’s reporters of – not verifying the facts which Monare reveals in his letter to the Sunday Independent?
Conduct unbecoming
And if he did communicate with them and they did not reveal their conduct unbecoming in this regard, then was he not spun?
(It is unfortunate, as Khoabane points out, that the three Mail & Guardian reporters did not contact Vick but the reporters clearly and justifiably felt that they would get a more authoritative response from Zulu, Kodwa and Khoza then from Vick who, as I understand it, is a freelance media consultant.)
The hypocrisy of the ANC to then lash out at the Mail & Guardian is revealing but not surprising.
They should count themselves lucky that the newspaper’s reporters did try to contact them.
As I pointed out in my article, ‘Truth, Ethics and Plagiarism’, published on this website last Friday, the Cape Times, besides plagiarising a substantial portion of an article which falsely alleged that the dop system is still widely used on Western Cape wine farms, did not contact anyone who is an authority on wine farming or on foetal alcohol syndrome when researching the article.
What do Vick, Khoabane and the ANC – not to mention Sanef – think of that?
Furthermore, within days of receiving Vick’s letter, the Mail & Guardian’s ombud had responded and the newspaper had apologised.
Plagiarism
In strong contrast, a week after Zille first revealed the plagiarism and the Grubstreet website provided graphic proof of her contention that much of the article was plagiarised, Independent Media’s senior executives have indicated that they are unlikely to follow the example of the Johannesburg newspaper.
Here is what Helen Zille had say on the matter in her weekly newsletter, published on Politicsweb on Sunday under the headline: ‘The South African media in crisis.’
“In two separate radio interviews, Independent’s Chief of Staff, Zenaria Barends and its Executive Editor, Karima Brown, vehemently denied the plagiarism accusation, saying that their ‘preliminary investigation’ revealed no evidence thereof, but that they would subject it to peer review.
“To go on air and openly lie to thousands of listeners about such a serious offence is, frankly, astonishing. The two articles are easy to find. Some sites like Grubstreet have even placed them side-by-side to demonstrate the obvious plagiarism. Anyone who has seen them will know the truth. For both Barends and Brown to claim that they have ‘investigated’ and found nothing of concern, tells you all you need to know about their intentions, and the credibility of Independent Newspapers.”
By any standards, Zille’s accusation that Barends and Brown have “openly” lied on a public platform is breathtaking if she cannot sustain it because, if she cannot, her statement is massively defamatory.
Legal redress
If Barends and Brown have been unjustly maligned by her, can we expect them to seek justifiable legal redress?
In defence of their own credibility, they need to respond timeously and in detail to her very detailed accusations. When can we expect them to respond to Zille’s statement which is now a matter of public record that is accessible to anyone in the world with internet access?
So, if Vick thinks the efforts of the Mail & Guardian reporters who tried to no avail to get comment from highly-paid, senior ANC office bearers was “crap journalism” how would he describe the plagiarised article on the dop system in the Cape Times?
Gill Moodie pointed out on Grubstreet yesterday that regardless of the Indy’s promised peer review there is nothing to stop Public Advocate Latiefa Mobara from investigating the Cape Times plagiarism.
