En garde, guardians

President Jacob Zuma: The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa has a Bill of Rights, which among other things, guarantees the freedom of the media and expression

As the ANC, we worked hard to get this clause into the constitution and with good reason. We firmly believe that the media must be allowed to do its work freely and without fear or prejudice, within the context of the constitution and the law.

While recognising the role that the media plays in our democracy, this role must be understood within the context of strengthening our country's human-rights culture and promoting the values enshrined in our constitution. We must all operate and function within its letter and spirit.

The critical questions are: what is the role of the media in the promotion of our country's human rights culture and the Bill of Rights? Does it have a role in promoting nation building? Does it have a role to play in the promotion of the country's prosperity, stability and the wellbeing of its people? Is it a spectator, or does it have vested interests and an agenda, political and commercial, that it cherishes and promotes?

I have been following the debate on the ANC proposal to have Parliament investigate the desirability of establishing the Media Appeals Tribunal with keen interest. I am astounded by the commentaries written by some within the media fraternity and within society broadly in reaction to this important debate. Some suggest that the establishment of the MAT is meant to settle scores. Others still suggest that this is an attempt by the ruling party to control and bulldoze the media using the tactics of the apartheid regime.

To even suggest that the ANC and its government could have any similarities to the apartheid regime is not only preposterous, it is also disingenuous and an unbearable insult. Arguments that the ANC wants to muzzle the print media are premised on a falsehood that the party has no ethics, morals or values and that it does not want the media to expose some of its cadres when they are in trouble with the law, including corruption.

Such arguments have muddied what would ordinarily have been a productive and a necessary debate within the context of our constitution.

The media has put itself on the pedestal of being the guardian. We therefore have the right to ask: who is guarding the guardian?

All institutions, even parliament, have mechanisms in place to keep them in check. Almost all professions have similar mechanisms - including those governing teachers, doctors, architects, engineers, politicians, lawyers and so on.

This is based on the principle that in practising their rights and doing their jobs, these professionals may trample on the rights of others - and the victims must have recourse through legitimate institutions.

The starting point is that media owners and media practitioners cannot claim that their institution is entirely without fault. They cannot claim that the media products we have in our country today adequately reflect the lives and aspirations of all South Africans - especially the poor.

Can a guardian be a proper guardian when it does not reflect the society it claims to protect and represent?

For instance, South Africans rebelled against the media in June and July this year, united in their diversity. When the gloom and doom dominated news reportage over many months, they decided to defy the chorus of division and negativity and projected the type of society they want to be, and how they want to be viewed by the world. That is one lesson from the 2010 Fifa World Cup tournament that the media has not yet realised - or that they are pretending did not happen.

Let us move beyond the hysteria; let the real debate begin. Our first point is that before looking at what they regard as external threats and perceived external threats, the media should conduct introspection first.

We also have every right to look at other pressures facing journalists, which make them compromise the quality of their stories. The media is a business enterprise. Its primary issue is to make a profit.

There is fierce competition to increase circulation figures in order to boost advertising. This puts many editors under constant pressure from media owners. They do not talk about this in public.

The ANC has a responsibility to democratise every aspect of South African society including the media. It is our historical duty.

It was in this context that the African National Congress adopted the MAT resolution at its 52nd national conference in 2007.

The ANC acknowledges the need for the work of the MAT to be transparent and fair, and this can be effectively done through people's institutions such as parliament, which has public representatives.

The debate has nothing to do with the experiences of certain individuals with the media. This is not personal; it is aimed at advancing the freedoms that are enshrined in our constitution.

The media must seriously conduct an introspection and open a constructive debate about the role of this institution in a post-apartheid South Africa. Is the media a mirror of South African society? Is it in touch with what the majority of South Africans feel and think?

What is the impact of ownership on content and staffing? What is the ideological outlook of the media? Is there an alienation with the post-apartheid democratic order and thinking? Are we on the same wavelength regarding where South Africa should go politically, socially and economically? Does the media understand this well enough to articulate it to South Africans to accurately judge government action and performance?

Let us have an open debate about the role of the media and its alignment with the constitution of the republic, and human rights culture. Let us openly debate ownership, content and diversity issues. Let there be no holy cows. The media should allow the ANC and the public the right to freedom of expression. - This is an edited version of Zuma's online newsletter