About two months ago, the New York Times published a piece by Michael M Grynbaum titled: “White House moves to pick the pool reporters who cover Trump.” The move was roundly condemned as an “aggressive” attempt to “erode [the] access and influence” of the media, and an attack on media freedom.
“This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States,” wrote Eugene Daniels, a Politico reporter and president of the 111-year-old White House Correspondents’ Association. “It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”
A spokesperson for The New York Times is quoted as saying: “The White House’s move to handpick favoured reporters to observe the president — and exclude anyone whose coverage the administration may not like — is an effort to undermine the public’s access to independent, trustworthy information about the most powerful person in America.”
Even Jacqui Heinrich of Fox News, which is considered sympathetic to the Trump administration, publicly opposed it: “This move does not give the power back to the people — it gives power to the White House.”
A few days ago, the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) issued a strongly worded statement, saying it “is dismayed and strongly condemns the office of the president, President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) for the inadequate preparations, unfair treatment and lack of professionalism displayed towards journalists during the president’s recent oversight visit to the Eastern Cape.
“On Tuesday April 15, members of the media were formally invited by the Presidency, through GCIS, to cover President Ramaphosa’s visit to the Port of Ngqura in Gqeberha. Journalists were accredited and sent on assignment by their respective newsrooms to provide coverage of this important public event, only to be met with blatant disregard and exclusion upon arrival. In a shocking display of unfairness, only a select few television cameras were allowed to follow the president.
“The rest of the media cohort, which included print, online and radio journalists, were left waiting idly for more than two hours without access, information or updates. The only glimpse they had of the president was as his convoy drove past them, with no opportunity to ask questions or engage meaningfully. No explanations or apologies were offered for this unacceptable treatment.”
There’s so much that is so wrong, so unacceptable here. It is not so much that Ramaphosa is learning terrible lessons from Trump, but that there seems to be a confluence of sorts about choosing one’s own reporters. Is it the president’s view that journalism, for him or GCIS, is about people who carry television cameras? When a selection of journalists is done, what is the basis for the exclusion of the rest of the industry? Why invite them if you have no time for them?
It is common knowledge that resources for all media houses are limited. If news editors knew that their reporters were simply going to sit and wait for nothing, they would have assigned them to other stories. Someone at the Presidency or GCIS just thought these were village bumpkins not worthy of even an apology or explanation? This is completely and utterly shocking.
That this incident follows months of discussions within Sanef about how the Ramaphosa presidency is avoiding meaningful engagements with editors is even more concerning
That this incident follows months of discussions within Sanef about how the Ramaphosa presidency is avoiding meaningful engagements with editors is even more concerning. Various presidents have had difficult, sometimes tortuous, relationships with the media. But they have all made themselves available to answer questions and provide answers to key issues of state, understanding that this is in furtherance of the constitutional injunction of transparency, openness and accountability. They understood, as we all do, that it’s not about the media itself, but the people the media serves — South Africans, united in their diversity.
Some have said the genesis of Ramaphosa’s reticence is to be found in his Phala Phala scandal. They say this has made it difficult for him to come out of his shell. Others have said Ramaphosa has not developed an overnight aversion to accountability, it is the ministers around him who wrongly believe only imbongis, those who never say anything critical of him, must be rewarded with access to ask puff questions from time to time. They say GCIS misconstrues critical reporting as hatred or enmity.
Others have pinned Ramaphosa’s reticence down to the coronavirus pandemic. Almost two years into his first term, Ramaphosa correctly shut down the country and started pivoting to so-called “family meetings” This allowed him to address the nation without taking questions. The story goes that he disengaged from then on.
But whatever the real story, the disdain shown to colleagues in the Eastern Cape is unwarranted. The general unavailability of Ramaphosa should not be countenanced. He must come out of his shell. Former president Jacob Zuma is arguably the worst leader we’ve had since 1994. Yet he made himself available to answer difficult questions. He sometimes insulted and demeaned, which we condemned, but he did not retreat into a cocoon. Ramaphosa should, and can, do better.
Much like Trump tearing at the independence of the media in the US, Ramaphosa, who arrived in office on the back of Ramaphoria, is now doing much harm through “ignoring, sidelining, or selectively granting access to media practitioners” charged with the constitutional duty of being watchdogs on behalf of information-hungry citizens.
When it’s the highest office that is passively aggressive toward an entire industry, what hope is there for freelance reporters trying to hold corrupt but powerful local authorities accountable in our country’s hinterlands? In a free country, reporters shouldn’t have to beg a sitting president, or be pre-approved favourites, to ask questions. As young people sing: “A se ko states mo [this is not the states]!”
• Sefara is Sunday Times editor and chair of the South African National Editors' Forum.
For opinion and analysis consideration, e-mail Opinions@timeslive.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.