There has been quite a buzz in South Africa recently about issues of press freedom and ethics.
It started out with a newspaper article in one of the major papers, alleging that South African President Kgalema Motlanthe had a 24-year-old girlfriend, who was carrying his child. It later turned out there were serious questions about the accuracy of the article.
The whole issue has sparked a big debate about press freedom and ethics. Is it legitimate for the media to expose politicians’ private lives in this way? Arts and Culture minister Pallo Jordan wrote a long, outraged letter to the Mail & Guardian, condemning the reports. One of his arguments is that once politicians’ private lives are fair game, it will soon be the rest of us who find our privacy invaded. This week one of the newspaper’s reporters printed a rebuttal. The journalist, Sam Sole, argues that it is irrelevant that there were problems with the accuracy of this particular story – that presidents’ and politicans’ private lives are fair game for the media under certain conditions.
The issue raises many questions. To what standard of morality should we hold our leaders? Does that morality involve only issues of direct public import — such as whether they pay their taxes and are law abiding, or does it stretch to matters of love and family too? If so, by whose moral standards are we judging people?
Another concern is the motivation behind these stories. There are currently big struggles going on within the ANC. If a story suddenly appears, smearing one of the main contenders, we, and surely the journalists, ought to be asking ourselves why. Whose interests are being served by the story? That should cause us to reflect before we simply react.
ANC leader Jacob Zuma presents an interesting case. He is a polygamist and has several wives. According to the laws of the country, that is perfectly permissible. Some have criticized him, saying his lifestyle does not reflect the values embodied in the constitution. See for example Colleen Lowe Morna’s article. Others will argue with that, saying cultural values are relative — Zuma is operating according to the traditional values of his culture, and it’s not fair to judge him based on another culture’s set of values. One version of this view is presented by Khadija Bradlow.
Compare concerns about politicians’ sex lives, to concerns about other issues. Over the past weekend, several South African newspapers published extensive reports about the ANC’s spokesman, Carl Niehaus — how he has spent huge amounts of money and not paid it back, had forged signatures of prominent people, hasn’t paid his rent for months and so on. I’m sure few would argue that these reports are unjustified. Niehaus is the public face of the ANC in the media, and if he is corrupt, that is of legitimate public interest.
But where do we draw the line?
The latest ’scandal’ to hit the news involves reports in a major Sunday newspaper, about a video allegedly showing a former rugby hero in a compromising situation with someone who’s not his wife — and snorting some white powder. The rugby player–turned-celebrity involved has denied it is him in the film. But the question remains — true or not, should the newspaper have published the report? The man is a celebrity yes, but he’s not an elected official. What right do they have to pry into his private life?
Well then, what about all the celebrities whose troubled personal lives we follow with such glee — Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and the like? Is this stuff really news?
My own view is that aside from the issue of media ethics, gossip-mongering about people’s sex lives seems to be taking over, and it’s unhealthy for us a society. We’re getting more and more sex scandals and less serious coverage of the issues that really affect our lives. We may debate the merits of individual cases, and politicians may be fairer game than most. But overall we need to ask whether such stories are really useful to society — or do they serve as a useful diversion, to distract us from the really important stuff? It’s the old pickpocket’s trick — distract the victim while you take all his or her money.
Are we all being duped? We may wake up one day to find that while we’ve been oohing and aahing over the sex scandals, that our countries have been impoverished, our rights sold away from under us.
It’s an interesting debate, and I think the point you’re making about distraction is the important one. I think each case has to be evaluated in its own right, and one cannot come up with a blanket decision about what is public and what is private. In the case of celebrities like Paris Hilton who crave the limelight and are mostly too happy to display their private affairs for public scrutiniy (I almost said pubic scrutiny, thinking of those staged [?] upskirt pics sent out into the world) the answer might be easier. But even there one can think of limits – when celebrities’ children are involved, for instance. It becomes more difficult when it has to do with politicians. The first requirement I think is accuracy – the Motlanthe story already came undone there. Then you have to ask whether this is in the public interest – and not only because they’re interested in it, but it has some bearing on the way the elected officials do their work. I’m not sure you can argue this in the Motlanthe case, perhaps you can ask questions around power but it would have to be more than just a question of applying a moralistic norm. And in the case of Zuma’s polygamy, if it is not unconstitutional I think HIV/Aids/gender activists need to take issue with the constitution rather than Zuma – is the constitution more applicable to some than to others?
I thought Jordan’s response to the M&G was excellent. Whatever else, Sole did not address the sloppiness of the SA media. I am tired.