As a former member of the mainstream media I must admit to be ashamed of my former colleagues in the news media. That President Zuma has been vilified by the media is no conspiracy theory but a reality that has festered and constantly reared its disgusting head over the past four years.
Recently the media has been speculating on who would be standing by Zuma’s side at the inauguration, seeing that he has two wives. It’s a curious question yes, one that might be asked in passing. But it does not warrant any form of lengthy discussions as seen and heard in the media.
A step backwards reminds one of the 2009 general election period where our media latched on to the two-thirds obsession. Presumably the new ANC leadership would change the Constitution if it won by such a margin. The possibility of an ANC two-thirds majority caused such widespread fear within certain media houses that no mention of the 2009 election would go by without “two-thirds” being on the agenda. Mind you, the ANC has held such a majority in Parliament over the past five years and such concerns never seemed to be high on the menu. Maybe journalists and editors trusted the Mbeki majority more than they do a Zuma one? As far as I can remember the only political party that said it would change the Constitution should it win a two-thirds majority was COPE, not the ANC.
Take a step back and recall the dropping of all charges laid on him by the NPA. At the press conference where acting NPA head Adv. Mokotedi Mpshe made the announcement he was clear, concise and polite. He poked no one and did not raise his voice. Come the Q&A (question and answer) session what do our esteemed media reps do? The all ask him the very same question but in different ways. No journalist that I heard at the post-announcement conference asked a question which had not been answered by Mpshe in his extensive statement. So much so that he kept having to say “as I have previously stated”. Many journalists, despite fat notebooks and digital recorders, just don’t listen. I had to keep referring to these media gurus’ names because they sounded like the opposition parties.
And then they attack the Advocate. One lady from CNN, who used to work at etv where she was taught to be a feisty and catty interviewer, went as far as telling the Advocate what his job description is. “Your job is to prosecute criminals” she said very self-assuredly. I know all about media freedom and the right to speak your mind. But had the lady in question (whose name is known to me) was probably not taught manners at her home by her mama. Asking a question and getting the answer you want is not about barking at the subject but at making them feel like they have not lost anything by answering you. It’s about making them feel comfortable to a point where they will reveal things they would not normally reveal. This CNN girl managed to achieve quite the opposite and the NPA representatives ended up not entertaining her at all. It just seemed to me that she wanted a different outcome to what Mpshe had presented and was left to question all that had happened. I wonder what her bosses had to say about her “interviewing” skills.
Three steps back and you have the removal of Thabo Mbeki from office by the ANC’s NEC. Again the media claimed Zuma was spearheading this hunt for Mbeki after the latter was said to have interfered in the former’s prosecution by a judge. My information actually says the Zuma was one of only a few voices in the NEC that called for the NEC to let Mbeki finish off his term. Had Zuma been successful in convincing the NEC, the COPE may not have existed.
In between there have been cartoons created with showerheads on Zuma’s head. He has been called the kangaman (referring to the rape case he won), 100% Zulu boy (thanks to supporters) and other names. Our media even made up a phrase that said judgement in the Shabir Shaik case included words to the effect that there existed a generally corrupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma. The judge who presided over the case later denied his statement ever made such a reference. Again, the media being creative.
Lastly but not least, “Zuma said he wanted his day in court but now he keeps ducking and diving”. A very popular mistruth probably started by some inept editor and carried over like a surfing wave by other equally or more inept media houses. Zuma has never said he wanted to be charged. What he said was that accusations and statements must be tested in a court of law where everyone is equal. The day after he was elected as president of the ANC at the Polokwane conference in December 2007 he told the media this very fact. “Who wants to be humiliated by a trial?” he asked. “No one.” Certainly not him. Yet this misstatement continued to be used in newsrooms all over the country each time some delay happened in his trial.
Ironically the same said journalists had never before, not even during Dr Nelson Mandela’s reign, had such wide open access to the president of the ruling party. They had never been able to ask anything they wanted to ask of the man they knew very well would one day become President of the country. One might think they were so not used to chatting to such a person that when it happened they were astounded in disbelief.
