By Zizi Kodwa

The Big Read: The fundamental pillar of any open society built on democratic principles is the extent to which debates are held and are allowed to take place without fear or prejudice. In a society that allows a plurality of views, debate is always welcomed, as it always strengthens the values and ethical codes and assists in the deepening of human rights culture, human relations and solidarity.

Accordingly, debate is cherished as an opportunity to discover something new about the matter it concerns.

The general chorus by some senior editors and others within the fourth estate, in response to the ANC’s proposed media appeals tribunal, has left me with a sense of doubt about our collective understanding of the concept of a “debate”. We have sadly seen shocking, vulgar and emotional responses. Clearly, hatred of the ANC has taken over and over-shadowed what could otherwise be a very interesting and necessary debate.

From the outset, I must state that the debate has never been about individuals, nor an attempt by the ANC to reintroduce draconian apartheid laws to gag the freedom of the press. The constitution of the Republic of South Africa has created sufficient checks and balances, and a legal framework that guards against any form of abuse and violation of human rights as enshrined and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

In other words, even if the ANC for some unimaginable reason did wish to curtail the rights of the media, it simply could not do so. Not only would such an act be contrary to the spirit and letter of a constitution it fought so hard to put in place, it would also be in violation of the law of the land.

As President Jacob Zuma said in his column in ANC Today at the weekend, let the hysteria end, and let the real debate begin. The debate about the role of the media within the context of social transformation and the deepening of the country’s human rights culture is not new. As far back as the National Conference of the ANC in Stellenbosch in 2002, the commission that dealt with “The Battle of Ideas” discussed in some detail issues such as media ownership and diversity, acknowledging the fact that, as society progresses, media too, needed to change.

To therefore resort to insult and vulgarity – to outright hostility – and even personalise the issue at hand is amateurish.

Quentin Wray, writing in the Pretoria News, under the heading “ANC raises valid issues, but its solution is dead wrong”, asks a question, “Would punishing an entire industry with heavy-handed government interference be the best way to deal with isolated examples of wrongdoing?”.

I appreciate the fact that someone can acknowledge some wrongdoing on the part of the media.

Fikile Ntsikelelo-Moya, editor of The Witness in KwaZulu-Natal, agrees with President Jacob Zuma as far as calling for a debate of issues of ownership and diversity is concerned, but questions the manner that the president proposes to deal with it.

The view of the ANC is that the current mechanism of self-regulatory institutions needs to be strengthened in the public interest.

This must be done in order to deepen human rights, and to make sure that all citizens enjoy equal rights and protection. If the current mechanism of self-regulation is sufficient let us debate that.

If editors feel the media industry has transformed enough over the past 16 years and there is no need to do anything further, let them then say so. They should then allow us to state our own views on these issues, without being subjected to insults and emotional outbursts.

Media houses or groups are in the business of making money, that’s the bottom line. We must therefore not pretend or fool ourselves. News is determined by commercial interests. Editors are like CEOs of big companies. They are expected at the end of the day to show profit and sustainability.

I must thank men and women of the media, who work tirelessly and never compromise the ethical codes and fundamental principles of good journalism.

This debate is not about our individual experiences and encounters with the media. The debate on the establishment of a media appeals tribunal is a constitutional imperative. It is about promoting press freedom for all, not just those who are privileged enough to be owning, editing or reporting for newspapers. It is about press freedom for the poor and marginalised as well, and for all who currently do not have access to the media. If anyone has an alternative suggestion about how to promote press freedom in this manner, can they present their alternatives?

The allegation that simply raising this debate on the role of the media amounts to promoting censorship is misleading and unfounded. The chorus of condemnation by some, with their indignation laid bare in the most vulgar terms – derogatory to the bone – lowers the level of a debate, and we should help these folks. Society needs to hear their views. In isiXhosa, when a person insults you with all sorts of vulgar terms, when you are fed-up and feel agitated, without repeating word for word all the insults in retaliation, you can just say, nawe (same to you).

However, let’s not trade with things that have no value, such as insults. Let us trade with our intellectual capacity to engage and persuade those who disagree with us, to agree.

Zizi Kodwa is Communications Adviser and Spokesperson for President Jacob Zuma.

Taken from http://www.timeslive.co.za/