|
Executive Director of the Freedom of Expression Institute, Jane Duncan, spoke at the Mail & Guardian's Critical Thinking Forum yesterday on the SABC's banning of the "Unauthorised" documentary on President Thabo Mbeki. These are Jane's "Speaker's notes".
1. General points The developments around the Mbeki documentary are extremely worrying, and strongly suggest that the SABC will go to any lengths to prevent it being screened, except on its own terms. The documentary has generated a lot of controversy, but it is unfortunate that most people have been unable to engage with these controversies directly, as they have been unable to view the documentary and make up their own minds. The Mail and Guardian and the Harold Wolpe Trust must be commended for attempting to provide a platform where you, the interested viewer, can make up your own mind about whether the documentary is fit to view or not, and whether the SABC was right or wrong in twice preventing it from being screened. While we are happy that an initial agreement was arrived at regarding the screening of the documentary on SABC 3, our position is that it was fit to view in its initial, unamended version. This does not mean to say that the documentary is not without its problems, which I will set out below. But it does attempt to engage with key controversies surrounding Thabo Mbeki, which is an extremely courageous thing to do. To that extent, the producers must be commended. The documentary is an extremely engaging take on Thabo Mbeki, his history, rise to power and period in office. It analyses the development of his politics from his time in exile, and how his politics shifted over time in response to global shifts. What was the documentary meant to be? The original intention of the unauthorized series was to commission profiles of famous South Africans that straddled entertainment and documentary. The films were meant to have a warm intimate feel, which is why his closest friends and relatives were invited to participate. It was not meant to be a hard political documentary. The Thabo Mbeki documentary veers towards hard political commentary, but lands up straddling entertainment and political reportage uncomfortably. In fact, inside a lighthearted, touchy-feely puff piece, there is a hard-edged documentary struggling to get out. In fact, one gets the sense that there is a serious need for independent productions on hard political issues, and this represented an opportunity to veer the series towards that end. If the SABC wants to avoid a confusion of genres, and their competing demands, in future, then they need to consider opening up commissions for such pieces. But will the SABC take such a risk? Given the current situation, it is doubtful that they will. The documentary does not have an introduction and a conclusion. It feels incomplete. The film is not really an investigative piece, and relies heavily on archival footage, but with a number of highly illuminating interviews. However, the only person who is able to give the documentary a more intimate feel is Thabo Mbeki’s mother, who speaks about her reading of her son as a shy and humble person, who does not like the limelight. It also makes reference to aspects of Mbeki’s character. It deals with criticisms of Mbeki’s style of politics. However, in line with the brief, there are softer references to his poetic insight and his shyness. Others make reference to his coldness, his emotional disengagement and his ruthlessness. So he is both soft and hard, empathetic and ruthless. No attempt is made to reconcile these contradictions or even explain why such stark contradictions may exist. It is necessary to address this contradiction in order to achieve a penetrating psycho-portrait of the President. Mathatha Tsedu gives a particularly penetrating analysis though, and is the one voice in the movie that attempts to understand these seemingly contradictory aspects of Mbeki’s behavior. The fact that these editorial difficulties exist is hardly suprising: the production process of the documentary is itself a sad tale of fear and timidity. The initial intention was to produce a two part documentary, but many in Mbeki’s inner circle refused to be interviewed. This led to ambitions being reduced and the two part documentary being reduced to one. The process around the documentary is an extremely sad indictment on the state of freedom of expression around the President, and in South Africa generally. It points to extreme fear of criticizing the President, and suggests that criticisms of the authoritarian nature of the Thabo Mbeki presidency are not without foundation. Surely, one asks, the fear must come from somewhere. Also the President’s office was apparently approached to respond to the documentary, but did not do so. Under these circumstances it is inevitable that a flawed product would emerge. If self-censorship is practiced in relation to the highest office of the land, and by some of the most powerful people in the country, then it is bound to have a chilling effect on all other of society’s institutions. 2. The defamation question We need to deal with the question of whether there is defamation head on, which is difficult because the discussion of alleged defamatory material can lead to the repetition of the defamation. I will make the argument based on the conviction that the material at issue is not defamatory, and even if it is, the defences of public interest and reasonableness apply. In any event, we cannot get to the bottom of the matter if we do not engage with what seems to be the central problem, which may well involve grabbing the proverbial tiger by the tail. The defamation argument seems to go as follows: The documentary is incurably defamatory, and its incurable nature comes from the fact that the defamatory material is knitted across the very fabric of the documentary. It is not confined to one isolated corner. The alleged defamation seems come from what the SABC seems to feel is an insinuation made in the documentary that Thabo Mbeki was involved in the assassination of Chris Hani. This allegation is not stated explicitly, but apparently can be insinuated from an editorial thread in the documentary. What are the elements of this thread? Throughout the documentary, a comparison is drawn between Chris Hani and Thabo Mbeki: the former is portrayed as a socialist and revolutionary, the latter as an European-educated moderate who dabbled with socialism at some stage in the past, but since became committed to a form of neo-liberal inflected modernisation. The thread begins with Nelson Mandela’s comments at the ANC conference where Thabo Mbeki was elected President of the ANC. In it, Mandela warns against the dangers of unapposed leaders using their extremely powerful positions to settle scores, and who may even use this position to get rid of their opponents, and surround themselves with yes men and women. This clip is then followed by a series of voiced over questions, which ask whether Mandela knows something about Mbeki that we don’t know, and asks why people have something to fear about him. Another question asks how ruthless Mbeki’s rise to the top was. Later on in the documentary, the 2001 plot against Mbeki is covered. In the context of the plot, the narrator notes that a rumour emerged that Mbeki was behind the plot to assassinate Hani. The documentary then switches to how the plot was used to turn the attention away from Mbeki to the supposed instigators of the plot, and further how the plot was used to take them out politically. Allister Sparks then notes that this created the perception that Mbeki was Machiavellian. All of this footage is accompanied by moody music, which gives this section of the documentary an ominous feel. Perhaps the SABC’s lawyers felt that the music was defamatory. It should be noted that the producers, in the voice over, refer to a rumour. They do not make an allegation. It could be argued, and presumably has been argued by the SABC’s lawyers, that the allegation can be inferred from the negative tone of the documentary and the nature of the questions asked earlier on in the documentary. After all the questions suggest that there may be something sinister in Mbeki’s rise to power that the public is not aware of. The unstated question that seems to be at issue is as follows: could it be that he was, in fact, involved in the assassination of Chris Hani, and further, could this explain at least partially, his meteoric rise to power? The point is that what seems to be the most problematic aspect of the documentary is what is not stated. Should a documentary be stopped because of what it does not say, because it may or may not lead to the above mentioned question? Surely as a producer you should be made to take responsibility for what you actually say, not what viewers may or may not infer from what you don’t say. Also, the critical tone of aspects of the documentary is balanced out by lighthearted, feelgood points on Thabo Mbeki, accompanied by warm uplifting music. It can also be inferred from statements made, especially by his mother, that Mbeki is a gentle soul, and therefore incapable of such an act. In the same way that there may be an incurably defamatory thread about the President, there is also an incurably flattering, even cheesy, thread. Then there is the fact that many different things could be read into the questions that are posed, as a President can display ruthlessness, coldness and remoteness in many different ways, short of assassination. A viewer may start off by gaining the impression than the producers are insinuating that he was involved, but this impression is difficult to sustain given the fact that they make it clear that the allegation was a rumour, and that it emerged in the context of an allegation of a plot to overthrown the President, which – as the documentary points out – was debunked as an overreaction. A further inference that can be drawn is that if the existence of the plot was debunked, the rumour that emerged in the context of the plot was as fictitious as the existence of the plot itself. Also, if the defamation was incurable, when why has the SABC agreed to flight the documentary subject to some editorial changes being made? Incurable implies that nothing could have rescued the documentary. But let’s ask an even more difficult question. What if the intention of the producers was to insinuate that Thabo Mbeki was involved in the assassination of Chris Hani. Would this make the documentary unfit to view? Is this idea so reprehensible that it should not be expressed, that it crosses the bounds of the expressible? Well the fact of the matter is that this insinuation is already in the public domain. It is a matter of history. Burying it will not make it go away. In fact, there is once again the emergence of a whispering campaign, as the succession debate hots up, that senior ANC leaders may have been indirectly implicated in Hani’s assassination. It is difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that this insinuation is pointing to the President. According to a report by Moshoeshoe Monare: ‘South African Communist Party delegates opened their congress in Port Elizabeth on Thursday by chanting and asking President Thabo Mbeki to tell them who killed former party general secretary Chris Hani. The Young Communist League has repeatedly called for the re-opening of Hani's murder investigation - with whispered accusations that senior ANC leaders may have been indirectly implicated’. If one were to take the SABC’s argument about the documentary to its logical conclusion, then the SACP congress, the songs sung at the beginning, the resolution, the Young Communists League statements calling for the reopening of the Hani inquest and all reportage in relation to these matters, could be considered incurably defamatory, as the same inference that has been read into the documentary could be read into these statements. Whether we like it or not, the insinuation is out there. If it is not dealt with through the media, people will continue to express it with their feet, through the toyi toyi. Preventing the insinuation from being uttered will not make it go away. It needs to be dealt with head on, and addressed once and for all. Perhaps the offer that Janus Waluz and Clive Derby Lewis have made to meet with the SACP to address the allegations that there is more to the assassination than meets the eye, will settle this matter once and for all. So can a sitting President be defamed? Defamation law is unsettled terrority, yet what is emerging is a growing conservative streak towards defamation, that shows an inappropriate deference to authority. This is worrying, and it remains to be seen how events unfold. But what still needs to be entrenched is the view that it should be practically impossible to defame a sitting President, particularly when it comes to political debate that is in the public interest. 3. The copyright question Then one needs to deal with the argument that there are editorial problems with the documentary, and the argument that editorial changes were not made. In this respect, we are very well aware of the division of opinion in the independent production sector about the Thabo Mbeki documentary, with some feeling that if the producers did not follow internal procedures properly, then this is unforgivable. However, there is a bigger issue that the dispute around the documentary raises, that should be of concern to all producers: the copyright issue. The SABC is the absolute owner of the productions it commissions. This gives it extraordinary power over what goes into documentaries and what is removed. There is no real space for independent producers to differ with the SABC on editorial matters, which is a problem. The SABC’s approach towards copyright comes out of the stone age of copyright law, and is not in line with recent thinking on copyright issues. There needs to be a shift in the balance of power between commissioning broadcasters and creative producers. We associate ourselves with a resolution taken by the Independent Producers Organisation and the SA Screen Federation, about the need to reform the approach of broadcasters to copyright, which tend to serve only the interests of broadcasters. As pointed out by the organizations, content creators are not mere service providers; they have rights too, and be treated as partners in content creation. Film production is a creative business, and creative people need space to breathe. They also need space to make documentaries that the SABC may not agree with editorially; they should even have the space to make flawed documentaries. They should make films in the knowledge that the SABC will defend their right to be heard, even if pressure is brought to bear on them to stop the screening of films. In fact, they should encourage a plethora of documentaries on particular subjects. There should be many Thabo Mbeki documentaries. If the current documentary was meant to be based on William Gumede’s book, then there should be a documentary based on Robert Suresh Roberts’s book. In the medium term, the ownership of creative, commissioned content needs to be addressed. It is difficult to see how the SABC intends to incentivise creative people by literally saying to them ‘we own everything and you own nothing’. This questioning is in line with what is taking place internationally. Some public broadcasters, such as RadioBraz, has shifted its content onto creative commons licences, allowing the creative re-use of its material, based on the understanding that its material is not the private property of the broadcaster, but public property, and as such should be available to all. What needs to be debated is whether such an arrangement, or even the type of arrangements adopted recently at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are not in order here, where the broadcaster is granted a primary licence by the producers, while ancillary rights to derivative products are kept by the producer. Otherwise, producers can be held to ransom by the SABC, and have no control over their own creation; in spite of the fact that the SABC foots the Bill for independent productions, and therefore in narrow terms has every right to assert copyright, in broad terms, it is merely a custodian of these films on behalf of the public. At the very least, there is no reason why its archives should not be made available on the basis of open content principles. These issues are important as we need to acknowledge that there are some good things happening in the area of commissioned productions. The briefs are getting more relevant to South Africans, more topical. SABC staffers who are moving the SABC in this direction should be supported. But they suffer from a serious flaw of editorial timidity, which I will get onto now. 4. The climate of self-censorship at the SABC The withdrawal (twice) of the Mbeki documentary also needs to be set in the context of the other recent events, that point to a growing timidity on the part of the SABC when it comes to controversial matters. An 'Asikhulume' interview with Jacob Zuma was pulled. Also, a pro-Zuma song was pulled from the SABC's play list and the reasons given were unsatisfactory. Then there was the inept handing of television reporting of the booing of Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, resulting in an internal investigation. Then there was the blacklisting controversy followed by the withdrawal of the circumcision drama Emthunzini we Ntaba and After 9. All these incidents point to an extreme editorial timidity at best, and self-censorship at worst. These incidents raise serious questions about the SABC as a public broadcaster. Questions can be raised about the extent to which the SABC is genuinely committed to independent journalism, which in turn raise very serious governance questions about the quality of leadership of the current SABC Board. This platform gives us an opportunity to address where the current Board has gone wrong, and what kind of Board we want to see in future. 5. The SABC Board The current SABC Board ends its term of office in November. Nominations are open at the moment for the new SABC Board, and the nomination process closes on the 25 July. We urge the public to take this opportunity to participate in this process. We must ensure that the SABC, as the public broadcaster, is governed by a well- and broadly-represented board that will foster freedom of expression in this country. The governance problems at the SABC have become intolerable and must not be allowed to arise again. The incumbent Board is responsible for sweeping under the carpet the Sisulu Commission of Enquiry’s report into allegations of blacklisting of commentators at the SABC. This Board also - after the damning report against the SABC’s news chief, Snuki Zikalala - still saw it fit to declare its full confidence in Zikalala. This Board, we believe, needs to be replaced by one that is more sensitive to the needs of the South African public and which is committed to transforming the SABC into a true public broadcaster. Also, mechanisms of public access to the Board, and to the SABC as a whole, need to be increased. The Board should be required to hold quarterly report back meetings and accede to requests for meetings, if more than 100 signatures are presented in support of these requests. Members of the public who want more information on how to engage in the nomination of SABC Board members may contact the FXI for assistance. We have the opportunity to make a difference in relation to how the SABC is run, and we will have only ourselves to blame if we do not grab this opportunity with both hands. The SABC can be turned around, it is now up to you to do it. Readers have left 8 comments. 1. ms
margaret fulton, Unregistered I grew up in SeaPoint,CapeTown in the 1960s and 1970s with Springbok Radio as my best friend. I knew then that it was the government 'looking after me and keeping me safe'.It seems that the government that liberated us in 1994 is trying to do a similar thing.
That, as we know, is a euphemism for power-grabbing and social control.
We can only ever be truly liberated if we have total freedom of expression in all spheres of our society. 2. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered Dear Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah,
In the light of recent comments about the banned Mbeki documentary, don't you think that The FXI / PSC should be publicly demanding, loudly and clearly, that Snuki Zikalala be immediately sacked ?
For the record you should now reveal whether you are both members of The ANC. I am concerned that when push comes to shove, your political allegiances might have discouraged The FXI / PSC from demanding Snuki's dismissal.
3. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered The FXI should assess how The SABC can be independent of political interference from The ANC. Now is the time to develop some guidelines which The FXI could also apply to itself !
In my correspondence with The FXI, I emphasized that senior ANC members like Snuki Zikalala should not be controlling news and current affairs. However , The FXI / PSC did not seem to understand that an individual's wider political allegiances will inevitably affect the individual's ability to be impartial and fair. Unfortunately, The FXI / PSC has itself also been adversely affected by similar conflict of interests ( please refer to my comments on Na'eem Jeenah's blog.) 4. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered The FXI should assess how The SABC can be independent of political interference from The ANC. Now is the time to develop some guidelines which The FXI could also apply to itself !
In my correspondence with The FXI, I emphasized that senior ANC members like Snuki Zikalala should not be controlling news and current affairs. However , The FXI / PSC did not seem to understand that an individual's wider political allegiances will inevitably affect the individual's ability to be impartial and fair. Unfortunately, The FXI / PSC has itself also been adversely affected by similar conflict of interests ( please refer to my comments on Na'eem Jeenah's blog.) 5. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered The FXI should assess how The SABC can be independent of political interference from The ANC. Now is the time to develop some guidelines which The FXI could also apply to itself !
In my correspondence with The FXI, I emphasized that senior ANC members like Snuki Zikalala should not be controlling news and current affairs. However , The FXI / PSC did not seem to understand that an individual's wider political allegiances will inevitably affect the individual's ability to be impartial and fair. Unfortunately, The FXI / PSC has itself also been adversely affected by similar conflict of interests ( please refer to my comments on Na'eem Jeenah's blog.) 6. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered The FXI should assess how The SABC can be independent of political interference from The ANC. Now is the time to develop some guidelines which The FXI could also apply to itself !
In my correspondence with The FXI, I emphasized that senior ANC members like Snuki Zikalala should not be controlling news and current affairs. However , The FXI / PSC did not seem to understand that an individual's wider political allegiances will inevitably affect the individual's ability to be impartial and fair. Unfortunately, The FXI / PSC has itself also been adversely affected by similar conflict of interests ( please refer to my comments on Na'eem Jeenah's blog.) 7. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered The FXI should assess how The SABC can be independent of political interference from The ANC. Now is the time to develop some guidelines which The FXI could also apply to itself !
In my correspondence with The FXI, I emphasized that senior ANC members like Snuki Zikalala should not be controlling news and current affairs. However , The FXI / PSC did not seem to understand that an individual's wider political allegiances will inevitably affect the individual's ability to be impartial and fair. Unfortunately, The FXI / PSC has itself also been adversely affected by similar conflict of interests ( please refer to my comments on Na'eem Jeenah's blog.) 8. Our Leaders Play "Micky Mouse"
Son Of Marx, Unregistered We are tied of this micky mouse game that our leaders are doing(Zuma-chargs wich shoud have been lated long time ago and Nzimande R1/2Million SAGA).They must resolve their internal personal problem.Mbeki and the Crew must must accept the critics from the SACP.Mbeki and The Crew feed while the mass is Starving.This thing of investing our wealth on Capitalist must come to an end,only the foreign Capitalist in the name of Creating Jobbs,while the the remunation of labour"The Supreme factor of production"acquire petty Wages.By Son Of Marx |
