  SABC’s Managing Director of News and Current Affairs, who caused the public broadcaster allegedly to violate its licence conditions and the Broadcasting Act through his policy of blacklisting commentators and analysts, has done it again, it seems. According to the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), Zikalala has, in a deal with the Board, agreed to another form of blacklisting and is skating extremely close to allowing pre-broadcast censorship by a lobby group. The SABC needs to clarify whether these claims by the SAJBD are correct or not.
The SAJBD and Zikalala met recently to discuss the Board’s Icasa complaint against the SABC. The complaint was to be heard by Icasa’s Complaints Compliance Committee on the same day as the FXI’s complaint. However, after meeting with Zikalala, the SAJBD withdrew its complaint – wherein it criticised Zikalala’s blacklisting of freelance journalist Paula Slier – and wrote in upbeat terms about a deal it had secured from the SABC. According to SAJBD’s National Director, Wendy Kahn, the Board received a number of written “concrete undertakings” from the SABC. These include a recommendation from the SAJBD that “where debates on the Middle East take place, moderates from both sides be used”. SAJBD also suggested that “genuinely even-handed academics be used to discuss the situation”. We call on the SABC to clarify whether this is indeed an agreement between the SAJBD and the broadcaster. If it is, we would be extremely concerned. The SAJBD is, by its own submission, a pro-Israeli organisation and one of its objectives is the defence of Israel. From that perspective, it obviously has a biased view of who are “moderates” and “even-handed academics”. If the SABC has indeed agreed to this, the broadcaster has instituted another blacklist – of commentators and academics that the pro-Israeli lobby does not accept as “moderate”. The SAJBD further claims that the parties had agreed that “there was no insight to be gained by allowing those who refuse to recognize the right of the other side to exist, to debate the Middle East”. By what policies or standards, we would ask, has the SABC decided that debate and discourse can be limited and constrained by a person’s view on the “right to exist” of “the other side”. Such an agreement would unduly limit the boundaries of the debate and determine what can and cannot be expressed. The SABC's Editorial Policies state the SABC must provide a full spectrum of opinions, perspectives and comment, which also extends to the use of guests, analysts and specialist commentators. According to the Policy on News and Current Affairs, “This requires editorial staff to choose, as participants, people who have a wide range of views, opinions and perspectives, and are drawn from all over the country.” This policy is most definitely under threat if the above kind of agreement has been entered into by the SABC. Further, as the FXI notes in its complaint about the SABC to Icasa: “As the public broadcaster, the SABC functions according to a statutory mandate, and in addition has specific licence conditions… In terms of the Charter, contained in the Broadcasting Act, the SABC must offer a plurality of views from a South African point of view, and must provide a reasonable opportunity for viewers and listeners to receive a variety of points of view on matters of public concern. The SABC must also meet the highest standards of journalism. It is expected to provide fair and unbiased coverage, be impartial and balanced, and exercise independence from government and other interests.” The deal with the SAJBD, we believe, attempts to undermine the responsibility of the SABC to afford the public a plurality of views, to provide fair and unbiased coverage and to be impartial and balanced. If this is not the content of the agreement, then the SABC is duty bound to clarify its position. Further, the two parties also agreed, according to the SAJBD, to meet on a quarterly basis to “discuss the content of the coverage” of the Middle East. This would certainly not be an exercise of independence from “other interests”. Indeed, such “discussion” would have the very real potential of being a forum for pre-broadcast censorship – a pernicious form of censorship that does violence to the notion of free expression and freedom of the media. In taking these interests even further, SAJBD claims Zikalala has agreed to facilitate a meeting between the SAJBD leadership and SABC’s editorial staff, “to provide an understanding of the SA Jewish community and its views on the Middle East”. This has already begun, with SAJBD leaders having addressed SABC editorial staff via teleconferences. SAJBD also claims it has secured an agreement from Zikalala that two pro-Israeli propagandists – one Israeli and one Palestinian – will meet with SABC’s editorial staff next week and that Zikalala will “speak to the relevant people regarding getting coverage” for them, according to Kahn. The FXI cannot understand how the public broadcaster could make such concessions to one lobby group – on an issue that is highly contested in South Africa and around the world – and believe that it might be fulfilling the requirements of the Broadcasting Act and its licence conditions. In terms of s.10(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, the public services of the SABC must provide significant news and public affairs programming which meets the highest standards of journalism, as well as fair and unbiased coverage, impartiality, balance and independence from government, commercial and other interests. This requirement is repeated in s.4.2.3.4 of the licence conditions of SABC services. This requirement is violated by the agreement of the SABC with the SAJBD. According to the SABC’s editorial code, “the staff may not allow their professional judgment to be influenced by pressures from political, commercial or other sectional interests”. The Editorial Policy adds that “SABC reporting should be, and be seen to be, accurate, fair, impartial and balanced.” If the agreement between the SAJBD and the SABC is as is claimed by the SAJBD, then this code too has been violated by the deal. In terms of s.4.2.3.5 of the SABC’s licence conditions, with respect to news, information and current affairs, the licensee must “provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to receive a variety of points of view on matters of public concern.” We question much of a reasonable opportunity exists for a variety of views on the Middle East question if the SABC has opened its doors to one lobby group as the SAJBD claims. The SAJBD has publicly given its perspective of the agreement it has reached with the SABC. The FXI calls on the SABC to clarify whether the SAJBD’s version is correct. If it is not, the public has a right to know. If it is, then, we believe, the SABC has once again committed grave violations of its own editorial policies and of the Broadcasting Act.
Readers have left 6 comments. 1. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered Before criticizing The SAJBD, The FXI should do some self-analysis. I refer to his blog biography to show that it is impossible for him to be objective, fair and independent:
"Na'eem Jeenah is an author, journalist, community leader and post-graduate student. He is currently a PhD candidate and was a lecturer in Political Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
His research areas include: Political Islam, Islamic Jurisprudence of Minorities, Islamic Feminisms, the Middle East, Islam in South Africa, Revolutions, Politics in South Africa.
Na'eem currently holds the position of Director: Operations at the Freedom of Expression Institute. He is also Coordinator of Masjidul Islam in Johannesburg; steering committee member of The Other Voices; spokesperson for South Africa's Palestine Solidarity Committee and Anti-War Coalition, a member of the Council of the World Islamic Call Society, co-chair of the International Coordinating Network on Palestine and immediate past President of the Muslim Youth Movement of South Africa.
He was a regular talk show host on a community radio station and is often interviewed by various media about issues related to Islam or the Muslim world, Muslims in South Africa, the Middle East, Islamic Feminisms and various other issues.
An experienced journalist, Na'eem writes for a number of publications and reports for a network of radio stations in the US. He is also a monthly columnist for the South African newspaper Al-Qalam.
He has a history of activism in the anti-apartheid struggle, having been arrested on a few occasions - the first of which allowed him to meet Shamima Shaikh, who he later married.
Na'eem has various Islamic qualifications through international courses completed at different universities in the Muslim world.
He has organised and addressed numerous meetings, seminars, workshops, conferences, and training programmes on various issues related to Islam, South Africa, youth development, journalism, information technology and various other issues – in South Africa and internationally." 2. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered If anyone believes that Na'eem Jeenah, Director of The FXI,can be objective anf fair with regard to the issues that have recently arisen, I should refer them to a piece that he recently wrote on his blog entitled " VIVA PSC, VIVA WITS":
20 May 2007
Viva PSC-Wits Viva!
I just read the latest edition of the South African Jewish Report. (No, it's not my Sunday newspaper of choice; I just wanted to see whether the tabloid covered the Al-Nakba conference (see previous blog posting).) I was thrilled to see the following letter:
SAUJS ‘unprepared’ for Israel debate
"I AM writing to you as a deeply concerned
member of the Christian Zionist community
who was present at the embarrassing debate
held between the South African Union of
Jewish Students (SAUJS) and the Palestinian
Solidarity Committee (PSC) at Wits on May 4,
on the very emotive topic of “Is Israel an
Apartheid State?”
First of all, the Jewish students handled
themselves in a manner that seemed extremely
unprepared, disorganised and, indeed, unintelligent,
while the speakers from the
Palestinian Solidarity Committee (while I do
not agree with their sentiment) were very
knowledgeable and managed to have a massive
impact on the crowd that sat before them.
More than that, I was also very concerned to
see how relatively few Jewish students attended
the debate, as it made Israel appear weak
and outgunned. Did the Jewish students just
not care, or were they simply not campaigned
properly?
I sincerely hope that the Jewish student
leadership of the future will come better prepared,
better supported, more able to connect
with the audience they appear in front of and
simply more captivating when it comes to the
use of a term that is so often abused by the
detractors of Israel to delegitimise the state."
Johan Pieter Coetzee
Johannesburg
Well done, PSC-Wits. But before their heads become too swollen, let me remind the Wits PSC that they were only able to perform this well because they have truth on their side. I guess half the debate is won when your argument is actually true, verifiable and cold hard fact as opposed to spin and propaganda. So, the SAUJS students performed badly even though they were coached by members of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (as another article in the SAJR attests). 3. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered At the time, I left the following comment on Na'eem Jeenah's blog in response to the above piece:
"Well done, Na'eem ! You certainly combine your position as spokesperson for PSC and director of The freedom Of Expression Institute quite brilliantly! But before your head become too swollen, let me remind The FXI that you are only able to perform this well because you have truth on your side."
22 May, 2007 09:56
4. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered I also left the following comment on Na'eem Jeenah's blog with regard to the above piece ( btw, he did not grant me an interview! ):
Dear Na'eem Jeenah,
I refer to The Cosatu press release that you have written..... "LAUNCH OF END THE OCCUPATION CAMPAIGN." It ends with the following words:
For more information or interviews, call:
Na'eem Jeenah - 084 574 2674
Can I please interview you, via email, about your views re Israel / Palestine and your dual portfolios as director of The FXI and spokesperson for The Palestine Solidarity Committee.
04 June, 2007 09:27 5. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered SABC responds to FXI statement on meeting with the SA Jewish Board
Source : Corporate Communications
Thu, 02 August 2007, 0:00
?
SABC News and South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) had a meeting where the Board’s concerns around a perceived anti-Semitic bias on the part of SABC were discussed.
At the meeting no agreement was reached regarding the use of commentators on the Middle East. The SAJBD proposed the use of “moderates from both sides” whenever the Middle East issue was discussed and the SABC reiterated its commitment to the Editorial Code of the Corporation with specific reference to the need for balanced reporting.
SABC did not agree to any form of pre-publication censorship, but agreed that the Jewish Board of Deputies could access quarterly content analysis provided to the SABC by an independent media monitoring company, to be used as a basis of discussion should concerns about bias remain.
Editorial briefings are a regular feature in SABC News rooms and are used in order to provide editorial staff with a range of viewpoints on developments within the country and internationally. A wide variety of stakeholders and newsmakers have participated in these briefings, and the Jewish Board are no exception.
Likewise, there was no undertaking on the part of News management to “speak to the relevant people regarding getting coverage”, for Pogrund and Eid, merely that editorial staff would be informed of their presence in the country and of their availability to be interviewed. With the understanding that they are representing a particular view-point, they too have been invited to an editorial briefing. They are as entitled to this as any other interest group within society.
As public broadcaster we have regular engagements with stakeholders – as people from business, the trade unions, government and civil society will acknowledge. In none of these engagements have we ever agreed to compromise the editorial integrity of the Corporation. Any suggestion to the contrary by the Freedom of Expression Institute is accordingly rejected especially as it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
Issued by: Group Communications. For further information, please direct your queries to: Kaizer Kganyago, SABC Spokesperson on 082 306 8888. 6. MR
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered
Salim Vally was chair of The FXI and spokesperson of The Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC). Na'eem Jeenah has stepped into his shoes ; he is now director of The FXI and spokesperson of The PSC. Tweedledum and Tweedledee?
As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that The FXI has for a number of years been closely related to The PSC. It could be argued that The FXI is, at its core, a front for The PSC. Of course, it is involved with many freedom of expression issues but that should not obscure the fact that it has a partisan PSC agenda when issues relating to The Middle East arise.
Both Vally and Jeenah want The South African govt:
(1) To end diplomatic relations with Israel.
(2) To boycott '"apartheid" Israel and to impose sanctions.
As far as Na'eem Jeenah of The FXI is concerned, he would certainly want all SABC commentators on The Middle East to support the above . This is the real reason why The FXI is so upset by the recent "agreement" between The SAJBD and The SABC. As a result, their critique has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Instead it is an attempt to ensure that The SABC remains unbalanced and anti-zionist when reporting on The Middle East.
|
