Report is revealing, but not the facts

Console Tleane

Published in Business Day, 7 September 2005

A careful reading of the SABC’s two-person internal investigation report into the television division’s failure to broadcast the booing of Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka’s address at a Women’s Day rally in Utrecht is revealing. The report fails to establish the origins of the initial claim, made by the SABC, that freelance cameraman Sanjay Singh arrived late, after the booing had taken place.

A deeper reading of the report — especially of denials by some senior SABC personnel that they did not advise suspended spokesman Paul Setsetse about Singh’s “lateness” — suggests that Setsetse might be the fall guy. The other fall guy is likely to be Singh himself for allegedly deciding the booing was not newsworthy. That he is a freelancer might make it easy to get rid of him.

By their own admission, the investigators were unable to establish all the facts, hence “the information in (the) report cannot be conclusive”. Some of the critical questions that arise from this admission are: if the material facts could not be established, what is the status of the report in terms of effecting any corrective measures? Why did the SABC rush to release a report that contains inconclusive evidence? Could it be that the main intention was to formulate a public relations mechanism to weather the storm, while apportioning veiled blame on less powerful individuals?

Many readers of this newspaper will agree that Setsetse has not necessarily done the best job as SABC spokesman. However, it would be a sad day if he was to be made the fall guy.

The investigators could have looked at more serious issues. The fact that SABC radio did report the booing suggests that the broadcaster, through its Durban office, had the information. It should have been possible, even if Singh had already filed his story, to salvage the situation by reworking it, even if only for late news bulletins. This is the duty of editors. Why didn’t they do that?

The second major issue the investigators should have gone into is the alleged interference by an unnamed board member who is said to have put pressure on Setsetse to issue a public apology for the way the SABC handled the matter. Apparently the group CEO, Dali Mpofu, did not sanction the statement and was not happy about it.

Just what a board member’s interests were “ordering” an employee to issue a statement raises serious questions about corporate governance and operational independence. The board should communicate through the office of the group CEO.

Another revealing point is an assertion by a senior editorial staff member that SABC journalists might be under the impression that their producers expect only pro-government stories. What gave rise to this perception, and who is maintaining it? Is it journalists themselves, or has it been developed by senior editorial staff?

Some of the impressive recommendations made in the report — improved internal and external communications; improved news planning; adherence to good corporate governance — are clouded by the failure to address the problems faced by the SABC. What seemed a bold intention by Mpofu has been spoilt by his rush to have the investigation concluded in less than two weeks. No credible inquiry can be so rushed.

The report will achieve only two things: finding fall guys and placating the public by claiming a credible, “independent” process that found no fault, especially with some of the powers that be within the broadcaster. Just how advocate Tlharesang Mkhwanazi and Prof Guy Berger agreed to produce such a rushed job defeats all logic.

‖Tleane is head of the media and information communications technology programme at the Freedom of Expression Institute.