# Social Category > South African Politics Forum >  Freedom of expression under siege?

## Dave A

There are strong warning signs that there is a shift on freedom of expression issues with lots of fires breaking out at the same time. 

Suddenly it seems the Publications Bill issue is not over.



> South Africa's editors and the government's legal team will meet "as a matter of urgency" over concerns about the Film and Publication Bill.
> 
> This was announced in a statement jointly issued by the government and the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) after talks at Tuynhuys in Cape Town on Wednesday.
> 
> Also on the agenda was the handling of media coverage of Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang.
> 
> Sanef and the government had agreed to convene a "special seminar" on the media's role in democracy and the balance between the right to privacy, the public interest, media ethics and freedom of expression, they said.
> full story from M&G here


Any linkage between discussion on freedom of the press and recent coverage of a government minister is, I'm sure, entirely coincidental.

Of course, we get a little sample of how the ANC would like to debate issues in this report:



> There was an uproar in the National Assembly on Wednesday when Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Mike Waters was ordered to leave after a written question he posed to Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang was ruled out of order.
> 
> Speaker Baleka Mbete ruled the question -- whether Tshabalala-Msimang had been convicted of theft in 1976 while employed at a hospital in Botswana, and whether she had disclosed this information to President Thabo Mbeki when she was appointed to her portfolio -- to be out of order.
> 
> "I have ruled the question by Mr Waters out of order because it transgresses the rules and practice of the National Assembly ... which forbid the use of offensive or unbecoming language. 
> 
> "It is patently clear from the question that was submitted ... that it reflected on the integrity of the minister, as it implies impropriety on her part," said Mbete.
> 
> Her ruling provoked an uproar from DA benches, with both DA MPs Ian Davidson and Tertius Delport rising on points of order, but being ordered to take their seats by Mbete. Waters himself then rose, and called on Mbete to tell him which words in his question were "unbecoming".
> ...


Chucked out for requesting an explanation. Clearly public debate and opposition is counter-productive, a notion reinforced by this little tidbit as the ANC welcomes their crosstitutes:



> The defection of DA provincial chairperson Kent Morkel and provincial executive member Kobus Brynard was announced at a high-level ANC press conference in Cape Town led by national chairperson Mosiuoa Lekota.
> 
> Lekota lauded Morkel and Brynard as genuinely patriotic South Africans.
> 
> Others not in the ANC should reflect on the usefulness of remaining in political parties and formations that "can only criticise", expending energy that could be positively expended if they joined the majority, which was inside and behind the ANC, the defence minister said.
> 
> "Because the real thing our country needs, is a united people that puts its energies in the same direction. Inside the ANC is a very wide space for very intense debate and evaluations of policy," he said.
> 
> Once capable men and women joined the ANC, they became a valuable asset in shaping policies of quality.
> from IOL here


A rather solid argument for a one party state, I think.

And then if there was any remaining doubt around how things stand at the SABC:



> The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) had demonstrated nothing but arrogance in pulling out of the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) over reports about Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, said the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa) on Wednesday.
> 
> The SABC's "drastic position" was a clear departure from the mainstream media and seemed to suggest it was "distancing itself from being a media house", Misa-South Africa spokesperson Dumisani Nyalunga said in a statement.
> 
> "Misa-SA would have expected the SABC to act as a champion and loyalist of press freedom and media freedom in general," he said.
> full story from M&G here


From the same story, we have the SABC position:



> The national broadcaster reportedly said that it would no longer stand idle "whilst we are being made a whipping boy and a scapegoat by the profit-driven media".
> 
> "Even less are we prepared to associate with the enemies of our freedom and our people.
> 
> "We cannot remain quiet while our mothers and our democratically chosen leaders are stripped naked for the sole reason of selling newspapers."


I guess from that "our freedom and our people" are the party.

----------

Butch Hannan (29-Aug-10), Graeme (24-Apr-09)

----------


## Dave A

It looks like I'm not alone in questioning the heavy handed approach of gov.



> Meanwhile, the row over Tshabalala-Msimang is casting doubt on government's integrity and transparency, says South Africa's largest and oldest Pentecostal church.
> 
> "The media disclosures about the health minister have caused damage, but the banning of an MP from Parliament for raising a question about the row has far-reaching consequences," the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (AFM) said on Friday.
> 
> In a statement signed by its four national office bearers on Friday, the AFM, which has a membership of 1,2-million, said the "core integrity" of South Africa's democracy was being undermined by an inability to face up to facts and give a truthful explanation to the nation.
> 
> It said the row surrounding Tshabalala-Msimang, the hasty firing of her deputy Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge and the "gagging" of the DA's member of Parliament were doing serious internal and international damage to South Africa.
> extracts from M&G article here

----------


## Dave A

Helen Zille also draws attention to the merger of party and state.



> The African National Congress is intent on turning South Africa into an authoritarian state, Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille warned on Friday.
> 
> "The evidence is now overwhelming: the ruling party is increasingly authoritarian, intolerant of criticism and hostile to the principles of an open society," she said in her weekly on-line newsletter.
> 
> A recent series of essays on the ANC's website had made the point that those in opposition were not only the "enemy" of the ruling party, but of the state too.
> 
> There were also the words of Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota, who - in a recent defence of floor-crossing - had said the ANC would not rest until "every member of the South African public is an ANC member".
> 
> Further, there was the "brazen" way ANC headquarters had over-ruled a parliamentary portfolio committee's SABC board nominations "in favour of key, hand-picked Mbeki loyalists".
> ...

----------


## Dave A

The ANC's desire for a media tribunal answerable to government to regulate the press is causing a stir.



> The establishment of a media appeals tribunal as proposed by the ruling African National Congress (ANC) threatens the right to press freedom as well as individuals' rights to free expression, the press ombudsman said in Durban on Monday.
> 
> Ombudsman Joe Thloloe, speaking in Durban at a debate entitled "The New ANC and the Media", warned that "once media freedom is threatened, it is an individual's freedom of expression that is threatened".
> 
> "From the way it's [the Constitution] written I accept we in the media hold press freedom as trustees. We are just custodians on behalf of the public in general."
> 
> He said the ANC's claim that it will support self regulation conflicts with its desire to establish a tribunal that is "accountable to Parliament".
> 
> "We have people [in the ANC] who talk the acceptable language we love but at the same time raise issues that make us wonder about their intentions.
> ...


On the flip side.



> At its conference last December, the ANC resolved to set up an investigation into the need for a tribunal.
> 
> "The aim is to strengthen the self-regulation mechanism of the print media ... there is no such thing as an attack on media freedom," Motlanthe said.
> 
> "As usual the media are overreacting. They say that the ANC is hyper-sensitive to criticism but look at the reaction of the media to this the tribunal -- they see it as an attack on media freedom."
> 
> Motlanthe said the debate was, in fact, about the competing rights and freedoms of the media against the right to privacy and the personal dignity of people.
> 
> Jordan said it was understandable, given the history of media repression in South Africa, that editors reacted so quickly to any suggestions they were not doing their jobs properly.
> ...


And I suppose the ANC call for a tribunal isn't squealing?

Tarred and feathered with your own brush, Mr Motlanthe.

----------


## Dave A

> South African media faces the threat of political censorship if new information laws are passed through Parliament unchanged, media firms argued at public hearings on Tuesday. 
> 
> The Protection of Information Bill put forward by the African National Congress-led government seeks to replace apartheid-era laws that also governed the protection of information.
> 
> It has been lambasted by media, civic organisations and opposition parties as draconian.
> 
> Among other measures, the Bill would make the unauthorised disclosure of information a crime and journalists could be prosecuted for espionage. Investigative reporters fear that would severely limit their ability to break stories.
> 
> "The present formulation of the Bill ... has the result that there will be censorship of political expression," said Dario Milo, an attorney for Avusa, publisher of Business Day, the Sunday Times and other papers.
> ...


This is the key: *the Bill would make the unauthorised disclosure of information a crime and journalists could be prosecuted for espionage.*

So would *you* authorise publication of a story about you that you don't like, if you had the power?

----------


## Dave A

The media has made its representations...



> The setting was Parliament's committee room V475, where public hearings took place on Tuesday into the draft Protection of Information Bill. This proposed legislation would provide a new regime for classifying state information and punishing unauthorised disclosure.
> 
> A string of submissions -- including one from the Mail & Guardian -- raised concerns about the broad swathe of state information that could be cloaked in secrecy under the Bill.
> 
> All noted the "chilling effect" it would have on public accountability, which would be exacerbated by the penalties for unauthorised disclosure of information. In terms of the new Bill revealing even the lowest classified "confidential" information will mean up to five years in jail without the option of a fine.
> 
> Avusa (publishers of the Sunday Times, Sowetan and Business Day) said the Bill allowed for an "unprecedented" level of classification of state documents that would lead to "censorship of political expression".
> 
> The Freedom of Expression Institute described the Bill as "an extremely blunt instrument" that would serve as a "blank cheque" for officials to deny access to information.
> ...


It seems the committee was not particularly receptive, though.



> But there was Kafkaesque dissonance between what the presenters were saying and what some of the members of the committee were hearing. 
> 
> The committee is a temporary ad-hoc body, formed to consider the draft legislation. The majority of MPs present also serve on Parliament's intelligence oversight committee which has confidential access to the intelligence services and some of its reports. 
> 
> The intelligence oversight committee jealously guards this privileged access and is careful not to be seen as soft on security. Committee members are more likely than the intelligence officials themselves to ask for parliamentary hearings on intelligence to be held in camera. During the public hearings the committee chair, the approachable Dr Siyabonga Cwele, seemed rather pained at all the fuss made about secrecy. 
> 
> Weren't we -- the petitioners present -- concerned about the national interest, he asked, somewhat rhetorically. 
> 
> Didn't the media often confuse the public interest with their own commercial interest? 
> ...


Can we really expect this committee to be objective?

Government's message is "trust us."
My answer is "on your current track record - you've got to be joking!"

Too many things keep popping out from under the carpet.

----------


## Dave A

An old thread I know. But I think this story shows why we need a free press.



> The City of Tshwane has been left with a bloody nose after challenging a Carte Blanche exposÃ© of fraud, corruption, incompetence and nepotism in the administration. 
> 
> The Broadcasting Complaints Commission said on Thursday it had dismissed a string of 25 complaints by the city against a hard-hitting programme broadcast by M-Net in October last year. 
> 
> The commission said in a statement the city had produced no evidence to counter many of the claims.
> 
> It had even "compounded the fraud" in one matter, related to the appointment of the executive secretary of the chief of metro police, by giving incorrect information in its complaint documents.
> full story from M&G here


This sort of dirt needs to be hauled out into daylight for all to see, otherwise it will never go away.

----------


## insulin

Yes and sadly it is only the beginning. In short government wants to control the media, publications and mainstream censorship of news and other such events will be a reality soon. The first symptom of a lost democracy is government controlled media and censorship. I find it ironic that the very tool that was used to fight for freedom is now being dismantled by the very people it served...     :Confused:

----------


## Dave A

For the time being it seems the courts are keeping press freedoms and our right to transparent governance alive.



> The Mail & Guardian, together with Avusa, Independent Newspapers and e.tv, has won a significant battle for press freedom and the principle of open democracy. 
> 
> At 4pm on Wednesday Judge Frans Malan ruled in the South Gauteng High Court that a "preliminary investigation" by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) into a complaint of misconduct against Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe, and his counter-complaint against the judges of the Constitutional Court, must be opened to the public and the media.
> 
> The JSC had sought to hold the hearings, which are to be conducted by a three-person subcommittee of the JSC complaints committee, in private, despite the fact that it had already conducted an extensive review of the evidence in public following an earlier court ruling by Judge Nigel Willis.
> 
> Advocates Kate Hofmeyer, for the M&G, and Steven Budlender, for e.tv, argued that the decision to exclude the public breached fundamental principles of the Constitution and of administrative justice.
> 
> The JSC, supported by counsel for Hlophe, had sought to keep the hearings closed, with the JSC's advocate Bashir Valley arguing that the media "turn serious debate into pornography" and are "driven by their own agendas".
> full story from M&G here


It's rather disturbing though that the JSC, which after all is responsible for the conduct of judges, was one of the parties opposing press access.

How much longer can we rely on the judiciary to look after the interests of the ordinary citizen?

----------


## I Robot

President Zuma raises the bar in the protection of children               against inappropriate media content    

7 September 2009 

On 28 August 2009, the protection of South African children against inappropriate media content and child pornography received a boost when the President of the country, Mr Jacob Zuma, signed the Films and Publications Amendment Bill 27 of 2006 into law. 

The amendment Bill, first introduced in 2006 by the Department of Home Affairs created uproar and contestation within the media industry which viewed it as a hindrance to the freedom of expression. The decision of the President has provided the Film and Publication Board (FPB), and those involved in efforts aimed at protecting children against pornography and sexual abuse and exploitation with the assurance that the rights of children to be children as articulated in section 28 of the Constitution remain paramount. Also, the board has been empowered to enforce stricter regulations and ensure compliance by industry. 

The amendments hold the owners and operators of all telecommunication channels targeted at and used by children responsible for the content created and distributed within those mediums. Evidence points to the fact that some of these mediums are used as platforms for sexual abuse, exploitation and grooming of children. 

They (operators) are required to take the necessary steps in ensuring that their services are not used by any persons for committing offences on children. Failure by operators to display safety messages to children on advertisements for the services, failure to provide mechanisms to enable children to report suspicious behaviour by any user, and failure to report to the South African Police Services (SAPS) the behaviour which indicates commission of an offence against children is a punishable offence. 

The amendments also allow for the establishment of a fully fledged council, which will be constituted by a different range of stakeholders, including representatives from industry and the non-governmental sector. This will strengthen the Board’s accountability and adherence to corporate governance. Consultations have already begun with different players within the industry and government, in order to agree amongst other on the framework for self regulation for those required to self regulate protocols on protection of children against pornography etc. 

The FPB continuously strives to inform members of the public, so they are empowered to make decisive choices regarding what to watch and not watch.

More...

----------


## Dave A

It seems government has seen fit to spy on the Mail & Guardian.



> The M&G complaint, which dealt with concerns affecting mainly Sam Sole, Stefaans BrÃ¼mmer and former editor Ferial Haffajee, detailed *incidents over a number of years and ran to 25 pages.
> 
> In a brief response this week Ngcakani found no wrongdoing on the part of the NIA or the CID: âFollowing extensive investigations on all your complaints with the intelligence *services, we have found that at all stages both the NIA and the crime intelligence division acted within the regulatory framework governing the activities of the intelligence services, which includes acting within the precepts set out in Rica.â
> 
> Rica is the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act, which regulates the legal interception of private communication. He found the crime intelligence division âat no stage abused their powersâ.
> 
> Reacting to the findings, Laurie Nathan, who served on an intelligence review commission that delivered a detailed report to former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils, said *Ngcakaniâs response was an indication of the problems raised by the commission: âThe law governing interception of communication allows the NIA to bug telephone calls, with the permission of a judge, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that this is necessary to gather information on an actual or potential threat to the public health, safety or national security of the republic.
> 
> âThese grounds are far too wide. The law provides no definition of ânational securityâ, a term that can be interpreted very broadly. The result is that the NIA is able to spy on people and organisations that are engaged in lawful activity and are not suspected of any involvement in crime.
> ...


There definitely seems to be a problem here.

A judge has authorised the tap, one assumes based on legitimate grounds presented by the NIA.
Now what could those legitimate grounds be in this instance?

They were planning to rob a bank?
They were planning to blow up a government building?
They were planning to assassinate a member of government?

Seriously, what are legitimate grounds for tapping the phone of a newspaper editor or journalist? 
And if it has anything to do with the journalist's profession, should a judge be allowing the request from NIA?

----------

Chatmaster (28-Sep-09)

----------


## tec0

It is personal. Government is actively trying to destroy our press. The same system that helped them into power... However with the government being able to tap every computer, every phone and ever mobile do you honestly belief we still have rights? I donât think so and the evidence is right there. The people need to stand up and start to protect the internet and protect the press it is the only tools we have to voice our concerns. 

As for reasons to tap your phone. There must be prove of criminal activities and that is the end of it. You cannot act from suspicion alone. But like I said this is personal.  :EEK!:

----------


## I Robot

Commissioning of independently produced South African                           programming   

15 December 2009 

The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) has published final regulations and Position Paper on Commissioning of Independently Produced South African Programming. 

The process was undertaken in terms of sections 4 and 61(1) of the Electronic Communications Act read with section 4(3)(j) of the ICASA Act of 2000. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that commissioning practices are fair, transparent and non discriminatory. 

The regulations introduce the requirement for broadcasting service licensees to submit to the authority for approval commissioning protocols in order to enable the Authority to monitor the commissioning practices of independently produced South African programming and to ensure that the same is conducted in a manner that is fair, transparent and non-discriminatory. 

The authority makes this finding, taking into account the varying licence conditions of the broadcasting service licensees and the provisions of the television content regulations of 2006.

More...

----------


## Dave A

The start of the assault on independent broadcasting?

In the meantime the reining in of the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the National Prosecuting Authority seems to be complete.

----------


## Dave A

The passage of the Protection of Information Bill is heading down the home straight. And not much sign that any of the "consultation" process has had any effect.

Well, if pointing to the direct and very obvious consequences hasn't helped bring this to a grinding halt, maybe highlighting the pure bigotry will.

It's not often I read a blog entry by Pierre de Vos where I can agree with every point he makes - but in his boiled chickens pretending to be plumed peacocks piece I can only applaud as he cuts the issue down to size.

Here are some highlights to encourage you to read the full piece.



> When these politicians (who pretend to be hysterical about media “excesses” and “mistakes”) refer to the media, they usually mean those sectors of the printed media who sometimes carry articles that contain allegations of corruption, tender rigging, high-handed and heartless incompetence by politicians and senior officials, the wasting of tax payers money by Ministers who stay in 5 star hotels for 6 months because they are not happy with the bed in their official residence, the fathering of children out of wedlock by our President or articles that do not seem to endorse the National Democratic Revolution as interpreted by Julius Malema and his woodwork buddies.
> 
> They do not usually refer to the tabloids (who are now more widely read than the so called “serious” newspapers). This is of course because tabloids seldom report on the alleged work done by politicians, but often print stories about “moffies” who tricked men into having sex with them by wearing dresses and were then stabbed in the gat, church ministers who had allegedly raped congregants, women who allegedly tricked men into buying them expensive presents before running off with their best friends, alleged drug dealers who are terrorizing communities, tik addicts who had sold their mothers gold teeth to buy some drugs and gentlemen of a certain age who allegedly molested young boys.





> For the sake of our democracy we need more information and less regulation – not the other way around. Do not believe a word of this talk that the media is the greatest threat to our democracy. We all know that the greatest threat to our democracy is posed by the politicians and senior officials who are stealing our money and failing to address the poverty and vast discrepancies in wealth between rich and poor.





> Some politicians say that the present legal avenues for redress are too expensive and cumbersome and that is why one needs a fast, cheap and efficient mechanism like a Media Tribunal to hold the media to account. Of course this can be said of almost any legal mechanisms to redress harm. At present it is rather expensive to prosecute corruption, so why don’t we just appoint a corruption tribunal to deal with the charges of corruption against President Zuma and dispense with this innocent until proven guilty stuff? Not going to happen, is it?
> 
> If the politicians were principled (I know this phrase might sound hilarious and unreal, but I am trying to keep a straight face while typing these words) and were not acting out of naked self-interest and greed, they would have insisted on other tribunals to deal with other excesses and mistakes in our society – most notably the excesses, mistakes and illegal behavior of politicians and senior officials.





> So, please, before politicians start talking about the need for a Media Tribunal – as if this is the most important thing for our democracy – they should clamor for the institution of a Tribunal for politicians and officials where ordinary citizens could go to get these people fired and maybe thrown in jail when they fail us. I propose that such a tribunal should be staffed or appointed by members of the print media (as the ANC is proposing the Media Tribunal be staffed or appointed by members of Parliament). That should ensure that it is independent and impartial!


Are nominations open for blog post of the year yet?

Firken brilliant!

----------

AndyD (13-Aug-10), Butch Hannan (29-Aug-10)

----------


## Dave S

Come on folks... We all knew the clamp down on media was coming, even back in 1994. The reasoning behind it is far more sinister than we even realise.

If you follow this from a biblical standpoint, WARNING - this might be very contraversial to some. 

When the anti-christ rises he/she will need to be in a position where his/her methods, motives, etc. will not be questioned, how else is he/she to lead the blind into eternal distruction? If the general population can only access a corrupted version of the truth then very few are actually going to know the truth, and the media is the only voice that gets us to think about another viewpoint or creates doubt that everything is not as it seems.

The clampdown on media may be prominent in SA at the moment, but it is happening worldwide.

Dave, this also brings me to the E-TV vs SABC that we chatted about on another thread, how long does E-TV have before it is swallowed/killed by the Gov. controlled SABC? :Hmmm:

----------


## Butch Hannan

I really love this last quote about a "Tribunal For Politicians" This appeals to me because there is no accountability for their actions or rather non actions at this time. There is a tongue in cheek piece on my website called "Contract For Politicians" which you may find interesting. As you can see I have no love for politicians and consider most of them to be a bunch of "wankers"

----------


## Dave A

> Civil society organisations are willing to take the fight over the proposed Protection of Information Bill, currently before Parliament, all the way to the Constitutional Court should the Bill be passed in its current form. 
> 
> Speaking at the launch of the Right2Know campaign on Tuesday, Idasa's (Institute for Democracy in South Africa) Judith February, a member of the campaign's working group, said that should the Bill become law in its current form it would be a "slight on our Constitution". 
> 
> The Right2Know campaign was unveiled at St George's Cathedral in Cape Town, and encompasses more than 180 organisations and professional bodies, as well as prominent individuals, opposed to the Protection of Information Bill, or "Secrets Bill" as it is known.
> 
> "We have the critical mass of support to take it to the Constitutional Court if needs be," she said.
> full story from M&G here


Record your support for the Right2Know campaign here.

----------

IanF (01-Sep-10)

----------


## Butch Hannan

I just have an uneasy feeling that the ANC are going to rail road this piece of legislation through. The rot started with the arms scandal which if opened up would in all probability have implicated Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki.
One wonders just what other issues they are afraid of being aired on the public domain. I would really urge you all to add your signature to the link that Dave has provided.

----------


## wynn

If the bill was already legislated we wouldn't know about the civil servants strike, would we?

----------


## wynn

> One wonders just what other issues they are afraid of being aired on the public domain.


Wait for the Reserve Bank scandal to rupture, traced back to Stals through Mbeki, Manual, Mboweni and Marcus.
Billions involved, scary.

See the latest noseweek.

----------


## Dave A

> The South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) held "tense" talks with the ANC in Johannesburg on Thursday about a proposed media appeals tribunal.
> full story from M&G here


Not very encouraging, frankly.

----------


## AndyD

This is a truly worrying issue. The SABC is standing proof that government controlled media is worthless. I'm hoping that when they eventually introduce this bill it's put in the ground once and for all by the constitutional court.

This is exactly the kind of legislation that can bite this country in the ass at a later date when it's in the hands of a future government with a more sinister agenda.

I have strong suspicions it's another part of an ongoing attempt to stop past indiscretions coming to light. It's coming from the fear of the world seeing how rotten and corrupt to the core the foundations of the ruling party actually are.

----------


## Dave A

The ANC still seems set on getting their way on the media tribunal issue:



> The African National Congress will press on Wednesday for a new tribunal to punish unscrupulous reporting that has been heavily criticised as a plan to muzzle the press.
> 
> The ANC's media panel will meet behind closed doors at the party's national general council, one of its most important political events in years, to iron out details of the plan heartily embraced by its leaders.
> full story from M&G here


while M&G's editor Nic Dawes raises an interesting angle on this:



> "I think that really the reason we've seen the debate ratchet up to this level now is not that the press has suddenly become much worse than it was five years ago or 10 years ago, but that there's a crisis of hegemony within the governing party," he said.
> 
> "That is to say, it's no longer in control of itself and its relations with its alliance partners. And also a crisis of legitimacy."
> 
> That crisis was not yet been expressed at the ballot box, but had been clearly shown in the recent public-sector strike.
> full story from M&G here


Certainly government/ANC seems to attract more bad press than it used to 5 and ten years ago. No doubt *something's* heading the wrong way.

But it begs the question - has media reporting become "worse" because of a drop in standards in the media industry, or *a drop in standards in the corridors of power*?

----------


## garthu

At the same time, the government really are trying to make it difficult for themselves now anyway. 3 reporters got arrested today for taking pics of poachers.... thats really not going to go down well with the press and make sure they will make good use of it!!!

My opinion, governance has got worse... i think press is more cautious than they used to be if anything... they know they got cuck when they stuff up now so surely on there guard. 

Politicians have alot to hide ..always... :Mad:

----------


## AndyD

I would also be interested to see what charges they bring against poor old Pig Spotter if or when they find him.

_Edit_
Just to annoy the powers that be here's his twitter profile. https://twitter.com/pigspotter

----------


## desA

What's with the pigs trying to nail the PigSpotter?

Surely he's exercising his human right?

----------


## Dave A

Defeating the ends of justice, obstructing or hindering a police officer from carrying out his lawful duties...

EDIT: add (possibly) operating a Blackberry while driving (I just checked out his profile).
19000 followers - impressive!

----------


## desA

> Defeating the ends of justice, obstructing or hindering a police officer from carrying out his lawful duties...


The man's a legend...  :Thumbup:

----------


## desA

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-09-...spotters-bacon

An interesting read.

For all the members who supported this invasion of PigSpotter's rights without even blinking. Shame on you...  :Fence:

----------


## AndyD

> Defeating the ends of justice, obstructing or hindering a police officer from carrying out his lawful duties...
> 
> EDIT: add (possibly) operating a Blackberry while driving (I just checked out his profile).
> 19000 followers - impressive!


I think that the speed traps at least are supposed to be a deterrent and the police aren't allowed to conceal them so publishing their locations might not be against the law. Obstructing justice or hindering a police officer I think is a charge that applies to a particular event and not a trend in behaviour over time as such.

After that fiasco with the arrest of that journalist the other week, kicking his door in, swat team type arrest, held without charge fr days etc I have no doubt they'll have something similar lined up for Pig Spotter.

19000 followers on twitter isn't in the Justin Beiber league but it's not bad for a local boy :-)

----------


## Dave A

Self-imposed censorship out of intimidation is just as bad as legislated forms of censorship?



> The media's self-regulation should not turn into self-censorship, African National Congress (ANC) veteran Kader Asmal said on Tuesday.
> 
> "... Self-censorship and the forces that conspire to ensure its evolution are equally dangerous," Asmal said in a speech prepared for delivery at the University of the Witwatersrand to mark Black Wednesday.
> 
> Asmal noted weekend reports that the ANC's proposed media appeals tribunal (MAT) may be sidelined in favour of a more "proactive approach" to self-regulation by the media themselves.
> full story from M&G here


I tend to agree.

----------


## Butch Hannan

Maybe all the newspapers should just for a week publish the papers with a whole lot of blank columns. This would be a reminder of a grim past where censorship ruled supreme.

----------


## Dave S

Just a sober thought. If the bill goes through, and let's be honest, there is a 99.99999% steam-rolled chance that it will, how much of this current topic would be in contravention of the new bill? 

It's already a scary thought that we have to watch everything we say around people, but not being able to express your thoughts at all... would be murder in the first degree! :Frown:  :EEK!:

----------


## wynn

you ANC what we are stealing cause we ANC why you should!

 :Headbutt:

----------


## Dave A

> Just a sober thought. If the bill goes through, and let's be honest, there is a 99.99999% steam-rolled chance that it will, how much of this current topic would be in contravention of the new bill?


I've kinda got a plan if it happens to come to that. But perhaps the real question is how much of the bill would be in contravention of the Constitution  :Frown:

----------


## Dave S

> I've kinda got a plan if it happens to come to that. But perhaps the real question is how much of the bill would be in contravention of the Constitution


  It wouldn't surprise me if most of it was in contravention. As we have seen in the past, the constitution will simply be adapted to fit the law, not vice-versa. We might have a multi-party gobblemunt, but I don't think the ANC are listening much to the other parties, do you?

----------

