Joseph McCarthy would be proud of you, Dali

June 16th, 2006

When you read Dali Mpofu’s 10-page diatribe against the “rightwing conspirators� who have criticized the SABC, skip to the very end. The most revealing part is in the final paragraph. Mpofu, the SABC CEO, ended his long attack on his critics with these words:

“The SABC will never succumb to pressure to act against the dictates of logic, the law and its own editorial policies whether that pressure is orchestrated from the political left, centre or, as in this case, the right. We owe it to the public and less powerful citizens of our country to resist such pressure. The decision as to what happens next will be strictly and objectively taken in terms of our policies, irrespective of the bigoted theatrics of our detractors.�

This is a breathtaking statement, coming from the head of a public broadcaster. The message is that the SABC sees itself as immune from public pressure and believes it stands above the debate about its role and its work. It alone is able “strictly and objectively� to decide on what is right and appropriate. Most odd is that he is saying that it is for the sake of the public, or at least the less powerful members, that the SABC is going to ignore the public.

It is this imperious sentiment that is at the heart of the SABC’s conduct in the last few weeks. It pulled off the air a sensitive programme about the president, without even telling those who produced it. Its public explanation was limited to some vague remarks about the need to put the programme through “internal processes�. Now it lashes out at those who did not accept these mushy words, labeling the whole mixed bag of commentators and critics as right-wingers.

There is a name for those who use crude and unsubstantiated political labels against their enemies and taint everyone through the vaguest of associations with the label or with anyone else who bears that label. It is called McCarthyism, named after the infamous US Senator Joe McCarthy, who used it to attack the left, the liberals and anyone who didn’t pay homage to him during the 1950s in the US. This is now seen as a period of horrific intolerance and destruction in that country, which damaged some of their finest men of letters, such as Charlie Chaplin and Dashiel Hammett.

Mpofu even went so far as to use a phrase that comes straight from the mouth of McCarthy. He referred to “like-minded fellow-travellers�, which is a notorious way of tainting everyone who is even friendly with a leftwinger, in McCarthy’s case, and a rightwinger, in Mpofu’s case. Right or left matters little, as it is the same technique of damning through vague association.

This is the most worrying aspect of the incident. In its words and its conduct, the SABC is showing contempt for its audience, for the public and for the notion of public debate and discussion.

It is a pity Mpofu did this, because some important things he had to say were lost in the heat. He said in his statement that the producers had “failed or refused to effect suggested editorial changes�. If this is true, then it is relevant and important. One wonders why Mpofu didn’t issue a one-liner saying this on the day the programme was pulled, which would have laid the matter to rest.

It is, however, contested by the producers – and the outcome of this matter may lie in the verification of who is telling the truth here. The fact that it was not said up front and that the SABC has given different reasons at different times for not running the programme, does not inspire confidence in its version.

Secondly, Mpofu dismissed the view put forward by Allister Sparks and myself that, having seen the programme, we could not see a legal problem with it. He said that, despite initial approval by an SABC lawyer, a more senior SABC lawyer had overturned this, and an independent attorney and Senior Counsel had concurred that “the entire documentary was fundamentally tainted by the defamatory matter�.

These are strange words, as this is not a legal concept I have ever heard, particularly in relation to defamation. Almost always, defamation is curable with a minor insertion or cut.

A great deal usually depends on what one asks of a lawyer. If the lawyer is asked whether the piece carried some risk of legal action, a sensible lawyer would always say there is some risk, as there almost always is on a documentary of this nature. To ask this question, and to solicit this answer, is to seek out an excuse not to run it.

Ask a lawyer how great that risk is or, even better, how that risk can be reduced, or whether the action would be defendable and you are looking for a way to assess and cure the problem because you want to run the piece.

The truth is that decisions of this sort never lie with lawyers. All they can do is give advice on the level of risk and it is then an editorial decision to accept or lower that risk – or use it as an excuse not to run the piece.

In the end, the decision must lie with the Editor-in-Chief, Mpofu himself. As of Tuesday night, by his own admission, he hadn’t even bothered to look at the piece.

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, TV, Journalism