The statement the M&G refers to reads, "The Board of the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) is satisfied that Mr Lumko Mtimde, the CEO of the MDDA has consistently emphasised and stated that his views on the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal are his own and NOT those of the MDDA. Mr Mtimde writes and comments in his own capacity as a citizen of South Africa who is guaranteed the right to express his personal views. This is in line with the rights espoused in the South African Constitution and Bill of Rights. At no stage has Mr Mtimde expressed the views of the MDDA Board, Management or staff on the issue of the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal - one would undoubtedly find a wide spectrum of views on the issue if canvassed at the MDDA. The MDDA upholds the principles of the Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of association. We look forward to continued public debates on issues as important as these in deepening and strengthening our democracy and remain committed to supporting projects that enable diversity in all its forms and in fostering a plurality of views, opinions and expression. The Agency will submit its input and/or proposal (if necessary) at the right time to Parliament when it conducts the inquiry on the desirability of the establishment of this Media Appeals Tribunal, as proposed."
Where in this statement is there an indication that the MDDA Board or "the organisation distanced itself" from my views that the M&G is referring to? The Board statement indicates that the Agency has not expressed the MDDA view on the matter and Mtimde has always said this in his discourse on the subject. Further, Ms Rawoot says I am "not an easy man to read". She states that my past as a media activist fighting for media freedom and the freeing of the airwaves is overshadowed by my "notoriety as the man behind the tribunal that threatens the very essence of freedom of expression". Ms Rawoot cannot prove in the article how, a call or campaign for South Africa to discuss media accountability mechanisms through (amongst others) a proposal by the ANC to discuss the desirability of establishing a Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) intended to provide an independent appeal mechanism for all, provided one is not satisfied by the decision of the existing self-regulatory system (Press Ombudsman and Press Council) and strengthening the self-regulatory system, threatens press freedom.
How does discussing media accountability mechanisms threaten press freedom?
Ms Rawoot further interviews Jane Duncan (Rhodes University) and Anton Harber (Wits University) about me and the MDDA. Clause 1.5 of the Press Code provides that a publication should seek the views of the subject of serious critical reportage in advance of publication. Jane Duncan speaks to the challenges faced by print media (specifically small commercial and community media) and asks questions "What measures has the MDDA put in place to stem the bloodbath? These are factors we don't see the MDDA addressing." Ms Rawoot never enquired with the MDDA or myself regarding these questions. Instead she leaves the impression that the MDDA does nothing about these matters or that I have my priorities wrong.
I have (without knowing these questions asked by Jane Duncan) on being interviewed by Ms Rawoot explained the MDDA mandate, how it approaches the implementation of its mandate, its current programmes including our interaction with Parliament last week regarding challenges faced by small commercial and community media, etc. She had an opportunity during the interview to seek direct answers to the questions posed by Jane Duncan or at the very least use that which was provided, however, none of this is covered in her article. Had Ms Rawoot been fair in her reporting, she would have outlined the "energy" (as required by Jane Duncan) MDDA uses in lobbying for better conditions for community and small commercial media. For ease of reference, these are outlined in MDDA's Annual Reports, Strategic & Business Plan as well as the MDDA Facebook wall.
Clearly, the M&G article on its so-called conundrum is non-compliant with a number of clauses in the Press Code, including clause 1.2 regarding balanced reporting, without intention or negligent departure from the facts. Presumably at the core of this is a difference of opinion regarding an earnest dialogue that needs to happen within the fraternity, on media accountability mechanisms. Regardless of the views we hold on this matter, we should always endeavour to preserve the noble principles on which journalism is founded.
Issued by:
Lumko Mtimde,
Chief Executive Officer, MDDA
20 June 2011
