Where there’s smoke, there’s fire!
The media is constantly in the firing line for publishing ‘sensation seeking’ stories that are factually incorrect. They should be – because making sure of the facts is one of the cornerstones of ethical journalism. In a perfect society where everything i
Try transparency for a fair shake
In this information vacuum the media is left with the unenviable challenge of sorting the wheat from the chaff – the quality lead from the blatant lie. Sometimes they err on the side of caution and throw a really strong story out for lack of supporting evidence – and sometimes they publish a ‘whopper’ that lands them in all sorts of trouble. But there’s something else they do. Familiar with the old saying that goes “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” newspapers will often run with a version of their source’s story to see what happens... They put the story in the public domain to see if other witnesses come forward and to force those who continually plead the Fifth when asked for comment to make a public statement. Is this bad journalism? The papers should simply do what most criminals do when confronted – challenge the ‘wronged’ to take them to court!
This weekend the Sunday Times started a huge storm by publishing a front page article relating to the 2006 sale of the V&A Waterfront development by Transnet (and its pension funds) to a consortium comprising British, Dubai and economic empowerment partners. The R7.04bn price tag, says the Times, included rights over 90 square kilometres of seabed and 22 kilometres of coast line. How did Transnet respond?
It took the state organisation an entire day to come up with a strongly worded response. If the deal is so clean, why does it require more than a day of debate, negotiation and deliberation before statements are made? And why would Transnet tell the media that a statement will be released on condition the Transnet board is in agreement? The reality is that the article opened up a can of worms. And it resulted in details of the deal that were previously kept under wraps entering the public domain. We certainly didn’t know that the consortium assumed it would enjoy Transnet’s rights to land reclaimed from the sea! That seems to be what the consortium was promised – they already have plans to build commercial and residential buildings on the yet to be reclaimed land!
MAN Ferrostaal goes on the offensive
The Sunday Times has also incurred the wrath of German industrial heavyweight, MAN Ferrostaal. This follows various allegations levelled by the newspaper in recent weeks, including that Ferrostaal paid R30m to President Thabo Mbeki to secure a lucrative contract in the now legendary arms deal. The Times further alleges that Ferrostaal failed to comply with various conditions contained in the offset agreements which required significant inward investment to South Africa.
Ferrostaal’s response is ingenious. Board member Klaus Lesker sent this message to the editor of the Times. “MAN Ferrostaal has warned the Sunday Times that their false allegations of bribery are damaging to current negotiations for the construction of oil and gas platforms in the company’s offset projects in Saldanha Bay (Western Cape) and Cape Town. This might endanger the creation of thousands of jobs.” Wow! Talk about holding a gun to someone’s head. Why should allegations of bribery scare people from investing in South Africa? Bribery is illegal – companies shouldn’t have to pay bribes to win business here. If they’re being coerced into parting with large sums of money to secure local contracts they should simply issue a press release to that effect. We’ll help them with the first few lines: “ABC Limited is withdrawing from all negotiations in relation to its South African investment commitments because XYZ demanded R100m for the contract to go ahead...”
The alternative is equally clear. If Ferrostaal is convinced of its innocence why don’t they open their books? How about providing full transcripts of the contracts (unaltered and unedited) with the South African government regards the arms deal and offsets? Why don’t they disclose the disbursements made by the company to complete the project? The public paid for it and it’s in their interest to know how the money was spent. Claims of secrecy for military intelligence purposes are also nonsense; because the only thing the public does know is the exact specification of the goods purchased – including weapons capabilities and the like. Sure, they can still massage the numbers and hide certain facts; but some effort on their part would at least suggest the company had nothing to hide.
Handling of public trust is pathetic
We should probably thank the Sunday Times for standing firm and occasionally pushing the boundaries of journalistic integrity. Because if no-one has the balls to do it there will be further and more frequent abuses of public trust than ever before.
Editor’s thoughts:
There’s nothing worse than a story published without any factual basis. However, recent articles by the Sunday Times have usually resulted in responses that support the “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” adage. We can no longer allow our publicly elected ministers to do ‘secret’ deals with our hard-earned tax money. Do you think the Sunday Times made mistakes in running their Transnet and MAN Ferrostaal stories? Add your comment below, or send it to [email protected]
