Death Rattle of S. African Press Freedom Stirs Little Fuss

As the war against personal liberty intensifies in South Africa, truth has become the last known casualty and journalists are finding themselves under professional and often physical attack. South Africa used to pride itself on the freest press in Africa. Now it probably has the most stringent press censorship of any so-called democracy in the world. Louis Nel, deputy minister of information, claims: “We do not have censorship. What we have is a limitation on what can be reported.”

In the past two weeks one journalist has been killed while reporting unrest, at least half a dozen have been injured, three have been expelled, at least 20 foreign reporters are unsure whether their work permits will be renewed, and 12 local journalists are in detention.

The international press from outside South Africa initially responded with bravado to the “limitation on reporting,” convinced that they could continue to do their jobs regardless of government restrictions. Yet the reality of the situation is that the foreign press also has been forced into active self-censorship. Shortly before Newsweek correspondent Richard Manning was served with an expulsion order, the magazine’s South African distributor voluntarily kept copies carrying a cover story on South Africa off local shelves. Time magazine appeared with three pages blank to comply with emergency restrictions. Copies of the British Financial Times were altered for South African readers.

In the face of harsh penalties, press freedom falls flat on its face and tyrannical rule can flourish--particularly when it is confident of a supportive shield from the world’s most powerful democracies, governments that constitutionally enshrine press freedom and individual liberty.

The President of the United States, the defender of the Bill of Rights, can be under no illusion that press censorship in South Africa is stripping not only the South African people of their right to know, but the American people as well. Americans are receiving censored news from South Africa, and representatives of the American press, because of its vast circulation and influence, often are prime targets for government reprisals. The South African press, despite its lip service to press freedom, has never been free; it has been restricted by its publishers or the state. Censorship is a noose that has tightened as the apartheid state has become less secure. The death rattle of press freedom hardly raises an eyebrow now.

Whites, who often have reacted with fury to press criticism of their apartheid life style, now have the press that they deserve: an emasculated compilation of trivia that pays little attention to the tragedy that their country has become.

Newspapers appeared with blank spaces, a silent protest against censorship, until the government warned them that the blanks might themselves be subversive--an offense that carries a maximum fine of roughly $9,000 or 10 years in jail, and/or possible closure of the newspaper. Shutting down newspapers is a threat that the government has carried out in the past.

South African editors, in defending the weakness of their coverage, often have pointed to the hundreds of laws restricting the press. Journalists counter, however, that when the government threatens the press, owners and editors--in terror that their publications will be shut down--emasculate their papers and obstruct reporters more than necessary.

The Rand Daily Mail, a liberal newspaper with a large black readership, finally was closed by its proprietors in April, 1985, after several government attempts to muzzle it. The stated reason was its large financial losses. But less than a month later the English press consortium that owned the Mail won a long-sought entertainment network from the state-run TV corporation. Many journalists believe that the death of the liberal newspaper could have been a quid pro quo for the entertainment network. Bugs Bunny and “Dynasty” in exchange for press freedom?

Afrikaans-language newspapers essentially have supported press restrictions. Willie Kuhn of the pro-government newspaper Beeld wrote: “Freedom also may be exploited to the extent that it jeopardizes the very essence of freedom.” A little out of place, perhaps, in a country where freedom is a subversive word.

Harald Pakendorf, an Afrikaans newspaper editor who with leading English businessmen visited the African National Congress in Zambia last year and who--though basically conservative--has cautioned against militaristic policies instead of negotiation, recently was axed from his job as part of the general clamp on government criticism.

Daily press briefings by the government information bureau were canceled less than two weeks after the state of emergency was announced June 12. Despite the fact that nearly 60 people were killed in civil disturbances in the two weeks after the restrictions were imposed, and several more since, the government claimed there was so little unrest that there was nothing to report. The South African government is operating on the what-you-don’t-know-won’t-hurt-you principle in the hope that if the violence is not reported the rest of the world will forget the raging civil war here.

Perhaps South Africa has succeeded in buying time. But the danger that the country faces now is that by silencing the press, and removing the last of the few nonviolent options left to apartheid’s opponents, history could take its course in ways bloodier than the West can imagine.

This report was censored by the author in order to comply with the emergency regulations.