Minister of Health, Dr Zweli Mkhize reported on 5 March 2020 that South Africa’s National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) confirmed that a suspected case of COVID-19 had tested positive. Since then, the numbers have continued to climb. As of 27 March 2020, the number of confirmed positive cases had risen to 1170.
On Sunday, 15 March 2020 President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the nation about what had become a global pandemic (President’s address). Even though the president was late to deliver his address and misspoke with regards to the democratic republic not having faced a situation of such severity (South Africa has one of the highest incidence of femicide and gender-based violence), it was clear that the government was gravely concerned about the health and well-being of its citizens. This was confirmed by the declaration of a national state of disaster in terms of the Disaster Management Act, which would initiate prompt and radical measures to control the spread of the virus. A week after declaring the state of national disaster, the President announced that the National Coronavirus Command Council had decided to enforce a nation-wide lockdown for twenty-one days, effective from midnight on 26 March 2020.
South Africans have responded in various ways to the restrictions and regulations suggested by the state of national disaster and the lockdown. Many have adhered to these and have heeded the call to remain in their homes. However, South Africa is a country of multiple constellations. Most of the country’s population lives in homes and communities that are overcrowded and barely suitable for human habitation. This is despite the government’s efforts to build a more equal society.
It is within this vignette that we must always view social issues—South Africa is an unequal country with a long history of marginalisation, discrimination and oppression. Social researchers and commentators (journalists, in particular) should work in a manner that holds this view at the centre of their practice. Doing this allows for reporting and interpretation that is as true to the experiences of people as they would share if they were telling their stories themselves.
On the first day of the nation-wide lockdown, following two deaths suspected to be linked to COVID-19, journalist Masego Rahlaga from eNCA interviewed people in communities where they had not stayed in the homes as prescribed (eNCA video). I was appalled at the journalist’s pre-emptive – dare I say, premature – dismissal of one of the interviewees. The gentleman she was interviewing stated that he believed the virus to be linked to people who travel internationally. He went on to state that most South Africans do not “fly” in airplanes but rather stay within the country’s borders. The interviewee said that “the ANC [government] has allowed foreigners [who are infected with COVID-19] into the country” and those are the people who have brought the disease to South Africa. He suggested that they be evacuated out of the country. It was at this point that the journalist cut him off and walked away from him, even though he stated that she had not understood what he was saying. I think that many people, like the reporter, may focus on the word “foreigner” and understand it to mean Black Africans… it is my assumption that the gentleman doesn’t use the word tourist/s because he doesn’t have it in his vocabulary — otherwise he would’ve used it. Also, what is implied but not stated in his comment is that wealthy or middle class South African are the ones that are able to travel to the identified high-risk countries and come back into RSA.
Before this interview, Rahlaga interviewed another gentleman who implied that the government was punishing its citizens by enforcing the 21-day lockdown and that they had not educated the nation in an accessible manner. This is not surprising when the President is talking about the fourth industrial revolution yet there are people who are barely having one meal a day and have no access to the type of technology and basic services that might be necessary in a country that is competing with wealthier and less burdened nations. It is my belief that even though both the interviewed gentlemen didn’t make a clear distinction between cases of COVID-19 imported by RSA citizens and those brought in by foreign nationals, this is something they would have been able to do if given the appropriate amount of time to explain their concerns. It also highlights how any education by government should include a fact-based appeal to not blame foreign nationals who have no link to deliberate importing of COVID-19 cases in stereotypical or broad-brushstroke fashion as has been the case with other issues that have been linked to xenophobic and afrophobic attacks.
This is not the first time that a journalist from the news channel has been irresponsible in their journalism and out of touch with their interviewees. In February 2018, Nickolaus Bauer interviewed people on the streets of Johannesburg following Jacob Zuma’s resignation. These interviewees were clearly intoxicated and, in a mood to celebrate Valentine’s Day. The journalist, again, quickly removed himself from the situation.
It is not clear whether this is purely an eNCA practice or a journalism training issue. Are universities and other training institutions not producing journalists with integrity and sound ethical judgement? Or, is the field placing so much pressure on journalists to produce news that they have to disregard their training and thereby place little value on the dignity of the interviewees? Either way, something needs to be done to address this issue so that we are able to trust that the news we are consuming is a true reflection of things as they are.
A Queer Christmas at Home.
ViweTafeniBlog 