13 Jan 2012 | Russia
The first weeks of January have been marked with a number of public moves, which opposition activists say are aimed at smearing them.
Russian general prosecutor Yuri Chaika has alleged that participants of two historically large rallies for new, fair parliamentary elections in December were financed by foreigners “for dishonorable aims”.
“Some individuals using people as an instrument for achieving their political goals, which are indeed dishonorable, is intolerable. And money for this comes from sources outside Russia,” Chaika said in an interview to state-owned daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
A journalist interviewing Chaika said that the protesters “had insulted the authorities” and asked whether they would be punished, prompting the general prosecutor to stress that defamation decriminalisation “doesn’t mean permissiveness and the lack of responsibility for slander and insult”. The punishment is still “quite sensible financially”, Chaika warned.
Novaya Gazeta has asked Yuri Chaika to provide documents proving his allegations, along with explanations of what Russian legislation had been violated.
Chaika’s allegations go in line with the Kremlin tendency to claim that opposition leaders and activists critical of Kremlin are financed “by the West in order to destabilise the situation in Russia”. Soon after the first rally on 10 December prime-minister Vladimir Putin said the protesters had been paid to attend the rally. Many joked about the allegation at the second rally on 24 December, as they held posters with “Hillary Clinton paid us in kind”, “Where’s the money, State Department?”, and “I’m here for free”. Similar allegations were made against Russia’s leading election monitor — GOLOS Association by the state-owned NTV channel, days before parliamentary elections.
Chaika’s interview was preceded by a scandal involving the publication of a fake photo of Alexey Navalny, one of the opposition leaders. Pro-Kremlin youth movements in Ekaterinburg circulated a newspaper entitled “Arguments and Facts. Ural Digest” with a photo of Navalny with disgraced Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky. The caption said Navalny “had never concealed” that he had received financial backing from the oligarch. The issue also said that Vladimir Putin’s United People’s Front — an organisation initiated to broaden United Russia’s electorate — contributed to it. Both the newspaper’s head and editor-in-chief claimed they didn’t release the issue, and denied any role in creating it. More controversial statements came from the United People’s Front members, but nobody can be sure who is responsible for the issue.
Alexei Navalny proved the photo was doctored by publishing the real image in his blog, where he is pictured with Russian tycoon and presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov. “What an entertaining job it must be to cut one oligarch and pasting in another” – Navalny wrote ironically in his blog.
Just like Putin’s allegations, the fake photo was used as a joke by tens of thousands of people participating in protest rallies against alleged fraud on elections. Many of them further photomontaged the photo, replacing Berezovsky with Putin, Stalin, aliens and even Harry Potter’s nemesis Lord Voldemort. Protestors agreed that Kremlin’s traditional allegations against its critics can no longer be taken seriously.
13 Jan 2012 | Sub-Saharan Africa
The 8th of January 1912 saw the founding of the ANC, by key South African intellectuals, including author Sol Plaatje, poet John Dube, and editors Pixley ka Isaka Seme and John Langalibalele, in a small Wesleyan Church in Bloemfontein.
All four were writers, and one of the key tenets of the ANC was intellectual and creative freedom, as well as economic, political and social equality. The ANC is well known for its strong links with the unions, the miners, and with the Umkhonto We Siswe (MK, the armed wing).
What is less known is the firm commitment to promoting education, night classes and intellectual development: Walter Sisulu, Oliver Thambo, Hugh Lewin and Nelson Mandela all studied and/or ran informal classes for other prisoners whilst imprisoned. Helen Joseph, Albertina Sisulu and members of the Africa Resistance Movement also coordinated education township night classes through the struggle years. Peter Magubane (a photographer at Drum) and the Drum Magazine played a vital role in both exploring the everyday elements of apartheid, and vividly quashing the lies and misinformation of the apartheid regime.
Back the ‘80s and ‘90s, demonstrations were de rigeur. Even until the mid noughties strikes and actual demonstrations, with real people and real placards, were everyday occurences, particularly in Johannesburg. Free speech was visible, tangible.
Tweeting is changing this it seems. This week has seen the flourishing of all sorts of celebrations in South Africa commemorating the ANC’s birth, but also a remarkable burgeoning of criticism about the ANC, and where it’s going. Tweeting, which is significantly more common in South Africa than the rest of the Southern and Eastern region, is the new demonstration.
Relationships between South African media, and the ANC have becoming increasingly strained since the Information Act was passed late last year. The act seeks to curtail investigative journalism, and is viewed by many commentators as a major blight against what was originally an incredibly pioneering and free constitution. The South African twittersphere is ablaze with critical and sardonic comment on issues from the refusal of press passes to the local media, to clampdowns on reports critical of ANC leadership.
On Sunday (8 January) several journalists criticized President Jacob Zuma’s speech at a local stadium in Mangaung. “The story of Mangaung so far today. Two themes. How slowly Zuma is delivering his speech and how quickly people are leaving. Sigh,” tweeted Channel 403 news anchor Iman Rappetti. Reporting on Zuma’s speech, journalist Mandy Rossouw tweeted that “A faction in the crowd tries their best to distract Zuma, police sent in to stop them.” Zuma supporter Mthimkulu Mashiya responded, “JZ speech shaping up to be a powerful & inspirational one, must u concentrate on a few disruptive elements? C’mon now.”
Earlier, City Press Multimedia Editor Qhakaza Mthembu complained about the official decision to deny journalists access to the Wesleyan church where Zuma lit a symbolic torch. “Why would you invite the media if you gonna push us away and close church doors, I’m here to film the candle not the friggin doors,” she angrily tweeted. Mthembu then expressed her surprise at seeing an ANC spokesman lounging in the media pavilion, eliciting a sarcastic comment by @drphobophob: “Oh is Floyd Shivambu chilling in the media pavilion? I was pretty sure he hated our kind…1st rule of war=know your enemy.”
Zuma supporters were quick to retort: “All the reports I’ve seen, by both local and international media, about #ANC100 point out how the ANC has let itself go in recent years,” complained @Mabine_Seabe. “Y is the media focusing on what ANC is not doing, instead of celebrating with them,” asked @morudilebo. “What’s so hard for Media houses just to congratulate #ANC100 and stop talking about discontents of past 17 years?” said @mokhathi.
It wasn’t just the media who were critical of the ANC. “The #ANC pops champagne yet majority of South Africans struggle to access clean water. “tweeted @bekezeep. “At #ANC100 look out for all the dictators with murky Zuma…” tweeted @hebbiedodds. “LEADERS typically arrive in the latest range rover while the masses are ferried in belching buses,” tweeted @Ms_eazy. “Celebrating 100 years of what? Have we achieved the true victories set out in the Freedom Charter?” tweeted @SuGaRusHB. “Gotta wonder what #anc100 concert really cost us? How many houses schools or hospitals could we have built? How many kids could we have fed?” tweeted @TracyLeePurto. “Anc was started by theologians yet today its criminals that run it,” tweeted @MaqPaulM.
In a microcosm of the national debate, Zuma supporters confronted a twitterer called Hlomla Dandala for mocking the president. “Mangaung: Where tenderprenuers meet pantyprenuers,” read one of his tweets, a witty reference to corruption and sex scandals entangling several ANC leaders. Defending himself, Dandala tweeted to a handful of Zuma supporters: “In all democracies, presidents r criticised, ridiculed & mocked. That’s democracy.”
Even the National Director of Public Prosecution Menzi Simelane, couldn’t resist getting involved. Tweeting in his personal capacity, he said, “Good thing about real freedom is about making fun of your President, an elder, and a Statesman, without worrying about repercussions!” However, as the Committee for the Protection of Journalists points out, given pending criminal complaints by Zuma’s spokesman against two journalists, as well as other potential media prosecutions, repercussions against investigative reporting can be expected.
12 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Richard Desmond, founder and owner of Daily Express owner Northern & Shell, today defended his editor’s coverage of missing toddler Madeleine McCann despite the volume of defamatory articles the paper published.
I don’t wish to minimise it,” he told the Leveson Inquiry, “but if there were 102 articles on the McCanns, and 38 bad ones, you could argue there were 68 or 70 good ones.”
He told the Inquiry that the McCanns took four months to take legal action over the paper’s coverage, claiming that until then “they seemed quite happy for us to run articles about their poor daughter.”
Counsel to the Inquiry, Robert Jay QC, called this a “grotesque characterisation”. He also said the coverage of the Express and the Star, also owned by Northern & Shell, were the “most egregious defamations” of all the redtops.
Despite apologising and paying Kate and Gerry McCann over £500,000 in damages for “entirely untrue” and “defamatory” articles written about their daughter’s disappearance, Desmond believes the Express was “scapegoated by the PCC” over its coverage, claiming it was only the Express that “stood up and said yes we got it wrong”.
An increasingly irritated Jay criticised Desmond for drawing comparisons with the death of Princess Diana and attempting to justify his papers’ coverage of the McCanns by arguing speculation over what had happened was rife.
“There has been speculation that Diana was killed by the royal family,” Desmond said. “The speculation has gone on and on. I don’t know the answer.”
Desmond’s performance this afternoon was pugnacious, with potshots being taken at rivals and regulators. He called the current Press Complaints Commission a “useless organisation run by people who wanted tea and biscuits and by phone hackers; it was run by people who wanted to destroy us.”
He called the Inquiry “probably the worst thing that’s ever happened to newspapers in my lifetime.” He said he would rather “get rid” of it, “prosecute people that committed offences, and get on with business.”
He also took particular care to reignite hostilities with the Daily Mail, calling it “the Daily Malicious”, “Britain’s worst enemy”, and referring to its editor Paul Dacre as “the fat butcher”.
Desmond seemed at pains to define the term “ethical”, adding: “We do not talk about ethics or morals because it’s a very fine line and everybody is different.”
The Inquiry continues on Monday.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
12 Jan 2012 | Africa, Index Index, minipost
Two privately owned
Congolese newspapers were
suspended on 5 January. The order for suspension came from the director of the provincial media authority of Orientale, on the grounds that the Kisangani based Journal de la paix and Kisangani News violated a 1996 law establishing the “conditions for the operation of a free press in the DRC.” According to reports, a week prior to the suspension, Kisangani News editor-in-chief Sébastien Mulumba was called to the home of provincial governor Médard Autsai Asenga after the paper criticised the provincial government. Editor-in-chief of Journal de la paix Grégoire Ngubu claimed that he was threatened by the Asenga’s supporters. The recently created Congolese media regulation body, Higher Council for Broadcasting and Communications (CSAC) has already come
under fire from local rights groups, who called for the council to be disbanded, on the grounds that it has proven to be “incapable of assuming its independence” following “numerous cases of interference by politicians and security services in the affairs of the media.”
