SINCE former South African president and anti-apartheid hero Nelson
Mandela was on June 8 rushed to a Pretoria hospital, where he remained as of
last night in a critical condition while his family and the world ponder his
fate, the way some journalists have behaved in covering the story has raised
serious ethical questions. Let’s be clear upfront. Given that Mandela is an
icon, one of the world’s most famous statesmen, recognized and revered by
millions around the globe, the stampede by journalists is understandable.
The fact that Mandela at the height of his power and influence dined
with royalty, rubbed shoulders with the world’s greatest leaders and had his
opinion sought and valued on many weighty issues, makes him a media magnet. Besides,
he has achieved an almost divine status in the world, practically equal to that
of the Pope or the late Princess Diana, while in the process becoming a
celebrated political leader who inspired a generation through the extraordinary
story of his long walk to freedom. That is not what is only interesting about
the Mandela story. During his long political career, he achieved almost papal
fame despite being a flawed character with human frailties and sometimes a very
dark side.
Biographers and journalists interested in telling the Mandela story in
full, together with its hagiographical versions and eulogies, as well as
criticisms, must not wallow in sentiment, but give varied narratives and
interpretations to achieve balanced accounts. With that in mind, it is not
inexplicable why journalists are jockeying to the get the story first for their
own fame and competitive advantage. Journalists around the world are agonising
about how to frame the story and make it interesting, while appreciating his
amazing legacy. Of course, it would be naïve to think everybody celebrates
Mandela. Many actually don’t. Some claim his feats are exaggerated, while
others say he let down his own people during his reign. Some think he was “too
saintly” towards whites while others allege he was a media creation.
All these are legitimate views, although some sound too harsh and
revisionist given Mandela’s history and struggles. But revisionist
deconstructions won’t work. Journalists covering this big story have in some
cases crossed the line. The night vigils and camping out at the hospital and at
Mandela’s homes are all well and good in general terms because reporters want
to break news and have a responsibility to do so in the public interest — of
course, beyond their commercial and personal calculations — but the framing of
death, including through rehearsals, with morbid fascination is going
overboard.
The media needs to do its job to inform the public to help them reflect
on the man, every facet of his character and life, and the times in which he
lived, as well as the circumstances that influenced him, but context, tone and
nuance are critical. Wishing for death to come to bring a big story is just
wrong. Even if events around him are headline-grabbing, Mandela must be treated
with sensitivity and dignity. Journalists who write with sensitivity often
portray the story in an informative and engaging way.
Irrational ghoulish curiosity and attraction to the macabre are rather
distasteful. We must resist the compulsion to intrude on this issue beyond
ethical limits. That’s why we should agree (minus her claims of racism) with
his daughter Makaziwe when she said: “You have no idea what is happening at the
hospital. In the middle of Park Street they just stand. You can’t even get into
the hospital. Truly, like vultures, it is like they are waiting for the last
carcasses. That is what we feel as a family.”
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar