Media in shame

By Rudzani Floyd Musekwa

Since Jacob Zuma took office in the Union Buildings as the President of the country it's rather embarrassing how some editors have since changed tune in their reportage of the man. Oh, how fast things can change in journ - politics. First Zapiro took the shower head off Zuma's head (apparently temporarily), and suddenly those editors who used to devote their angry columns to further tarnish Zuma's person have since decided against it - now, is this temporarily also, or is it a case of every coming government will have its own lackeys?

I wonder. Journalism seems to be bleeding very hard indeed. It's funny how it's only a few weeks ago when journalists could say as they wished about the poor Zuma. How the so called political analysts called him 'unfit' for public office. At some stage the country was going down under his tutalage. I have always been critical of Jacob Zuma, but I have always been critical of the people he surrounds himself with - those who influence him, not his person. For instance, I find it impossible to talk about Zuma's involvement with the arms deal, and partly because even the media contradicts itself from such an issue.

There was a time when, based on what I read from the media, Zuma was a guilty man, a man only fit to be in jail. But as we all know now he is the president of the country. Is our media failing to inform its subjects? Or is it simply falling apart? I think so, or actually both may apply. At some stage commentators made fun of Zuma's favourite struggle song, Um'shini wam', it became stuff for dinner tables, I suppose usually with kids on sight, perhaps making sure that those kids respected Zuma less? The right thinking public of South Africa is eating humble pie now as Zuma leads them.

Former presidents like Mandela and Mbeki never got as much flak as Zuma did, and you may argue by saying that perhaps they were less controversial, but controversial or not controversial on whose terms, the media's? Zuma fought with his life to be where he is today whereas the other presidents had people fighting for them to be there simply by means of voting them in while Zuma on the other end had to fight the judicial courts as well as the media courts. As a media student I ask myself a question what the reason for the media is - I am in between wondering whether it is to tarnish people's images when it suits you, or if it is to inform the people so that they can make informed decisions for themselves.

We need the journalism that seeks truth and reports it, not one that reports just for the sake of it. It's such a relief that there are no longer sensational stories about Zuma and those close to him. It's rather also unfortunate that the media and political analysts are saying that Zuma is rewarding those who supported him to be where he is today - names that come to mind are Nzimande, Mbalula and others, but I find that opportunistic because all those people he chose are politicians, and what do you expect? and also, which president the world over can surround himself with people he cannot trust? None.

It's funny how people like Desmond Tutu and Frederick Willem de Klerk are either suddenly mum about the Zuma presidency or they are suddenly 'optimistic' about Zuma's presidency. I do not ever think that Zuma alone can change South Africa for the better good, but with the right people around him I believe that this country is going places. The sooner the people of South Africa are 'optimistic' as de Klerk is, the better our country.