(FXI/IFEX) – Making headlines in South Africa is the news that the Defence Intelligence (DI) in Pretoria has been making overtures to members of the press for its Overt Liaison section. The section says it seeks to establish relationships with journalists with a “view to acquiring oral and written analyses of current events”. In return, […]
(FXI/IFEX) – Making headlines in South Africa is the news that the Defence Intelligence (DI) in Pretoria has been making overtures to members of the press for its Overt Liaison section. The section says it seeks to establish relationships with journalists with a “view to acquiring oral and written analyses of current events”. In return, the defence intelligence offers to provide “tip-offs” for stories as well as “improved access to the official intelligence community”.
Agent Carien Pieterse, who approached Adrian Hadland, a political editor for Cape Argus, said that a network of journalists, including all the Pretoria newspapers, had already agreed to participate. She said that it was obvious the representative had lined up further meetings with journalists in the Cape and that this was the purpose of the visit. Pieterse added that as well as providing tip-offs and better access, journalists would also be invited to functions and briefings to discuss issues of the day with intelligence community operatives and managers. Journalists would provide their information either in writing or verbally. In addition, the identity of the participants would be kept strictly confidential, that not even ministers would know which journalist had said what, and even that a number would be assigned to facilitate this confidentiality.
The following is a 2 August 2000 FXI press release, in response to this development:
FXI’S RESPONSE TO DEFENCE INTELLIGENCE’S RECRUITMENT OF JOURNALISTS
FXI is appalled to note that Defence Intelligence has been making overtures to members of the press, supposedly for its “Overt Liaison Section”. Although the agent involved has suggested that the relationship DI was seeking with journalists was all above-board and perfectly acceptable in our new democracy, we strongly refute this.
To suggest that “acquiring oral and written analysis of current events” is not acting for the intelligence agency and not compromising a journalists’ integrity and independence, is naive in the extreme and disingenuous, particularly when journalists are promised confidentiality and the allocation of a number.
Notwithstanding the fact that independence and integrity should be characteristics of any journalist regardless of who is in power, we do need to recall the devious means which the Nationalist Party government used to co-opt the press and manage the flow of information to suit it. One of these ploys was the establishment of the Defence Liaison Committee within the Newspaper Press Union. By taking the press into its confidence and treating it to access to what it termed was “confidential information”, government ensured that the press became its “gate-keepers”. Current promises of “tip-offs” and “improved access to information” clearly signal that this is nothing but “management” of information and that this information itself would only be what DI wanted to see published. One consequence of this type of information management is that the journalist becomes a mere conduit for DI’s message. A second consequence is that the journalist, through payment via the information provided to DI, acquires a special status with the agency. This gives the journalist an unfair advantage over his or her colleagues, resulting in divisions in the newsrooms.
Furthermore, for a government agency to suggest that in return for co-operation journalists would “receive tip-offs” and “improved access to information”, intimates that DI does not believe it has a duty to communicate with the South African public. This is unacceptable given our constitutional provisions relating to transparency and accountability and the right to access to information in our bill of rights.
The Truth Commission Report makes fairly stringent recommendations regarding intelligence agents in the media, including a recommendation for legislation against such involvement. It also recommends that on recruitment journalists be required to undertake not to become agents for the state. Although it may not be necessary to go as far as this, we would suggest that journalists themselves reject overtures from agencies such as DI and take seriously the various codes of ethics
which make their independence and commitment to truth an essential part of their work. In this spirit we call upon journalists, particularly in the Pretoria papers where DI says it has had success in its recruitment, to state categorically where they stand on the matter.
We also call upon government, in light of our past, to acknowledge the independence of the media and the need for journalists to remain distant from the intelligence agencies.
In conclusion, FXI would like to support the South African National Editors Forum’s statement on the issue.
Issued 2 August 2000
