WHEN John Vorster decided it was time to silence the press, he and his cabinet proposed to set up a “press court”.
This court would define and punish publications found guilty of reporting “ascertainable factual lies”.
Some media colleagues argued then that perhaps such a court should be expanded to include government ministers as well, for ministers and other government representatives were often themselves guilty of telling (publishing) such “ascertainable factual lies”.
This was at a time when young (white) citizens were being sent out to fight wars on foreign soil, specifically in Angola. These troops were operating across the border from about January 1975. In August of that year, military units invaded Angola, and engaged Angolan forces, supported by Cubans and even Umkhonto weSizwe soldiers.
It was a war which reportedly cost the South African taxpayer at least R1-million a day – and the cost in human lives was immense. But the media could not report on these activities in terms of the Defence Act.
This Act prohibited the publication of any information about the “composition, movements or dispositions of troops” or anything about the military – including allied forces. Under normal circumstances, this would not be unusual. Clearly, no newspaper would want to put the sons and daughters of the land at risk through the publication of such sensitive information.
But this was more than that: not even the supreme body in the country – parliament – was informed.
The country was being lied to.
Would seeking parliamentary approval for the invasion, or a declaration of war, have put the troops at risk?
Was it in the national interest not to get parliament’s approval to go into war?
In recent weeks, the country has been in mourning following the deaths of 13 soldiers in an engagement in the Central African Republic (CAR). It is always a tragic moment when body bags are returned from the war front.
The difficulty with the current situation is that the country – the taxpayer – did not even know that there was a war front in which our sons and daughters were engaged.
Nobody should be playing politics, and the media ought not to sensationalise the death of soldiers. But that does not mean that the media should not question the reason why the boys were in combat in the first place.
By all accounts, the deployment was meant to provide training and support for that country’s VIP Protection services. This surely does not require the number of troops deployed. Nor does it take the length of time that we have been in that country to achieve this.
But this is not the main issue.
South Africans would like answers to questions that are being raised over what we were doing there, and the media is entitled to ask those questions on behalf of citizens.
The media has been blamed for reporting on the speculation around this. There are reports that the deployment was to protect business interests, among them those of an ANC linked company.
If this were so, it would be a matter of grave concern, because it seems that this is not what the mandate from parliament was.
But should the media be blamed for the incident, and should people be accused of being unpatriotic – “pissing on the graves” of those who fell in the clash with rebels which resulted in the deaths of our sons?
Should the media keep out of matters concerning the defence force because it is “not a social matter”?
President Jacob Zuma has said that too many people want to run the country. The media is also being accused of putting the security of the country at risk.
The truth is that the relationship between the armed forces and the media must at all times be supportive, but never one that is unquestioning.
We surely do not wish to go back to the apartheid state when we sometimes argued over whether or not to publish reports because the reports about the activities of the armed forces seemed so incredulous that even a sceptical media struggled to believe the reported incidents were actually taking place.
The Defence Act banned reporting “any statement or comment or rumour calculated to prejudice or embarrass the government in its foreign relations or to alarm or depress members of the public”.
The media must be able to trust the country’s commander-in-chief to be credible when he says information cannot be published, and that what the government tells us about the deployment is the truth, and nothing else but the truth.
It is often said that in war, the first casualty is the truth, but we are not in a war. Body bags are a confirmation of the horrors of war, and the anguish of the families is shared by all South Africans. The media will be just as relieved when our boys are safely home.
Joe Latakgomo is the public editor for The Tiso Blackstar Group. Readers can write to him with comments or concerns about the media and content of The Tiso Blackstar Group publications at or telephone (011)280- 5374
Allow media to ask questions about CAR
This court would define and punish publications found guilty of reporting “ascertainable factual lies”.
Some media colleagues argued then that perhaps such a court should be expanded to include government ministers as well, for ministers and other government representatives were often themselves guilty of telling (publishing) such “ascertainable factual lies”.
This was at a time when young (white) citizens were being sent out to fight wars on foreign soil, specifically in Angola. These troops were operating across the border from about January 1975. In August of that year, military units invaded Angola, and engaged Angolan forces, supported by Cubans and even Umkhonto weSizwe soldiers.
It was a war which reportedly cost the South African taxpayer at least R1-million a day – and the cost in human lives was immense. But the media could not report on these activities in terms of the Defence Act.
This Act prohibited the publication of any information about the “composition, movements or dispositions of troops” or anything about the military – including allied forces. Under normal circumstances, this would not be unusual. Clearly, no newspaper would want to put the sons and daughters of the land at risk through the publication of such sensitive information.
But this was more than that: not even the supreme body in the country – parliament – was informed.
The country was being lied to.
Would seeking parliamentary approval for the invasion, or a declaration of war, have put the troops at risk?
Was it in the national interest not to get parliament’s approval to go into war?
In recent weeks, the country has been in mourning following the deaths of 13 soldiers in an engagement in the Central African Republic (CAR). It is always a tragic moment when body bags are returned from the war front.
The difficulty with the current situation is that the country – the taxpayer – did not even know that there was a war front in which our sons and daughters were engaged.
Nobody should be playing politics, and the media ought not to sensationalise the death of soldiers. But that does not mean that the media should not question the reason why the boys were in combat in the first place.
By all accounts, the deployment was meant to provide training and support for that country’s VIP Protection services. This surely does not require the number of troops deployed. Nor does it take the length of time that we have been in that country to achieve this.
But this is not the main issue.
South Africans would like answers to questions that are being raised over what we were doing there, and the media is entitled to ask those questions on behalf of citizens.
The media has been blamed for reporting on the speculation around this. There are reports that the deployment was to protect business interests, among them those of an ANC linked company.
If this were so, it would be a matter of grave concern, because it seems that this is not what the mandate from parliament was.
But should the media be blamed for the incident, and should people be accused of being unpatriotic – “pissing on the graves” of those who fell in the clash with rebels which resulted in the deaths of our sons?
Should the media keep out of matters concerning the defence force because it is “not a social matter”?
President Jacob Zuma has said that too many people want to run the country. The media is also being accused of putting the security of the country at risk.
The truth is that the relationship between the armed forces and the media must at all times be supportive, but never one that is unquestioning.
We surely do not wish to go back to the apartheid state when we sometimes argued over whether or not to publish reports because the reports about the activities of the armed forces seemed so incredulous that even a sceptical media struggled to believe the reported incidents were actually taking place.
The Defence Act banned reporting “any statement or comment or rumour calculated to prejudice or embarrass the government in its foreign relations or to alarm or depress members of the public”.
The media must be able to trust the country’s commander-in-chief to be credible when he says information cannot be published, and that what the government tells us about the deployment is the truth, and nothing else but the truth.
It is often said that in war, the first casualty is the truth, but we are not in a war. Body bags are a confirmation of the horrors of war, and the anguish of the families is shared by all South Africans. The media will be just as relieved when our boys are safely home.
Joe Latakgomo is the public editor for The Tiso Blackstar Group. Readers can write to him with comments or concerns about the media and content of The Tiso Blackstar Group publications at or telephone (011)280- 5374
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos