Ethics and excuses: the scapegoating of Vusi Mona Guy Berger September 2004

Abstract: Vusi Mona – epitomy of sins Cavalier  Hypocritical  Prejudiced  Personal agenda  Amateurish  Dishonest  Violated confidentiality  Had conflict of interests 

Abstract  Media avoided self-questioning about similar problems, deeper issues.  To do with ethics and therefore about choices made and decisions taken.  Confirming that media is unwilling and unable to crit itself?

1. INTRO: where it begins  Ngcuka investigates Zuma and Maharaj   Mona’s City Press publishes spy allegations against Ngcuka

Story develops…  Mbeki appoints Hefer Inquiry 

Outcomes  Hefer exonerates Ngcuka, exposes Mona as problematic   Sanef condemns Mona.

Sanef seal of condemnation  Shocked, worried on Mona breaking confidentiality  Distance selves from any journalist testifying  We can’t compromise credibility  Vusi Mona has breached ethical code Henry Jeffreys, Sanef Chair

Others too…

3 issues test journ ethics Motives Confidential briefings Testifying  Choices  decisions  sad chapter

2. MOTIVES & AGENDAS

Media actors & players  Not all players shimmering halo  But all except Mona unscathed: Ranjeni Munusamy Vusi Mona & City Press team Mathatha Tsedu & Sunday Times The Star e.tv and others?

2.1 Munusamy’s motives  Strong step to give story to CP:

Munusamy’s motives More than journalistic rationale? She denies unconvincingly.

How others saw her

2.2 Suspicions re: Tsedu  Tsedu & Sunday Times: Close to/influenced?

2.3 Mona’s morality  Mona & City Press team:

Disgust with Ngcuka?

Disgust?

Simple fairness?

Or another personal motive?

Revenge against Ngcuka?

Distinguish two issues  Mona – revenge in regard to: Breaking confidence of briefing Publishing the story.

Fight back, plots thicken  Mona accuses The Star of agendas

Other factors …  Mona – simply competitive?  His colleagues favoured publication

Significance  Mona got the blame, but whole drama and its cast led to:  Qtns of e.tv and others’ motives  = discrediting of media for agendas?  = boosts conspiracy theorists re: media?  This issue underplayed in media

3. CONFIDENTIAL BRIEF  Independence is one issue;  Who takes part is another;  Keeping to commitment  Theorising exceptions  Expediency on OTR interpretation

Independence  Participants shd keep perspective:  BUT: both Mona & Tsedu wrote favourable editorials afterwards.

Handpicked division  All 7 editors condoned selectivity.

Leaking  Others published: Gleason, Mbhele  Mona alone was judged (as a journo)

Other issues  Media silence on secrecy ethics vs externalities like Constitutional rights and public interest.  Off-the-record expediently interpreted by Tsedu, Rantao

But only Mona takes the rap

4. TESTIFYING  Historical principle: we don’t testify.

Double standards  Mona judged for violating this, but Munusamy encouraged to violate it!  Mona judged as journalist, Munusamy exempted as non-journo.  Irony: Mona baulks on sources.

“Heresies” galore  Poor exploration of possible precedent.

5. MEDIA DISCOURSE:  Mona “rat” was an easy target: doublespeak contradictions sloppy Happy using Niewoudt as a source devious extemporising inconsistent conflict-of-interest inept elusive

Scapegoat  Problem was not hitting him, but eclipsing a broader malaise.

Made to admit his sins

Sweeping statements

His impact is exaggerated

The individual exception …  i.e Media innocent, just tarnished

And so he went

CONCLUSION  Motives of Mona … and the others  Confidential Briefing – a host of problems and questions  Testifying in Commission …inconsistent responses, lack of interrogation of precedents.  Discourse of institutional innocence.

Taking stock  Mona got what he deserved  But lack of wider soul-searching  Result: Dubious journalism unaddressed Problem children rehabilitated

Political significance  No discussion on media’s role in fierce political battles and what Hefer experience portends for futures.

Online at: THANK YOU