Survé: Does Anton Harber and his cohort suffer from media myopia and amnesia?

By Dr Iqbal Survé Time of article published Nov 30, 2021

Share this article:

Opinion - It cannot have escaped even the most casual of reader, that I am often attacked in the media and by the media – both personally and the companies into which my family and I have invested have been on the receiving end of these jibes. All are unwarranted.

So-called media pundit, Anton Harber, is one such contender who never misses an opportunity to have a dig at myself or Independent Media.

Harber’s recent diatribe though, is a reminder of how narrow and biased media commentators themselves have become, in the race to own the competitive space for readers.

In his latest opus, published first on The Conversation then picked up some 20 days later by The Media Online and now carried with alacrity on the 50 shades of truth platform that is the Daily Maverick, he goes on a rant about Independent Media’s reduction in subscriber numbers. He also posits that the recent Tembisa 10 decuplets story has had a “chilling effect on critical reporting,” among other barbs.

Harber’s apparent amnesia should be a concern for his readers and followers, as he appears to have forgotten that the fall out of the digital revolution has led to all media houses losing staff, changing their content strategies, and re-focusing their business efforts, in their attempts to stay afloat – the world over. Not just Independent Media.

Harber also blindly negates the effect that restrictions, thanks to successive lockdowns, have had on all media businesses in South Africa. In 2020, Associated Press closed its doors for good. Caxton downscaled to beyond recognition, AVUSA had its casualties, and the might of Media 24 was dented too, with several journalists losing their jobs and some of their publications writing their last chapter.

Independent Media was the exception during 2020, retaining all staff, except those lost due to natural attrition.

Harber then refers to the decuplets story, inferring that Independent Media has no Press Ombud or process. Quite the contrary, Independent Media’s Press Ombudsman is a highly respected and credible journalist, as too the council who report into that office. Ironically, it is the Press Ombudsman’s report that he refers to in relation to his seriously misplaced, comments concerning the decuplets story.

He also neglects to inform his readers that Independent Media’s Ombudsman report was completed at the end of June when other evidence of the story had not yet surfaced and before Advocate Michael Donen had conducted his report.

Donen’s report confirmed the possibility of a pregnancy and birth.

What Advocate Donen did not confirm was how many babies or what happened to them.

He had therefore suggested a further investigation into this matter.

Piet Rampedi, the journalist who wrote the decuplets story, may well have erred in his journalistic approach, however, the story is not fake news. The statements made at our press conference in reference to trafficking are equally valid, as will be revealed in our docuseries. The first episode entitled The Crisis was released today.

Generally, media owners worldwide, are applauded for backing their editors. Not South Africa it would seem. Here, we are condemned, vilified, and ridiculed. Pity the reporter and editor then, for if not working for Independent Media, they are apparently left to fend for themselves when mistakes happen – and they do happen. To err is human but to forgive is divine as the saying goes.

The Gauteng Government is also aware these statements are true, hence why it has not made good on its threats to sue Independent Media. Nor will it, we suspect, and should it do so, we will be more than happy to see them in a court of law.

Drawing on the decision in National Media v Bogoshi, we suspect the State will lose, and resoundingly so, since the evidence shows a reasonable suspicion of support for what Independent Media has put forward.

Government interference in the media cannot be sanctioned. On that, Harber and I agree.

In this case, however, Government’s public claims to sue our news organisation were no more than grandstanding to discredit us, and deflect from the truth, as those in the media with an ounce of nous should well know. Interesting that Harber, a so-called expert, would not have seen or realised this. He’s clearly too blind to see beyond his own narrow narrative focused as he is on taking Independent Media down. One must wonder whether his abuse of his position is not actually a personal crusade.

Harber also blunders as to his claims of how Independent Media is funded. One would have thought that in a piece that questions whether a story is real or not or about undermining credible journalism, he would get his facts straight. Clearly, there is one rule for Harber and another for the rest of us.

AYO does not belong to me. I have no direct or indirect personal involvement in AYO. AYO does not fund Independent Media’s operations. This Harber well knows.

Anton Harber has been at the forefront of attacking Independent Media. If anyone was to bring down this still proud and venerable organisation, it would be he and his cohort.

Harber has been active in trying to rally our advertisers to run turncoat. Harber is therefore complicit in attempting to sabotage and destroy this business and that of the 1500 or so employees working for Independent Media, plus their families. Harber clearly demonstrates his partisan political affiliations as he is not interested in what happens at Independent Media at all.

It is not unique for a publisher to govern itself. The Guardian in the United Kingdom is one example that immediately springs to mind.

The question I often ask, is what if SANEF itself is at fault and goes “rogue” what then? What recourse is there?

What is of concern, though, and where Harber should be directing his energy, is how today’s media, in the main, willingly jump on the bandwagon and follow each other’s stories without so much as an independent investigation into the facts around what gives rise to a particular article in the first place. In the race that is fast news, it’s often easier to follow the first piper rather than stand up and take a different tack.

The predilection for fast and faster news should worry Harber more, as this has already had a “chilling effect on critical reporting.”

For the truth about the decuplets, I suggest Mr Anton Harber watch the docuseries.

Dr Iqbal Survé is the Executive Chairman of Independent Media.

IOL

Share this article: