splitting hairsSA’s editors cry foul over Fifa media restrictions |
Requirements for 2010 World Cup accreditation amounts to censorship.
EAST LONDON - There is a major row between South Africa's editors and Fifa, the owners of the Soccer World Cup, over what the editors charge are outrageous infringements on our constitutional right to freedom of expression.
The SA Media interest group, a group made up of members of the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) and industry body Print Media South Africa, are unhappy about a raft of Fifa requirements for journalist who apply for accreditation to cover the tournament. Among the main areas of contention are:
- Newspapers will not be able to push pictures on to their mobile platforms (they can, however, push text);
- There are restrictions on newspapers doing video packages for their websites;
- That reporters will not be able to report on the names of hotels in which the teams are staying;
- No newspapers will be able to sell papers within the restricted zone around stadiums, which has a radius of about 800m;
- Although Fifa commits itself to guaranteeing freedom of expression there is also a clause that says that news organisations may not bring Fifa into disrepute; and
- Many of the terms and conditions apply to reporters and photographers and their "organisations" (suggesting their colleagues, some of whom will not be covering the World Cup) rather than "employer" (ie, their editors).
Fifa's Zurich-based media head, Pekka Odriozola, told me that the requirements have applied to previous World Cups. He also said Fifa respects freedom of expression, that its intentions are good and that it has dealt with and explained its position further in writing to Sanef to iron out misunderstandings.
But the SA Media interest group - for whom the point man in dealing with Fifa is former Rand Daily Mail editor Raymond Louw - says the written clarifications are not satisfactory and that the seriousness of the issue demands that they are able to sit down formally with Fifa and deal with the contentious issues, clause by clause - rather than in broad discussions as has happened in the past.
Thabo Leshilo, head of Sanef's media freedom committee, said: "It's outrageous what Fifa is used to getting away with. The tragedy though is the virtual absence of outrage by local media and editors on the violation of freedom of the press on such a scale. The local media has simply lost the will to fight and is simply going along so long as it can cover the event. It's not too late though to catch a wake up.
"The issue is further complicated by the fact that it's rather difficult for the public to see the onerous restrictions Fifa places on the media to cover the event as a press-freedom issue. The public couldn't be bothered as long as they'll still be able to attend the games or watch the tournament on television."
As a media commentator I'm with Leshilo on this one - even after a 40-minute interview with the articulate Odriozola. If he is surprised by the uppity South African hacks' concerns, then I say this to Fifa: South African journalists fought long and hard for freedom of the press during apartheid. Even if Fifa's intentions are good, we want written clarification that we can report freely and fairly. We already have that right cast in stone in our Constitution and we don't give it up for anyone - no matter how big you are.
If some of the concerns seem a tad pernickety, let me deal with one of them (with Odriozola's response in the interest of balance):
Why would a reporter want to reveal the name of a team's hotel? Well, imagine team members get drunk and into a barney with South African fans in the bar. Imagine a team member has a party of prostitutes in his hotel room? Or, it could be a good news story: a team member is touched by the plight of a poor hotel cleaner, makes friends with her and promises to help put her children through school. You can't write a hard news story without the hotel's name and comment from the manager as it just won't be believable to readers. If there's no "when, WHERE, what, why, how", it seems made up.
Odriozola says the restriction is merely for the security and privacy of the team members and if stories arise, the journalists can get permission from the team to name the hotel.
Ja well, no fine. You're certainly not going to get permission if the team got plastered and broke up the party in the bar. And, as Louw points out, why should we have to?
On the big question of bringing Fifa into disrepute, Odriozola says this merely applies to reporters and photographers behaving like hooligans, for instance, if they get drunk in the stands and throw something at players on the pitch. The point, he says, is this: "Freedom of press is guaranteed. That is very important for us and you will be able to cover the World Cup in the best possible conditions. We really work hard to have the best possible facilities, the best possible access to the teams and the competition. I can tell you that the international press in general are always satisfied with the service because at the end of the day, we are servicing the media.
"It comes as a bit of surprise in my opinion that this is still coming back... Perhaps it's just a question of it being maybe the first time that you are seeing such terms and conditions for such an event but, really, they are standard. We have never had any problem (before). They have been examined by international organisations. Really, there is nothing to fear."
But German sports reporter Thomas Kistner told me via e-mail that the German media were concerned about the Fifa terms and conditions before the 2006 World Cup - a fact confirmed to Louw by German editors.
"Yes, there was lots of fighting against Fifa's press restrictions before the WC 2006 in Germany," wrote Kistner. "The World Association of Newspapers threatened Fifa with suing them for actions against the freedom of the press. Fifa had forbidden a lot, for instance, online photographs during a match and a strictly limited right to print pictures of a match even after this. They also made rules how to use and print photographs in the newspapers."
On the clause about bringing Fifa into disrepute, Kistner said: "...but nobody cared about this - it would have become a scandal if Fifa had thrown out a reporter because of this. And they won't dare do this in South Africa as well, I guess. But this is not the problem. The problem is that they try to do so."
Issues that Fifa will not budge on, says Odriozola, are those concerning pictures on mobile platforms and video packages as Fifa has to protect broadcasting and cellphone rights. It will also not budge on the ban on selling newspapers in the restricted zone around stadiums because of the need to secure the area and direct the crowd flow.
So best South Africa's editors re-examine their web and mobile strategies for the World Cup as well as the usual practice of keeping an eye on what's going on at the hotels and plans to sell papers to the punters streaming into the stadiums. However, time is short as the deadline for accreditation is weeks away.
It seems to me that while the editors have been happy to let Sanef fight their cause, that they are nervous about making a noise about this in their own newspapers lest they lose out on accreditation. Granted I'm not covering the competition but for crying out loud, venerable editors of South Africa, on this very important principle, what exactly are you? Men or mice? Editors or saps?
*Media columnist Gill Moodie spent 14 years as a salaried hack in print media in South Africa and the UK before escaping to the blogosphere and freelance journalism. She is the publisher of Grubstreet http://grubstreet.co.za/ in between unpacking and packing the infernal dishwasher and bringing up a four-year-old with attitude.
ADD YOUR COMMENT
 |
Price and trade data source: JSE Ltd. All other statistics calculated by Profile Data. |
 |