THEMBA SEPOTOKELE | Media and analysts must provide balanced, honest and fair commentary

As SA marks 30 years since the dawn of democracy, and our country is heading to the polls, international media will be zooming their lenses onto our shores. 

The elections bring not only a plethora of political parties contesting power under scrutiny but also those shaping the narrative such as journalists and analysts. 

Casting our ballots for the first time in 1994 will remain engraved in our hearts. One hopes this year’s elections will have the same effect for first-time voters, including my three daughters, to seize the opportunity and exercise their democratic right.  

It is not only the responsibility of the electoral body and political parties to encourage eligible voters to participate in democratic processes, but the media and analysts too have a role to create excitement. 

In this regard, the media and interest organisations, working with the electoral commission, have started with election workshops, more so important in the era of fake news.

It begs the question as to what political analysts and independent commentators – opining on socio-political and economic issues – are gearing themselves up to in order to provide balanced, honest and fair commentary. 

I was really taken aback by one political analyst, Sandile Swana, recently following the decision by Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the longest serving minister since 1994 and former AU chairperson, after declining an interview invitation for consideration to serve under ANC president Cyril Ramaphosa in the next term because she had decided to retire.

Swana told SABC radio that Dlamini-Zuma’s decision was actually “a vote of no confidence in the Ramaphosa-led ANC”.

Swana went off on a tangent with his empty rhetoric. Without context he berated the fact that Dlamini-Zuma refused to toe the party line but decided to vote with her “conscience” on the Phala Phala saga, yet when it came to Nkandlagate, everyone toed the party line. 

As a media sociology student, I have not considered Swana as one of the sharpest daggers in the drawer. Despite his credentials, his analysis is always warped and this time around, not only did he put the cherry on the cake, but he took the whole cake. 

He provided no background and context, let alone substance, but half-baked innuendo. His analysis was just shallow and hopeless. There’s so much in the decision but he failed to dissect it although it's in the public domain. 

This is a danger of sound bites and pseudo-analysts who opine on anything and everything under the sun. 

Such analysis and commentary is disconcerting at best, and discombobulating at worst. It casts doubts about the role of analysts who are mushrooming and sprouting like weeds ahead of the elections.

It’s commendable that there are also former journalists who, based on their experience and knowledge of the subject matter, provide commentary and analysis. Some offer better analysis than academics. However, it’s self-defeating to opine on complex issues without any knowledge, exposure and experience. 

We sadly have analysts who are embedded so much that it is hard to take their commentary seriously. Some have unashamedly nailed their colours to the mast and sound like propaganda megaphones.

There’s a school of thought that to be considered an analyst, one should at least have completed a master’s degree and be well versed with the subject matter in order to provide substance, not pedestrian sound-bite analysis. 

•  Sepotokele is a journalist, communication strategist, media trainer and journalism lecturer