---

I’m usually impressed with the way the Special Assignment team explores and uncovers issues of national importance and I think they have been instrumental in exposing a lot of corruption and incompetence in the past.  So after all the hype of the Jacob Zuma judgment and the excessive advertising on SABC announcing that Special Assignment were to be featuring the first exclusive TV interview with the man himself, I was hoping for some solid hard-hitting journalism.

Instead they dished up something about as exciting as last week’s loaf of bread. It was tepid, tame and far below their normal high standard.

The interviewer, whose name I unfortunately do not have at hand, tip-toed around Zuma as he asked his little set of rehearsed questions and simply accepted all the waffling the man who has changed the face of HIV and AIDS had to offer.

I was absolutely astonished at this because earlier in the morning, a press conference had been organised by Radio 702 at Prime Media house and it was there that Zuma faced a large contingent of local and international media. At this event he read a pre written statement that covered all the main points and included an apology for not having used a condom when having sex with the HIV positive woman. Zuma admitted to have “erred” and said that for this he apologized and that the “ABC” rule should be adhered to, namely Abstain, Be Faithful and Condemize.

Clearly Zuma had tried to put some positive spin on things and had made use of a very good speech writer to get across a message which he hoped would redeem him in the eyes of the public. However, at this press conference he was put on the spot a couple of times by some tough questions asked primarily by an e.tv journalist and it was reported that he even began to get a little irritated by the questions.

The e.tv journalist was doing exactly what was required and what the public expect; asking tough questions which needed to be answered honestly. We are not interested in spin doctors spinning us nicely worded statements that duck and dive the real issues. We want burning questions answered and brought to the fore.

Given that Special Assignment probably had sight of this early morning media event since it was aired live on e.tv,  and excerpts were broadcast on most news stations, you would have thought that they already knew what some of Zuma’s answers to the usual questions would be and they could formulate questions to probe more deeply. After all they pride themselves on being a fearless bunch “who go where angels fear to tread,” and as such like to think they have a reputation which considers no-one to be untouchable.

Well they failed dismally on Tuesday night.

It was embarrassing to see the interviewer squirming around on a red couch accepting all the bull that Zuma was dishing out. For example Zuma brushed aside the whole shower statement and said that the media had misrepresented what he had said. This would have been the perfect opportunity to at least have said that given that the judge had mentioned in his judgment that “he would not even comment on the effect of Zuma’s shower statement,” that it was not something misrepresented by the media. The judge had obviously heard it with his own ears and probably read it verbatim in the court records as Zuma had said it.  But instead of that, the interviewer meekly accepted the snub from Zuma. 

The issue of whether Zuma had aspirations to become the next president and be in a leadership position were also handled in a very wishy -washy way. Zuma gave vague and iffy answers that he should have been pressed on, but sadly he was not.

In my opinion the interview was the biggest waste of viewing time and I wished that I had rather flipped over to see what Debra Patta on 3rd Degree had to say about the Zuma matter even though she did not have him in the studio.

Now Debra and Zuma in a studio – that would have made for some prime viewing.

In Special Assignment’s favour, at least we did get to see part of the famous Forest Town home where the deed actually took place. I can confirm that from the entrance area where it appeared they were sitting, it looked big, imposing and very white. Except of course for the black couch that Zuma relaxed on and the bright red one that the interviewer squirmed on.

And on a final note. I see that at the end of every Special Assignment they pose a question to which viewers may sms their “yes” or “no” answer. This week’s was around whether Zuma should be the next President. Since viewers spend money responding to these questions, is there any reason why Special Assignment cannot give the results of the poll the following week? I just think that to ask for audience participation and then not to give feedback on the answers is poor public relations. Why should people bother to respond and pay for it, for no reason?

Hopefully this will change and the Special Assignment team will lose their tameness. We need tough challenging journalism if we are to keep corrupt politicians and others who further their own goals through irregular activity on their toes. 

I'd love to say, keep them honest, but that is a tall order!

---

---

---

Comments