CHAPTER 4
WANGLING THE JET DEAL OR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
1. Introduction This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part provides a brief history of the arms deal and proceedings of the arms deal that are relevant to this research report. This is done to offer an understanding of the context in which the arms deal emerged and how its proceedings have related to the media in general. The second part of this chapter is an analysis of the articles on the alleged corruption in the arms deal that appeared in the “News” sections of the Sowetan and the M&G in November 2001. In analysing the articles, this chapter tests assertions made in the previous chapters. Various theories that are highlighted in the theoretical framework chapter concur to the fact that choices are made in producing news.
2. Historical background to the Arms Procurement Programme or “Arms Deal” The Arms Procurement Programme – known as the “Arms deal” in media and popular parlance— was negotiated and signed between 1996 and 1999. Between 1996 and 1998 the Cabinet scrutinised the South African defence and military needs and concluded that the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) needed to be equipped with high-tech armaments. In November 1998, Cabinet announced a list of preferred suppliers of the proposed arms and in November 1999 the South African Minister of Defence signed the arms deal. The initial monetary value of the deal was R60 billion and the companies involved were British Aerospace Systems (BAe), Saab from Sweden, France’s Thompson-CSF (now known as Thales), Augusta of Italy, the German Frigate Consortium and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) (BBC News, Monday 28, May 2001: 12h07).
In 2000 the Parliamentary watchdog, the Special Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), called for an investigation into the alleged corruption in the arms deal. SCOPA asked that Judge Willem Heath be appointed to lead the investigation process. In January 2001 there was a fall-out among political parties in Parliament after the ANC said that it did not prefer Judge Heath to conduct the probe into the arms deal. In the same month, President Thabo Mbeki excluded Judge Heath from
60 the arms deal investigations, arguing on the strength of a judgement of the Constitutional Court that a judge could not head the Special Investigation Unit.
In March 2001, The Sunday Times published an article about the ANC Chief Whip, Tony Yengeni, and his luxury 4X4 vehicle purchased at a 47% discount from Daimler Chrysler, a company with an interest in the arms deal. Following this article and many others that came after it, the Scorpions and other anti-corruption units investigated Tony Yenyeni. In April 2001, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Bulelani Ngcuka, said at least 24 individuals were under investigation for alleged corruption and fraud in the arms deal. Furthermore in April 2001, EADS admitted that it had rendered assistance to 30 ANC government officials in acquiring huge discounts for Mercedes Benz vehicles from Daimler Chrysler, a major shareholder in EADS (BBC News, Monday 28, May 2001: 12h07). BAe also admitted that it had donated 500 000 British Pounds to an ANC-related project just after the aircraft contract was awarded to them. BAe said that the donation was their contribution to the upliftment of South African disadvantaged communities. Part of the arrangement in the arms deal contract was that the companies that secured contracts would invest in South Africa and provide employment and help through donations to uplift the living standards of South Africa’s previously disadvantaged communities.
In July 2001, German investigators in Munich began investigations into EADS for allegedly offering kickbacks to South African government officials in securing the arms business (BBC News, Tuesday 26, July 2001: 01h10 AM).
In November 2001, Tony Yengeni was arrested and released on R10 000 bail, and EADS head Michel Woerfel was suspended from the company on charges of corruption and fraud arising from the arms deal. In October 2001 the Scorpions raided various premises in France, Mauritius and Durban and confiscated documents relating to the arms deal. At this point, the cost of the arms deal was standing at R66-billion as the South African currency continued to weaken. In November 2001, the Auditor-General submitted a forensic investigation report into the arms deal to Parliament.
61 In March 2003, Tony Yengeni resigned from parliament and was found guilty by the Pretoria High Court for accepting bribery and using his position to influence the decision of the arms deal. This signals how the watchdog function of the media can assist in fighting corruption by government officials.
2.1 The Arms Deal and the media On 20 July 1997 one of the companies involved in the arms deal, Denel, laid criminal charges against The Sunday Times, The Sunday Independent, The Sunday Tribune and The Sunday Argus newspapers. The charge came after these newspapers published details of the arms deal and revealed that South Africa was buying weapons from Saudi Arabia (these newspapers did not disclose the name of the country at that time, but disclosed it at a later stage). On 24 and 26 July 1997, Denel succeeded in obtaining a temporary court order against the M&G and Sunday Independent newspaper and its sister newspapers. The court order prevented these newspapers from naming the Middle East country involved in the deal. On 3 August 1997, The Sunday Independent newspapers defied the court order and named Saudi Arabia as the Middle East country that was selected to provide arms to South Africa. These newspapers argued that the public had the right to know about the arms deal transactions.
Denel's lawyers based their argument on the 1968 Armaments Development and Production Act. The Public Protector, Mr Selby Baqwa, also used the same Act to prohibit the media from broadcasting one of the hearings on the corruption in the arms deal. In his judgement against the presence of the media at the hearing he used Section 118 (a) of the 1957 Defence Act and Section 11 of the Armaments Development and Production Act 57 of 1968. The former Act stipulates that the media require the permission of the Minister of Defence before it can convey certain aspects of the operations of the Defence Force. The 1968 Act prohibits the disclosure by any person, including the media, of any information relating to the supply, marketing, and export of armaments for the benefit of the government. When the Act was promulgated in 1968, the government by then was the apartheid government and it aimed at ensuring the secrecy of the South African arms trade because of the UN mandatory arms embargo on export to, and the pressure on the international community to avoid arms imports from South Africa (Willett, 1994)
62 The use of the above pieces of legislation signalled how the South African democratic government and the bidders to the arms deal used apartheid laws to prevent the media in the transitional period from publishing information regarded as significant to the public interest. The right to information is regarded as the cornerstone of democracy because it ensures that members of the public are informed of their constitutional rights and the activities of the government, thus helping them to make informed decisions when exercising their democratic rights (O' Regan, 2001).
3. Analysis of the Sowetan and the M&G news articles of November 2001 This chapter therefore aims at investigating how choices of selecting languages and viewpoints are integrated into news through gatekeepers’ choices of language, why certain words and meanings get preference over a vast existing and possible meanings and words. The chapter is based on the assertion that language is a semiotic code thus the selection of words in language is not innocent, it is influenced by beliefs and ideas.
The chapter therefore looks at: • Articles’ headlines and words selected for these headlines by each newspaper and the implicit and explicit meanings of these. • Metaphors appearing in each of the articles under review. The research report restricts the definition of a metaphor to the simple and lexicalised one that defines a metaphor as a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity (Goatly, 1997). Similarity in this research report is used from a common sense point of view to refer to entities that have certain characteristics that may or may not share with other entities. The reasoning implies that an entity referred to metaphorically lacks at least one or more features possessed by the conventional referent of the word used. • Type of information foregrounded and backgrounded in each article from the newspapers under scrutiny: Whose voice is backgrounded and whose is foregrounded? This research report restricts foregrounding and backgrounding to refer to linguistic approaches by which certain information and voices are given certain prominence by their textual location. The rationale for this analysis stems from Short’s (1973) argument that arrangement of information and voices in news reports emphasises (foregrounds) certain views (by giving them textual importance) and
63 de-emphasises (backgrounds) others. Short (1973) argues that the top-down orientation of news reports pronounces sentences appearing early in the news as foregrounded while those appearing later as backgrounded. Short indicates that readers understand texts through sentences hence important meanings are constructed from sentences. In constructing sentences, writers create a point of view that influences the readers’ opinions (Short, 1973). At this level, foregrounded and backgrounded information and voices have ideological implications for readers hence what people read first registers importance in their minds and will hold it as such. The contrary applies to the backgrounded information and voices. • Pictures used: The principle upon which this is based is that pictures in media text can lead the viewers (audiences) to certain evaluative directions (Chen, 1998).
4. Headlines Newspaper headlines are macro-brainwaves of stories; they recapitulate the news stories (articles) and attract the reader to the story (Fairclough: 1998). Depending on the structure of a newsroom, headlines are written by the editors and/or sub-editors to give the reader a perspective on the story and further encourage the reader to read the story. Due to this fact, sometimes they function as opinion manipulators. News stories are written by journalists and in the process of editing these stories, editors and sub- editors cultivate headlines. The headlines do not tell the reader about the whole story but convey the editors’ and / or the sub-editors’ and evaluation of events reported by the writers. Interpreting any event, as Thetela (1998) argues may be subjective and because headlines are based on the writer’s or editor’s subjective interpretation of events s/ he is reporting. In this perspective, headlines become the significant field of analysis to discover biases.
4.1 "How Joe Modise wangled jet deal" M&G 2-8 November 2001 The headline "How Joe Modise wangled jet deal” although negative is based on facts considering that Modise used fraudulent ways to advantage the jet deal from the company that he later joined. The literal definition of ‘wangled’ is to achieve something by trickery. This headline suggests a form of negative value judgement against Joe Modise. This is suggested by the use of the negative verb 'wangled' which means trickery, manipulation and fraud. Before the reader reads the article to which the headline refers, s/he will be aware of the stance that the article will be following in relation to Modise’s actions. This headline sums up the content and stance of the article it
64 represents. Headlines give news viewpoints; so how they are written may influence audience to take a certain stance with regard to the article.
The headline of the Sowetan article that covered the same issues covered in “How Joe Modise wangled jet deal” was titled “Conflict of Interests” Sowetan November 22, 2001. Unlike the M&G headline and article, the Sowetan headline and its article are written in a relatively non- judgemental and non-committal style. The Sowetan headline and article alert the reader that there was conflict of interests in respect of Modise’s position because he had an interest in the company that benefited from the arms deal although he joined the company after his resignation as the Minister of Defence. Conflict of interests is not a positive thing but to suggest that somebody had a conflict of interests is not to pass any value judgement against the person but stating facts as they are.
The above headlines were on the same issue of how the late former Minister of Defence, Mr Joe Modise, allegedly changed the tender evaluation criteria that resulted in the contract going to BAe rather than to Aermacchi, which had earlier been evaluated as the highest bidder. On the superficial level, the headline from M&G looks judgmental and the one from Sowetan is written in a non- committal style. The Sowetan headline is not favouring Modise’s actions, but it is also not passing any judgements. It only alerts the reader that there was conflict of interests pertaining to Modise’s actions. Conflict of interests is not a positive thing and highlighting it is also not a negative thing as newspapers have a duty to report facts as they arise. The question arising is, why is the M&G headline robust and judgmental and Sowetan one milder in tone and non-committal?
4.2 “Report could expose state to litigation” M&G 9 -15 November 2001 The headline is straightforward. The use of a modal "could" before the main verb ‘expose’ highlights a possibility that may arise as the result of the report and that possibility is suggested to be litigation (legal proceeding). In this headline, “could” is used to express factual remoteness, indicating that the writer of the headline is not certain of whether the report could expose state to litigation or not.
65 4.3 "Arms deal: Chippy shaiking in his shoes" M&G 16-22 November 2001 The headline is a metaphor based on the name of the individual (Chippy Shaik) involved and implicated in the article. This pun is based on the literal word 'trembling'. Chippy’s surname (Shaik) is used as a verb “shaiking” implying shaking or trembling. Inside this issue of M&G, there were other two stories that covered the issue addressed by the cover headline. The headlines are, "More a cock- up than a conspiracy" and "Chippy Shaik blasted in arms report”.
The headline "More a cock-up than a conspiracy" (M&G 16-22 November 2001) is metaphoric, slightly sarcastic, vague and tentative. The headline is a metaphor in the form of analogy. Analogy compares two objects of different types that have certain element(s) in common. The headline suggests that the arms deal report was a mistake than a deliberate attempt to cover up for the individuals that were implicated in the arms deal report. Beard (2000) correctly argues that metaphors are not just figures of speech; they are deeply engrafted in one's construction of the world and the way one's world is constructed by others. Furthermore, Kress (1990) argues that metaphors are used to pre-empt the possibility of other alignments.
The Sowetan headline covering the same subject was titled “Arms deal inquiry no cover-up, says Ngcuka” (Sowetan, 19 November 2001). The headline is a quote from what Mr Bulelani Ngcuka said when defending the arms deal report referred to above. Although this headline is straightforward, it reads the same as the M&G headline on the same issue "More a cock-up than a conspiracy" (M&G 16-22 November 2001).
The Sowetan headline “Arms deal inquiry no cover-up, says Ngcuka,” is written in a verbal process style. In the verbal process headline, the speaker is assigned "the agency roles (sayer in verbal processes terms) whereas other participants are either receivers or targets of the process" (Thetela, 1998:353). In most cases, writers of headlines use verbal process headlines as a way of visualising the power the speaker has, for example only the words of known people such as politicians and experts can be assigned to verbal process headlines. These people are always quoted speaking from a certain position of power (Thetela, 1998). In the headline under scrutiny, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Bulelani Ngcuka is named with his last name (Ngcuka). This in some African and Western cultures is an indication of an authoritarian culture whereby Ngcuka is put above the
66 readers. In some cultures only powerful people are referred to by their last names. At a superficial level, naming Ngcuka on this way may confer authority on what he says and make the audience to ultimately believe that the arms deal report is not a cover-up as the headline suggests.
The second story headline in the M&G November 16 - 22 2001 reads, "Chippy Shaik blasted in arms report" The headline is metaphoric in the sense that Chippy Shaik was not shattered or torn apart violently in the arms report as the literal meaning of "blasted" suggests. Literally, Chippy Shaik was pinpointed by the arms deal report as one of the parties who acted improperly in handling the arms deal procurement process and the report suggested that he may face prosecution due to his actions. The metaphor in this sense is used to exaggerate the implication that the arms report had on Chippy Shaik. The implication is equated to an explosive, which is normally a blasting object.
The metaphor of ‘blasted’ also ties with the issue of the arms deal, the arms deal is about selling and buying of war armaments which explode when triggered off. The article may have used the metaphor of ‘blasted’, firstly to sound interesting and clever by making the link between the individual implicated and war equipment that he is implicated with.
The Sowetan headline of the article covering a similar subject to that in "Chippy Shaik blasted in arms report" was titled “Arms deal: Shaik faces suspension” (Sowetan 19 November 2001). The Sowetan headline is straightforward and non-condemning to Shaik and it uses a non-condemning, non-judgmental and neutral verb (faces). The meaning of the verb “faces” is not conclusive and definitive in the sense that the person who is facing something like suspension may be suspended or may not, thus the verb “faces” implies likelihood or a possibility.
Another Sowetan headline covering a similar subject to the one covered in "Chippy Shaik blasted in arms report" (M&G November 16 - 22 2001) reads “Charges will follow arms probe” (Sowetan 16 November 2001). This headline is simple, it tells the reader that charges will follow the arms probe but it is imprecise as to who will be charged (prosecuted). The cover of the same issue of Sowetan (16 November 2001) has a headline that reads “Arms: MPs clash”. The article also
67 covered the same subject that was covered in “More a cock-up than a conspiracy" (M&G 16-22 November 2001).
The other headline in the M&G was "Chippy Shaik meddled in arms probe” M&G November 23- 29 2001. The headline is straightforward but uses a negative verb "meddled" (meaning intruding or interfering in affairs uninvited). This headline suggests that Chippy Shaik acted in an improper manner by sitting in meetings where his brother’s companies that tendered for the arms deal were discussed. The use of the negative verb makes this headline negative though factual. In a normal situation, like it is highlighted in the news story of this headline, Chippy was expected to declare that there was a conflict of interests that existed and should have requested to be excused from those meetings.
5. Metaphors The research report scrutinises metaphors that exist in the articles under review. There are many ways of discovering metaphors such as from prepositions, modals and so on. Metaphors work at all levels of language, from the largest textual, phonographical to the generic units. This research report only uses “metaphor” to refer specifically to an expression that is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity. The research report focuses only on this aspect of metaphors, as it is easier to prove than other metaphorical aspects such as prepositional metaphors that can at times be regarded as subjective depending on the individual's socialisation, interpretation and understanding of the world. Therefore the research report only deals with the explicit (obvious) metaphors appearing in the articles under review.
Goatly (1997: 8) contends that "metaphor occurs when a unit of discourse is used to refer unconventionally to an object, concept, process, quality, relationship or world, to which it does not conventionally refer or colligates42; and when this unconventional act of reference or colligation is understood on the basis of similarity, matching or analogy43 involving the conventional referent or colligates." He further argues that metaphors have several attributes such as contradictoriness, inexplicitness (unclearness) of comparison, distance of transfer and conventionality. Developing on
42 Colligates is a synonym for ‘matching’, ‘identical’ or ‘corresponding’ 43 Analogy is a figure of speech referring to similarity in some respect between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
68 Goatly’s postulations, Kress (1990: 71) argues that metaphors are powerful instruments in ideological disagreement, and occur “at sites of difference, in struggles over power, whenever there is contention of an ideological kind and whenever an attempt is made to assimilate an event into one ideological system rather than another”.
5.1 "How Modise wangled jet deal" M&G November 2 - 8 2001 "Fakie also stated that the explanations the department of Defence gave were "unsatisfactory". He stopped short, however, of addressing Modise's role in the affair. Documents in possession of the M&G shed more light." “Stopped short” gives an impression that he was walking or even running, but the literally intended meaning is that he (Fakie) was not willing to go beyond certain limits on Modise's role in the arms deal. The expression ‘shed more light’ in the above sentence is used to mean that M&G is in possession of documents that provide more information (light) on the matter.
The statement suggests that there were documents that were deliberately hidden from the public and that M&G secured them and these documents provide more information on Modise’s role. The word ‘light’ is used as a synonym for information and understanding. Conventionally ‘light’ is not synonymous to ‘information’ and understanding. Rather, the word ‘light' means brightness and visibility, but in this context it has been used as a metaphor for information and understanding. The paragraph’s intended meaning can be interpreted to indicate to the reader that even though Fakie said nothing about Modise's role in the accusations of the corruption in the arms deal, M&G had information on Modise's involvement ‘in distorting the jet deal'.
"The minutes marked ‘secret’ show the air force top brass complied". ‘Brass’ literally means copper but ‘top brass’ has become a lexicalised term for senior advisory members of institutions. The word 'top brass' in the sentence is a metonony, instead of the article naming the senior air force officials as that, the article chose to replace that with another word connected to it.
"An earlier set of ‘confidential’ minutes-this time recording a meeting of the top-level Armaments Acquisition Council (AAC) and Armaments Acquisition Steering Board (AASB) reflect that Modise personally sang the same tune: that cost is not an issue." Normally the phrase “sang the same tune” is used in courts and by police to indicate that the accused gave the same story as their
69 co-accused. The phrase could also be used neutrally as a figure of speech indicating that people were narrating a same event and narrated it in the same way. Looking at how the phrase has been lexicalised from police investigations, there is an element of negativity in this metaphor. The phrase is now used under normal circumstances to make the language read and sound interesting. Newspapers do not only tell stories but they need to entertain in the sense that they need to use the language which is not boring to their audience. The LSMs provided in the history chapter indicate that most of the M&G readers are educated, middle class and first speakers of English therefore it is only logical that M&G uses figures of speech and not straightforward language that may bore its readers.
"The Minutes state: The Project team presented the meeting with an affordability analysis of the [fighter trainer] contenders. Without cost considerations, the selection process is biased towards the higher performance category of aircraft. These aircraft are, however, also significantly more expensive to acquire, operate and maintain. Thus, unless additional funding could be found to support the acquisition of a more superior aircraft, the Air Force would have to take cognisance of budgetary constraints. Modise weighed in: The Minister of Defence cautioned the meeting that a visionary approach should not be excluded, as the decision….would impact on the RSA defence industry’s chance to be part of the global defence market through partnership with major international defence companies…With this vision the most inexpensive option may not necessarily be the best option”. ‘Weighed in’ in the paragraph is a metaphoric phrasal verb meaning to add an opinion on somebody's favour.
5.2 "Report could expose state to litigation" M&G November 9 to 15 2001 "Compiled by the Scorpions, the public protector and the auditor general, the report will update Parliament on the progress of the marathon probe, while investigations continue into possible crimes linked to the arms deal". The phrase ‘marathon probe’ is a metaphor; the arms deal probe is equated to the marathon (sport of running). Marathon is a long distance, time consuming race and everybody who competes in it wants to be the winner and get a prize, while at the same time lifting the name of organisations they are representing.
70 "Although the report is being kept under wraps, Mail & Guardian has pieced together its salient features". The expression ‘under wrap’ implies that the report was kept secret. ‘Under wrap’ literally refers to ‘covering’ or ‘hidden’. The implication, here, is that there was no transparency on the report. The expression ‘pieced together’ is also a metaphor in the sense that the phrase has been used to refer to putting together pieces to get to the bottom of the matter.
5.3 "More a cock-up than a conspiracy" M&G November 16 to 22 2001 "Before the report was even tabled in Parliament on Thursday, it was being slated as a cover up". ‘Tabled’ in the sentence is used to mean discussed. In other words, it means ‘before the report was discussed in parliament’. ‘Slated’ in this sentence means labelled or criticised as a “cover up”
"However, although the report exonerates the government as a whole, and presents a glib summary of its findings, the main body of the 380-page document is littered with intriguing details about how officials ignored due process and tender procedures. The investigators also hang Chippy Shaik out to dry." The expression ‘hang Chippy Shaik out to dry’ is a metaphor in the sense that it is clothes that could be hung out to dry, but Chippy Shaik is made similar to clothes. The expression means that the investigators exposed Chippy Shaik to public condemnation and criminal charges. The use of this metaphor reduces Chippy Shaik into an object (clothes). Thus, it successfully transforms a human (Chippy) into a non-personal entity (clothes). Metaphors, as Kress (1990) contends, naturalises the social and turn the problematic into the obvious.
"Former Defence Minister Joe Modise gets a rap on the knuckles for being involved in a company that benefited from the arms deal, the report observes that this was extremely undesirable". The expression ‘gets a rap on the knuckles’ implies that he was hit hard by the report, literally meaning he was identified as having acted outside of the prescribed procedural measures.
"The findings by the three investigative agencies will fuel suspicion that they have either not dug enough or have sought to shield the government from the damaging controversy.” ‘Fuel’ is a metaphor in the sense that fuel gets into the car for the car to be in motion and it also accelerates fire if put into it. In the above sentence "fuel" has been used as an analogy of increasing, implying that the findings of the arms deal report that was compiled by the Scorpions, the Director of Public
71 Prosecutions and the Auditor General will increase the suspicion that these institutions have not investigated enough or are trying to protect ‘shield’ the government from the damaging controversy. The statement implies that the findings of the report are not truthful and that people who compiled it had a motive of protecting the government ‘from the damaging controversy’.
"Of the three investigative agencies involved in the probe, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, and his Scorpions Unit have demonstrated the most muscular approach". The word ‘muscular’ literally refers to something with strength similar to the man's. In the sentence, it has been used as a metaphor of showing the strength and stance taken by the Scorpions in relation to investigating the arms deal corruption. The word ‘muscular’ in the M&G article is used positively to compliment the Scorpions for its approach in unravelling corruption in the arms deal.
5.4 How Shaik meddled with arms probe" (M&G 23 -29 November 2001). "The 2000 audit set the ball rolling for the joint investigation into the R66-billion arms package, and helped to set the tone for it”. The expression ‘set the ball rolling’ is a metaphor in the sense that there was no ball rolling, but the expression is used to denote that the 2000 audit gave impetus to the investigations as the audit report suggested that there were things that were not done procedurally with regard to the way the arms procurement process was handled. A ‘ball’ is an object used in playing a sport such as soccer, rugby, tennis and other related sports.
Unlike the M&G’s articles, no obvious metaphors were found in Sowetan’s articles under review. The Sowetan’s reporters use simple, non-judgemental, non-metaphoric and straightforward language. M&G’s articles use negative metaphors especially when reporting the implicated officials for example naming them “The investigators also hang Chippy Shaik out to dry”, “Chippy Shaik blasted” and many others that have been mentioned in this chapter. Other metaphors that are used are metaphors associated with sports, for example ‘marathon probe’ and ‘set the ball rolling’, and others. Metaphors are not just devices used to paint language, they are used with the aim of offering significant comparisons or connections that help to enhance, clarify, challenge and even reinforce existing ideas and concepts (Carter et al, 1997).
72 Carter (1997) suggests that the use of metaphors gives the writer a scope to make opinions and ideas understood and that metaphors influence the opinions of readers and make them to take a particular ideological stance in relation to their world. In addition, Kress (1990) sees metaphors as occurring at sites of difference, signifying power and ideological struggle. Having said this, it is significant to note that understanding metaphors depends largely on the ability of the reader to recognise contextual cues and the readers’ background or relevant experience which would enable the readers to understand the context in which the metaphors were made.
6. Foregrounded and backgrounded information and voices. The term ‘foregrounding’ originates from Jan Mukarovsky, a Prague literary scholar of the 1930s, who uses it to refer to ‘actualisation’ (Hakemulder, 2004). Mukarovsky defines foregrounding as:
The opposite of automatization, that is, the de-automatization of an act; the more an act is automatized, the less it is consciously executed; the more it is foregrounded, the completely conscious does it become…[A]utomatization schematizes an event; foregrounding means the violation of the scheme… It [foregrounding] is not used in the services of communication, but in order to place in the foreground the act of expression, the act of speech itself (Mukarovsky, 1970: 43).
In English, the term ‘foregrounding’ has come to mean several things at once (Hakemulder, 2004). This research report uses foregrounding to imply the processes by which – during the act of reading – particular information is given a special prominence by its location in the text (Hakemulder, 2004). This research report uses the term ‘backgrounding’ to refer to the opposite of foregrounding. This research report supports Short’s (1973) argument that the top-down orientation of news reports declares sentences appearing early in the news as foregrounded while those appearing later as backgrounded. Short indicates that readers understand texts through sentences hence important meanings are created from sentences. In constructing sentences, writers create a point of view that influences the opinions of readers (Short, 1973). According to (Hakemulder, 2004) sentences that readers read first add to the meaning potential of the text.
73 This research report argues that by foregrounding and backgrounding certain information and voices, gatekeepers are able to manipulate readers and persuade them into taking a certain stance when interpreting the whole article. The foregrounded information and voices has a stimulating effect on the reader: it heightens “awareness of what is being said and makes the reader to be freshly critical of the information,” (Fowler: 1991: 45) and the backgrounded information and voices have contrary effects especially when the articles are read in isolation from what appeared prior to or after them. Media articles should provide a full picture even when they are read in isolation of other articles and editorials.44
6.1 "How Joe Modise Wangled the Jet deal". M&G November 2 - 8 2001 The article foregrounds (by putting it at the beginning) that the arms deal will be challenged in court by one of the bidders [Italian Aeronautic Company] that lost the contract to the British contender [BAe], after Joe Modise “intervened to change the tender evaluation criteria". The second paragraph indicates that the Italian Aeronautic Company's lawyer Mr Henk Viljoen confirmed the allegations appearing on the first paragraph and that the company he is representing intends to pursue legal action. Viljoen is then quoted presenting his side of the story. The article goes on to support the argument that the Italian Aeronautic Company was not treated fairly and that there was corruption in the tender evaluation criteria.
The second part gives the reader the views of Gavin Woods. Gavin Woods is an Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) member and a chairman of Parliament Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). Gavin Woods is introduced in the article as "a fierce critic of alleged irregularities in the procurement process". The article quotes Gavin Woods saying: “If the current investigation into the arms deal transaction is unable to offer a justifiable explanation as to why the tender criteria were so dramatically changed, then I would think grounds would exist for a bidder who was seriously prejudiced to take a strong case to court". After Gavin Woods’ statement, the article continues to highlight that the Auditor General, Shauket Fakie, also expressed concern over the way BAe was awarded the tender. The proceeding paragraphs tell the reader that the minutes of the meeting of the Air Force Command Council, dated June 29 1998, record that Modise asked for
44 Editorials are not the basis of this research report. The report only looks at news stories on the matter.
74 “separate recommendation…where cost is not taken into consideration". In the paragraph following this, the article tells readers about other minutes of another meeting where Modise advocated that cost should not be taken into consideration in appointing the bidders. Following this, Gavin Woods is also quoted still critiquing the procedures followed by the government in awarding the contract to BAe. Gavin Woods says: "Given the failure of the government to offer convincing reasons for having broken its own rules by buying the more expensive Hawk, any suspicion regarding the BAe donation made through the previous minister to the MK Veterans' Association is difficult to dismiss."
The second last paragraph (from the bottom of the article) introduces the spokesperson of BAe, Linden Birns who is quoted as saying: "Throughout the entire Strategic Defence Procurement process, BAe Systems found the conduct of all officials with whom we interacted to be of the highest levels of professionalism". Linden Birns is the only person who mentions something good about the tender evaluation criteria and the officials involved. This could be because he is from the company (BAe) that benefited from the tender evaluation criteria. The last paragraph mentions that the Defence Department failed to respond and Modise could not be reached.
Most of the people foregrounded (appearing on the first part of the article) are people who are against the tender going to BAe and who sympathise with the Italian Aermacchi. None of these people are from the ANC or the ruling party that seems to have been at fault in terms of how the tender procurement processes were carried out. Since most people who were alleged to be the most involved in the alleged corruption in the arms deal were from the ANC it could have been appropriate if they were also awarded space in the article to defend their position(s). Somebody who supports (except the BAe spokesperson) why the contract was awarded to BAe and not Aermacchi could also have been interviewed so that readers are presented with a fair and balanced opinion on the matter.
In view of what is being foregrounded and backgrounded, the article (M&G 2 - 8 November 2001) failed to offer a fair and balanced coverage of the alleged corruption in the arms deal. The article only foregrounded arguments that were against the contract going to BAe and that supported the view that there was corruption in the tender evaluation criteria. The article also foregrounds
75 information that implicitly and explicitly suggests that the tender evaluation criteria that resulted in BAe getting the contract were fraudulent. Thus, the article fails to provide a fair analysis and is not fair to the ANC, the government and the ANC officials involved or alleged to have acted improperly in awarding the tender to BAe.
6.2 “Conflict of interests”, Sowetan Thursday 22, 2001 The article starts by foregrounding that the government has been cleared of corruption allegations on how it had handled the arms deal procurement process. The second paragraph then tells the reader that there are officials who are suspected for potential wrongdoing, and were named as the former late Minister of Defence, Mr Joe Modise and Chief of Acquisitions in the Department of Defence, Mr Chippy Shaik. In the second paragraph, the article tells the reader that the report confirms that there were conflicts of interests related to the positions held by Joe Modise and Chippy Shaik and it further explains how those conflicts of interest came about. The article makes it clear that Chippy Shaik's conflict of interest relates to the fact that his brother's company was also bidding for the arms deal. The article continues by telling the reader another version of the story that Chippy Shaik declared his conflict of interest but did not recuse himself properly.
The article also highlights conflicts of interest that are related to Joe Modise's position. Towards the end of the first part, the article tells readers of Vanan Pillay from the Department of Trade and Industry who allegedly accepted a 29% discount on a Mercedes Benz. The article points out Pillay's role in the arms deal. Pillay was part of the Government chief negotiating team. In the middle of the article the reader is told of the discount received by Pillay and that he handed in his resignation, which was not accepted. Then it goes on to say that the opposition parties have said that the report is a ‘whitewash’ and called for the Government to act against individuals implicated. The opposition parties are not mentioned by their names, they are just labelled as opposition parties.
In the article none of the people alleged to have committed these alleged acts of corruption are given space to defend their positions and nothing is mentioned of any attempts on the newspaper's part to get their views. Opposition parties are also not given a space to raise their views on such a critical national matter. In terms of the foregrounded and backgrounded voices, the article is not
76 fair – it fails to give the accused stakeholders a fair chance to defend their views; it fails to give opposition parties the same space. The generally accepted rule of impartiality in news requires that there should be parity in the use of sources and that different points of view must be presented and that news should try to avoid value judgements (Chen, 1998).
6.3 “Report could expose state to litigation” M&G November 9 - 15 2001 The article starts by indicating that the long awaited report on the arms package is expected to expose officials with conflicts of interests and will recommend "a shake-up of tender procedures". The article goes on to tell readers of the people who compiled the report; it also indicates that the report has been kept as a secret but it tells the reader that M&G has managed to put together some of the things addressed in it. It then mentions some of the issues mentioned in the report such as the purchase of the British Aerospace Hawk trainers. Toward the end of the first part, the article tells the reader that M&G has minutes of the meeting that shows that the former Minister of Defence, Mr Joe Modise, led a campaign to disregard tender procedures in favour of BAe.
In the middle paragraphs the article mentions to readers that M&G sources have informed the paper (M&G) that the report on the arms deal reveals how Chippy Shaik influenced the tender criteria to favour his brother's company. The article highlights that Chippy did not recuse himself properly from the meetings where his brother's company was discussed. The second paragraph (from the bottom in the centre of the article) then addresses the issue addressed by the headline that the report’s finding could expose the state to litigation by the companies that lost out.
As the article continues, it indicates that there are people who saw the report before it reached parliament, and these are mentioned as the office of the President, the Ministers of Defence, Finance and Trade and Industry. These people are not allocated space to defend themselves, on whether it is true that they have seen the report and censored it or not. The article quotes Gavin Woods, the chairman of SCOPA as saying that he has suspicion that the report may have been rewritten.
The article mentions nobody who defends the report. It only foregrounds the voices of those that are against the report. The alleged corrupt officials such as Joe Modise and Chippy Shaik are not
77 given space to defend themselves. From the foregrounded and backgrounded information and voices, the article is not fair and balanced: it only highlights the views of those that were against the report.
6.4 "More a cock-up than a conspiracy" M&G November 16 – 22, 2001 The article starts with a statement written out in ‘bold’ format that reads thus: “Opposition parties cry” cover up" and storm out of the National Assembly as the long - awaited report exonerates the government”. The first paragraph tells readers that the forensic probe into the arms deal has cleared the government of any wrongdoing but uncovered procedural irregularities in several parts of the deal.
The second paragraph highlights that the opposition parties called the report a "cover up". The article expands on this by stating that the United Democratic Movement (UDM) named it as a "celebrated palace verdict” and the Democratic Party (DP) criticised it as a “glorified press conference". Furthermore, it highlights the views of the New National Party saying the report raises more questions than answers and Pan African Congress (PAC) saying it had been "sanitised". Although many parties have been given a chance to comment on the findings of the report, the article does not give the ANC a similar space to raise its views.
The fourth paragraph explains that the report exonerated the government and highlights that the report discovered that government officials ignored due process and tender procedures. Furthermore, the article brings forth that the report exposes Chippy Shaik, "hang Chippy Shaik out to dry,” and the former Minister of Defence, Joe Modise. The latter is accused of being involved in a company that benefited from the arms deal. Neither Shaik nor Modise's views are highlighted.
6.5 “Arms deal inquiry no cover-up, says Ngcuka” Sowetan 19 November 2001 The article foregrounds the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Bulelani Ngcuka, and his voice throughout. It speaks of other people involved in compiling the report and those that are implicated by the report such as the Auditor General Mr Shauket Fakie, Schabir Shaik and Chippy Shaik but fails to give them a voice. It does not give them space to talk; it only mentions them without quoting them expressing their opinions. Unlike the M&G article on the subject “More a
78 cock-up than a conspiracy” M&G November 16 - 22 2001), the Sowetan article mentions nobody from the opposition party or anybody with a different view from that presented by Mr Ngcuka. The article is therefore biased in favour of Mr Ngcuka, the Scorpions Unit and the government. The article fails to provide a fair account; it also fails to give a balanced view of the matter. The article is biased in favour of Mr Ngcuka to the extent that it reads like an advert he paid for or as if he wrote the article himself.
The other Sowetan article on the subject (how opposition parties attacked the report drafted by Mr Bulelani Ngcuka and the Scorpions) was titled “Arms: MPs clash” Sowetan 16 November 2001. The article starts by indicating that the report on the arms deal that had just been released has caused another row between the government and the opposition parties. The article alerts readers that the report has cleared the government of any wrongdoing in handling the arms deal but points out that there were irregularities by some officials involved. The first person to be quoted in the article is the then Pan African Congress (PAC) MP, Patricia De Lille, who questions the report’s merits on clearing the government. The article goes on to highlight that the DP walked out instead of discussing the report and the United Democratic Movement (UDM) labelled it (the report) as “a stage–managed public relations’ exercise”. The Minister of Defence, Mosiuoa Lekota is quoted welcoming the findings of the report and alluding to how the integrity of the government has been maintained. In terms of the foregrounded and backgrounded information and voices, the article presents contending voices. Patricia De Lille (against the report) and the UDM (against the report)) and the Minister of Defence, Mosiuoa Lekota, (from the ANC, who supports the report's findings) were also quoted.
6.6 "Chippy Shaik meddled in the arms probe" M&G November 23 - 29 2001 The article begins by foregrounding that Chippy Shaik, the suspended Department of Defence procurement chief was allowed to make changes to the September 2000 arms report that was submitted to Parliament by the Auditor General. The first paragraph does not tell the reader the names of the people who allowed Shaik to make those changes. In the second paragraph the article highlights that the changes made by Chippy Shaik favoured his brother's company.
79 In the proceeding paragraphs, the information supporting the claim that Chippy Shaik has indeed made those changes, and that he failed to excuse himself properly from the meetings where his brother's company was discussed is supplied. In these paragraphs, the Minister of Defence, Mosiuoa Lekota, is also quoted telling the Auditor General, Shauket Fakie, the procedures he should follow when requiring secret documents. Towards the end, the article highlights that the Managing Director of C2I2 (C212 is one of the companies that tendered in the arms deal) Richard Young also did not approve the way Chippy handled the arms procurement process.
The article is about Chippy Shaik, it highlights all the irregularities that he went through to benefit his brother's company to win the arms deal bid, but it fails to give him space to defend his side. Chippy’s brother Schabir is also denied space. The article gives the views of the Auditor General trying to prove that Chippy is guilty. The views of Richard Young confirming Chippy’s guilt are also provided. From this perspective, the article is one-sided and unfair to Chippy Shaik and Schabir Shaik.
6.7 "Arms deal: Shaik faces suspension" Sowetan Monday November 19, 2001 The article starts by alerting the reader that Chippy Shaik will be suspended by the Department of Defence. It further highlights the reasons for his suspension as allegedly passing sensitive government information to his brother Schabir.
The third paragraph of the article indicates that the Department of Defence where Chippy was working as the head of the acquisitions department was called (though not found) to comment on Chippy's fate. The Scorpions' spokesperson is quoted as saying Chippy will not be arrested then (at that particular time). The article also mentions that the Scorpions arrested Chippy's brother, Schabir, for being in possession of highly classified information, including minutes of Cabinet meetings where the arms purchase was discussed. The article indicates that it is alleged that Chippy passed on the documents to his brother to give him an unfair advantage over other bidders. The article is about Chippy Shaik. Even the headline suggests this, but it fails to give him space to defend himself against the allegations levelled at him. Schabir Shaik is also not quoted in the article despite the fact that his name is frequently mentioned and accused throughout the article.
80 6.8 "Charges will follow arms probe" Sowetan Friday November 16, 2001 The article foregrounds that the probe into allegations of corruption in the arms deal has cleared President Thabo Mbeki and his Cabinet of any wrongdoing, and that there are government officials suspected to have benefited illegally from the arms deal. The National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Bulelani Ngcuka is quoted as saying that action will be taken against officials who benefited fraudulently from the arms deal. Chippy Shaik is mentioned as the official who could face prosecution and reasons why he may be arrested are also mentioned. The article also mentions that Mr Joe Modise has been cleared by the report of any wrongdoing, but says that the report suggests that the Government "should look at the possibility of a restraints of trade period once public officials resigned". The article only quotes Mr Ngcuka.
From the analysis of foregrounded and backgrounded information and voices it is clear that although ‘fairness’ requires that newspapers offer ‘balance’ in terms of sources quoted and used, the two newspapers under review fail to meet that adequately. This reveals that newspapers foreground selected sources and voices that perpetuate their (newspapers’) viewpoints. This undermines any simple faith in the reliability of the news content and quality, and ultimately compromises ‘fairness and balance’ in news. The M&G articles reviewed foreground information and voices (frequently opposition parties and Gavin Woods, Chairman of SCOPA) whose version of the alleged corruption in the arms deal suggests that the government’s procurement processes are flawed and that individuals alleged to be corrupt are indeed corrupt.
On the contrary, most of the Sowetan articles attempt to foreground information that suggests that the government’s tender procedures with regard to the arms deal were not flawed, although, it (Sowetan) highlights in a milder tone that there were irregularities with regard to some of the government’s officials involved. The Chairman of SCOPA and a fierce critic of the arms deal procurement process, Gavin Woods, is mentioned nowhere in the Sowetan articles. The M&G articles background information and voices that show the government to be innocent with regard to the arms deal procurement process while Sowetan backgrounds information and voices that allude that the government failed to exercise responsibility in the matter.
81 7. The implication of pictures used in the articles. This section analyses two pictures from the analysed articles from the M&G and Sowetan. The pictures are from articles on “How Modise Wangled jet deal”, M&G, 2 -8 November 2001 and “Conflict of interests”, Sowetan, Thursday Nov 22 2001 (Appendix D). These pictures were the only comparable ones that appeared in the articles under review. The part intends to discover if these pictures convey any meanings and if they do, which meanings they convey.
Picture analysis is a broad interdisciplinary area that brings art, media studies, cultural studies, anthropology, semiotics and many other disciplines into scrutiny. It is, therefore, an area that will need a thesis on its own. To stay within the scope of the question, the section only looks at explicit and obvious meaning of pictures analysed, and tries to find out if these pictures carry some implications and messages. Picture analysis, like qualitative content analysis, may be subjective and might be influenced by the researcher’s attitude and point of view.
The research report’s definition of pictures is guided by Kennedy’s (1974:123) statement that, a picture is “a surface treated so that it yields light to a particular station point, usually on a normal to the picture surface, which could have come from a scene in the real world”. The most important part of the definition that this research report adopts is the ‘reality duplication’ emphasis. This definition brings out the contradiction that exists between language and pictures.
The research report has previously argued that language is not a mere reflection of reality or a mirror that duplicates reality and that it is selective in nature. The research report posits that news is a construction through language, not a true reflection of reality. Looking at these points, there is a contradiction between language and pictures. From the definition of a picture it is clear that although there may be selection in terms of who appears in a picture and from which perspective (focus) the picture would be taken, there is also an indisputable indication that, unlike language, pictures cannot misrepresent people (except in the case of manipulated pictures which are not the concern of this research) and that once the subject appears in the picture, the subject cannot be removed (except in cases where manipulation takes place, but manipulated pictures are not a true reflection of real scenes).
82 The article “How Modise Wangled jet deal” (M&G, 2 -8 November 2001) had a picture of Joe Modise smiling and the caption that reads: “former defence minister Joe Modise amended tender criteria for one of the main contracts in the arms deal”. At the back there is a man in military uniform, an aeroplane and heads of other people who are not visible enough to be recognised.
Sowetan, Thursday Nov 22 2001 (Conflict of interests) had a picture of Mr Joe Modise with a caption that reads: “Former minister of defence Joe Modise acquired interests after his retirement”.
The photographs are from different newspapers (M&G and Sowetan respectively) but were taken on the same day (13th of November 1999 - at the peak of the arms deal negotiations, few weeks before the signing of the arms deal in December that year).45 The pictures were taken when Joe Modise was still the minister of defence attending a meeting which involved negotiations over the arms procurement deal. The articles were written two years later and the photographs were retrieved from the newspapers’ archives. When the photographs were taken it was not known whether there was corruption in the arms deal or not. The arms deal scandals were only revealed at a later stage.
In analysing photographs that accompany media texts, readers bring perspectives that help them organise meanings to mind. These perspectives are normally influenced by what is in the written text and/ or the audience’s prior knowledge of the incident or the person in the story. The written text guides the audience and underlines what needs to be foregrounded. This is what Barthes (1977) termed ‘anchoring’ whereby the written texts and captions rule out certain meanings as irrelevant and others as relevant in understanding a specific photograph. For example in the analysed pictures (Appendix D), the captions under the photos warn the audience to see and understand Modise as the Minister who has been implicated in the arms deal bribery narrative. Certain things that are related to Modise’s role (e.g. MK Commander, etc;) during the struggle
45 This was ascertained from the interviews with the political editors and sub-editors of the Sowetan and M&G in January 2004.
83 against apartheid are not included in the caption and therefore to understand the photograph along that perspective will be to miss the point of the news at the time. At the time of the photograph the news have moved from the account of Modise as a liberation hero, an MK commander for 30 years who became the first defence minister under the democratic government.
The captions underneath the photographs focus attention on a specific aspect that is intended to be conveyed and the photographs’ meanings are to found there. In this process, the audience are given an active role to view and understand Joe Modise from the perspective of the news about him at that time since the meaning of the photographs depends not only on the photographs but also on the captions and the texts that accompany the photographs. Geraghty (2000) argues that audiences may be active but are not totally free to choose how they want to read photographs in media texts because the media offer them ways of thinking and understanding photographs according to the context at the time of the news. In this process, the audience are guided to the desired response through captions and the accompanying texts.
The photos are only heads and shoulders and Joe Modise is dressed formally (a tie, a shirt and a jacket). The clothes on their own signify decency and status that should accompany the position of a minister. They also indicate that the occasion he was attending was formal. The notion of decency and formality that accompany Joe Modise’s dress code are symbolic and analogous to best behaviour. The text in the articles suggesting possibilities that Modise may have benefited unjustly from the arms deal is contrary to what the public expect from the man in his position and contrary to decency symbolised by his dress code. The clothes are also symbolic to a certain status. Even for a person who did not know that Modise was a Minister would be able to see from the photographs that the man on the photographs is of a certain prominence in the society.
The photo annexed to the M&G article is taken from a distance and the one from the Sowetan article is taken at a close range. In the picture from the M&G article, Modise is smiling and it makes one wonder how the minister who is accused of such a serious misconduct could smile. Considering that the photographs were taken two years before the articles were written it may not be wrong to argue that the selectors of the photographs preferred this photo to show sarcasm, to detach sympathy and to make their readers not to have sympathy with Joe Modise for what he is
84 alleged to have done. This becomes more apparent if we put this photo in the context of social and personal behaviour, or what Barthes (1977:47) calls “a body of attitudes” which are used to restore meaning of a specific photograph. This progression in analysis of photographs includes analysis that makes sense in terms of the audience social experiences. Following Barthes ‘body of attitudes’ analysis, the photograph consciously or unconsciously reveals emotion whose insinuation may conceal to the audience how Joe Modise may have felt about his involvement in the arms deal corruption chronicle.
Barthes (1977) proposes that it is through the body of attitudes that a photograph is related to the ideological patterns of the society in question. This procedure differs from person to person but provides a standard basis for understanding and discussing the photograph. Audiences may want to know what could have happened to make the minister look so sad. In this process, the audience may be sympathetic to him because they may say ‘we all make mistakes and it looks that he is not proud of his mistakes’. Modise died of heart attack few weeks after the articles were published. This, although is not part of this study, is metaphoric in the sense that his sad face (although the photograph was taken two years before the article was written) in this particular photograph may be linked to his emotions (sadness, unhappiness) at the time of the article - which may have caused him stress and heart attack which ended his life. Could the same photograph have been appropriate at the time when he was appointed the first minister of defence? The answer is no, because those were ‘arguably’ the best moments of his life and career and it could have not been appropriate to show a photograph of his sad face, because it could have been irrelevant and inappropriate to the context.
In both articles (Appendix D) the photographs are placed in the middle of the articles and are surrounded by the texts. This depiction instigates a reading which may put emphasises on how Joe Modise was entrapped in the arms deal corruption saga.
85 8. Conclusion This chapter has shown through content analysis that the Sowetan and the M&G have reported similar issues relating to the alleged corruption in the arms deal using different grammar approaches. The Sowetan uses neutral language such as neutral verbs whereas the M&G prefers stronger language. As a result, the two newspapers although reporting on similar issues, conveyed divergent messages. The use of neutral and non-judgemental syntax by the Sowetan made its articles to sound relatively neutral and to an extent sympathetic to the government and implicated government officials. On the contrary, the language used by the M&G gives an impression of non- sympathy and sounds superficially judgemental. On foregrounded and backgrounded information, the Sowetan seems to foreground information and sources that were not too harsh on the implicated officials whereas articles from the M&G appear to be doing the contrary. The subsequent chapter provides an analysis of interviews with media analysts and practitioners to confirm or challenge the conclusion arrived at through the content analysis.
86