In an age of rising populism, who should be ‘deplatformed’?

There would have to be complex audience reception studies to see how the brain receives images and what it then does when it makes that cross on the ballot paper. How do you measure the subliminal stuff that affects you? This is not that new a debate, but it’s become more pertinent these days as the more populism in the world grows, the more the media is blamed. Now the term “deplatform” is becoming part of the lingo.

Let us take three examples: former president Jacob Zuma, leader of the MK party, gave an inordinately long press conference at the Electoral Commission’s results centre on the night before the results were due to be announced. He droned on about how unfair and “unfree” the election was while producing no evidence.

Yet a band of journalists followed slavishly with chants of “uBaba, uBaba” (father) and kept the cameras rolling. Of course it was news, and naturally it should be covered. The question is, to what extent? For hours? The other parties had given short briefings, sometimes for only 10 minutes.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Zuma’s MK party insists it will pursue new vote-rigging case after withdrawal from Electoral Court

The SABC, by and large, ignored this briefing. Zuma’s party remains angry with the public broadcaster and is now accusing it of “banning” him. But the SABC does cover MK often when there are newsworthy angles, based on its own values of constitutionality, it said.

Example two, but an older story: the media was blamed for populist Donald Trump’s rise to power in 2016. Ironically, CNN was criticised for this “overexposure”. Yet CNN was meant to be a Democratic Party supporter and Fox News the Republican Party supporter. Or so they say.

But every day the clownish, corrupt and misogynistic Trump was the first news item if he so much as flicked his hair and moved his jaw. He certainly got the airtime on CNN. It may well be possible that there is some correlation – that the exposure contributed to his success in 2016.

The same thing may be happening in the 2024 US election campaign. If Trump comes out tops again, then there is nothing much to say about the media beyond the speculation that it could be a contributory factor. But a direct correlation cannot be proved. What is a fact, though, is that he is a symptom of America; its electorate voted for him.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Second coming of Donald Trump — dangerous beast slouches towards Washington to be reborn

It is just not possible that media coverage in and of itself can lead to electoral success and losses. The media provides platforms and it makes decisions to deplatform, its prerogative. Should people get a voice to express hatred, racism and sexism in the name of free expression? Sometimes the media, while providing the platform, interrogate the politicians as it should. Sometimes it lets the cameras roll.

Example three: this past week, the doddery and seemingly senile President Joe Biden was on air in the big election debate with Trump. Should Biden be deplatformed for making the outrageous statement that abortion should be legal because brothers rape sisters? That sounded like his reason for supporting abortion. It beggars belief.

But back home, how is it that a party so new, MK, got such a high percentage of the vote in such a short time? It has no policy document for the future of South Africa. It has no proper structure. It was in and out of court before and during the election with the founder, Jabulani Khumalo, alleging that his signature had been forged in his resignation letter.

As political theorist Ernesto Laclau observed: As quickly as populist demands become crystallised in one figure, so quickly they can disappear. Meanwhile, for now, MK is here to stay. What will the media do? It will have to cover Zuma if he is the leader of the opposition. But slavishly follow him around, calling him “uBaba”?

Also, remember “the media” in the world is not one, and neither is the media in South Africa. It is different from company to company and different lines are taken in one company too. Indeed, in one newsroom there are huge differences.

We rely on the media so much and we also watch social media for breaking news. But we don’t know whether half of what is said on social media is just “influencers” pushing their own views (wanting likes, fights and reposts) of what they want to see. It seems that people say what they want to be the case, what they believe. That’s how ideology blocks the facts.

Now the issue will be platforming and deplatforming in Parliament when the new opposition appears to be oppositional to our constitutional democracy – yes, even after its members took oaths to be faithful to the Constitution. To platform or deplatform?

I think whether coming from populist politicians or not, news is news and has to be covered, otherwise it’s censorship. The public needs to know. But let’s stop giving nonsense, incoherence, hatred, racism and sexism endless running coverage. DM

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.