Daily Maverick’s Rebecca Davis’ agenda-driven reporting exposes her lack of journalistic integrity and credibility

By: Mphumzi Mdekazi 

In her recent article titled: From Lindiwe Sisulu, With Love: Inside SA Tourism’s R1bn proposal to sponsor Tottenham Hotspur, Daily Maverick reporter Rebecca Davis has once again shown her lack of integrity and credibility as a journalist. Her unfair targeting of Minister of Tourism, Lindiwe Sisulu, is aimed at placing her at the centre of this controversial proposed deal between SA Tourism and English football club Tottenham Hotspur, a proposal she is neither the initiator of nor the one she has any direct involvement in.

Journalism has always been under scrutiny for pushing bias. But what we have seen in the last few years is a trend in mainstream media to blatantly manufacture untruths in order to push particular ideological agendas. In an apparent symbiotic entanglement between powerful people in government, business, and media, the goal is to tarnish the reputations of those who do not fit seamlessly into their neoliberal ideology and thus pose a threat to their privilege.

It is a brutal gloves-off state of affairs and news platforms are now able to decimate the longstanding and successful careers of those who do not please them, especially hardcore authentic freedom fighters. In the 21st century, global mainstream media has increasingly become a weaponised mouthpiece for Western interests. Publications that are sympathetic to a more de-colonialist view have been systemically disparaged and starved of funding.  It would seem that the only way for a media house to survive this era is to accept nefarious funding and sell fabrication as truth.

To stay relevant to the status quo as a journalist in the current climate is to engage aggressively in myth-making and manipulation. “Suggestive” journalism is the order of the day and once a suggestion is made in the headline and the first four lines of an article it is ensured that this is sold as truth and consumed by an increasingly gullible and passively vulnerable readership that is spurred on by outrage and ‘privilege protectionism.’ This monetisation of untruth is the Faustian pact that the South African mainstream media has bought into.

While Davis may once have been a respected journalist, she has evidently morphed into what is called a weaponised “myth-maker, and a professional browser” to borrow from Walter Sisulu’s adage when he describes lazy thinkers, only too willing to use their writing skills to eradicate those who do not kowtow to the liberal corporate agenda. From my perspective, this is evidenced in the manner in which she has shamelessly taken on the project to cause severe reputational damage to Sisulu. I can only imagine that this mission to systemically smear Sisulu has been up for grabs since pre-1994 when mainstream press meetings and the likes of Davis readily agreed to take on the challenge.  How else does one explain the sudden, sustained onslaught against Sisulu on this platform?

At some point, Davis set about strongly suggesting to the readership that Sisulu is an untrustworthy disrespectful renegade because according to her: “Tourism Minister Lindiwe Sisulu insulted South African judges”, but anyone familiar with Sisulu’s history shouldn’t be remotely surprised. Davis’s manipulation of the truth in personal slurs is a reprehensible show of dramatic manipulation of public opinion – considering the reported statement released by Sisulu’s spokesperson, Steve Motale regarding this affair (Tottenham Hotspurs Sponsorship non Deal). Her (Davis) intention is to poison and polarise society against the liberation struggle veteran (Sisulu). An old method of divide and rule tedious tact.

Davis’s insistence that Sisulu must look bad in society had the clear intent to not only sully Sisulu’s public reputation but also to create distrust between Sisulu and President Cyril Ramaphosa.

In keeping with her trajectory to rubbish Sisulu, Davis has used similar language to place the responsibility for the proposal to sponsor Tottenham Hotspur in Sisulu’s lap.  The official statement from her office, in which Sisulu succinctly explains the process for a deal such as this and her lack of involvement in it, then becomes meaningless in light of the outrage created by Davis’s framing of Sisulu as the veritable kingpin of this plan. This is despite the fact that Ministers don’t sign deals, tenders, and projects.

I wish to reiterate that this Tottenham Spurs deal was proposed long before Sisulu joined the Ministry of Tourism, it precedes her arrival in that portfolio and had never come to fruition. Again, this deal has nothing to do with Sisulu as the South African Tourism board, like any independent board, discusses projects independently all the time, without the Minister’s involvement and interference. For the record, no deal has been clinched yet for that matter. The debate is a false debate, as there is not even stakeholder alignment, let alone the Minister’s approval.

The question is why is Sisulu placed at the centre of this by Rebecca Davis and her publication? It is apparent to me that Davis’s articles, following her original report, have been nothing more than a cover-up for her inaccurate reporting, which did nothing to verify the facts with the Minister before attaching the onus for the deal onto her. While she has updated and corrected some of the glaring blunders in her reporting, she has done nothing to correct the erroneous and damaging reportage on Sisulu, specifically her outrageous claim that Sisulu was “eager for the deal to be sealed before the impending Cabinet reshuffle by President Cyril Ramaphosa moves her out of the Tourism portfolio, as is expected”.

This claim, which Davis makes without producing a single shred of evidence, is not only damaging but libellous as it insinuates that Sisulu desperately wants to cash in on this deal before she is removed from her post by Ramaphosa. Davis’ naked agenda is obvious and will only fool the most gullible. Her intention is to trigger as much public anger against Sisulu as to make her an ideal candidate for the Cabinet reshuffle.

Perhaps a better story for Davis would have been to investigate the matter behind the sudden resignations of three SA Tourism Board members. Could it be that one of them was the alleged board member who leaked confidential official information to Davis and was subsequently found out, thus choosing to resign before taking accountability and consequence management? If Davis were a journalist with any integrity she may have found a more compelling reason for this sudden re-invigoration of the Tottenham Hotspur proposal. She may have even made the link to one of the former Tourism Minister’s interests in this proposal way back in 2017 when that fellow was the Minister of Tourism. She may have asked herself why this proposal suddenly comes back to light weeks before the cabinet reshuffle announcement.

It may have occurred to her that this former Tourism Minister may have had an interest in, or may even have been told that Sisulu would be reassigned, or relieved of her duties, thus leaving the position open to the “born again tourism aspirant”. Sources within the Tourism department have told me that some members of staff continue to report to this former Minister to this day. It may have occurred to her that this former Minister behind this whole brouhaha, a long-time detractor of Sisulu’s, may have had a hand in this revival of a deal that ‘makes no sense’, in order to eradicate Sisulu’s impeccable, corruption-free track record in government, her good standing as a veteran of the ANC NEC, a member of the liberation struggle family – and as one who remains a thorn in the flesh of those who aim to expose the ongoing hold that the white establishment has over so-called democratic South Africa.

Instead, Davis chose to go after Sisulu and not facts and truth as demanded by journalism ethos. This signals her ethical bankruptcy and lack of integrity, not only as a journalist but also in terms of her claim to progressive feminism and antiracism. Her choice of a Black woman in power as her adversary and a target for cheap propaganda, especially one who has the decolonisation project in her vista, speaks volumes.

Perhaps Davis was being equally disingenuous and lacking in integrity when she shared her views on The Big Debate on Whiteness (10 November 2016), declaring that all whites are undoubtedly racist. Seemingly she plagiarised this idea from the work of well-known critical race theorist, Gillian Schutte’s extensive writing on the matter of all whites being racist until whiteness is defunct, even if she so clearly missed Schutte’s point.  “Good white” indeed.

*Mphumzi Mdekazi is the Advisor to Minister Lindiwe Sisulu. (He writes in his personal capacity).