Mass media faces tough challenges for 2010

There is no doubt that this country has a lot at stake. Whether or not a successful event will lead to increased tourism, economic activity and foreign investment for decades beyond 2010 is now irrelevant. 2010 for us is a fait accompli. We cannot go back.

Economic disaster

Failure though, both in terms of a complete cock-up of the event itself or even worse, allowing the pessimists, criminals and critics to get so much of an upper hand that the event is moved away from us to some other country, will literally kill our economy stone dead and effectively destroy internal and external confidence in this country as effectively as a full scale civil war.

The mass media have an important role to play. Indeed they need to keep up the pressure on social ills such as crime, unemployment and corruption but surely they also need to be circumspect in not giving too big a platform to those 2010 pessimists in this country who have already started bitching about stadiums being too expensive, rotten transport infrastructures, crime and heaven knows what else.

German stone throwers

Looking back at world cup history, every country has had its minority anti-cup lobby.

In Germany, a few years ago, stories abounded of youths throwing stones from highway bridges and killing motorists right , left and centre on a far larger and more frightening scale than occurs down in the Western Cape right now.

In the run-up to the last Olympics the organisers in Greece came under extremely heavy fire from all and sundry internally and externally about not being ready. As it happened, they put on a fantastic event.

Like those countries, South Africa needs to make sure that the lunatic fringe does not derail even the tiniest item on the 2010 agenda.

Platform for pessimists

It is vital that our mass media does not look for short term readership, viewership and listenership ratings by allowing small bands of pessimists to get more of a platform than they deserve. 2010 is far too important and far bigger than short term newspaper sales and TV and radio ratings.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of access to media. Nor does it mean an obligation by the mass media to publish absolutely everything any idiot has to say. And the mass media believes it has the capacity to distinguish idiots from everyone else. Just look at the way they comment on politics for example - it's a dead giveaway.

Newspapers, TV and radio stations are set to make a bundle out of this world cup. Not only will they attract additional advertising and sponsorship revenue but also the interest of the consumer abroad who will tune in to our media online.

Lots to lose

Like the rest of society in South Africa, the mass media will have a lot to gain but everything to lose on the outcome of the 2010 event. The question of whether South Africa should be hosting it is no longer pertinent.

Mass media management needs to get involved with those who are doing the organising in terms of making media houses participants, rather than just the usual onlookers.

I am not suggesting for a minute that they compromise editorial integrity. But, what I am suggesting is that news editors think carefully before sensationalising or twisting stories just for a bit of short term one-upmanship over competitors.

For example, there was a TV report last week on the new billion rand stadium being built in Durban.

Putting words in mouths

The tone of the story was that the citizens of Durban thought it was far too expensive and a waste of money. Clearly those ordinary folk the reporter approached for the vox-pops interviews were asked, "Do you think that the new stadium is a waste of money?" This must have been the question because they almost all answered, "Yes, it does seem to be a waste of money..."

One-sided

Now, if the question they were asked was simply, "What do you think of the new stadium that is going to be built in Durban for 2010?" they would very likely have answered very differently and perhaps a lot more positively. Equally if hotel and restaurant owners and shopkeepers were interviewed, they would certainly not have believed the money to be a waste, given the difference between Durban hosting some 2010 games and not doing so.

As everyone knows, the responses one gets to voxpops depends very much on the question asked.

For some strange reason, there are people who really want to see South Africa's 2010 World Cup sabotaged. They are already manifesting themselves in some really bizarre websites, one of which has embarrassed e.tv by using its news footage illegally.

More than he deserved

Heaven knows what the agendas of these people are. Some care clearly simply anti-government, others just plain jealous, but there are many, like that fellow in Cape Town who wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper recently calling for a campaign to keep foreign tourists away from South Africa to force Government to do something about crime. Frankly by getting any publicity at all, he got more than he deserved.

The fact is that South Africa, rightly or wrongly, has been given the 2010 World Cup. Now, like it or not, the entire future of this country for decades to come, depends on our ability to pull it off. Whatever one's political convictions or whatever one's social beefs, if you happen to live in this country and want to continue doing so, it seems silly and suicidal to want to sabotage this whole thing.

And this applies as much to the mass media as it does to every single ordinary citizen. There is far too much to lose to indulge in petty sensationalism.

Ahead of Germany

South Africa has proved with both the cricket and rugby world cups that it is capable of organising this sort of event. Fine, 2010 is much, much bigger but there is no reason to doubt that FIFA and our local organising committee have not got their ducks in a row. In fact, in some areas South Africa is already ahead of where the German organisers were four years before the 2006 event.

One also needs to bear in mind that South Africa is not organising this thing alone. FIFA is playing a huge role and it obviously has a lot of experience. FIFA is also a very successful, profitable business before anything else and as a successful profitable business it is not in the habit of taking crazy risks. Successful businesses also don't have the habit of indulging in sentiment.

FIFA believes we can

FIFA would not have given South Africa the World Cup had it not believed that we could pull it off.

Everyone has a role to play in making this work and the best role the mass media can play is to think twice before giving the lunatic fringe more publicity than it deserves.