In November 2024, three academics and an environmental group set out to test whether Cape Town’s seawater was indeed as immaculate as the City of Cape Town claimed. They called themselves Project Blue.
They embarked on this testing because there is sometimes reason to be sceptical of Cape Town’s water quality: surfers report effluent washing out to sea; beachgoers say they’ve been ill after swimming.
The results of Project Blue’s tests, as Daily Maverick reported, were surprising: they found on one occasion 10 times the acceptable level of E. coli off Camps Bay.
The City of Cape Town disputes these results, as is its prerogative.
But the reasonable response, in this situation, would surely have been to issue a statement saying simply: “The city notes the results of Project Blue’s tests on seawater. The city is concerned about the vast discrepancy between the city’s results and Project Blue’s results, and will be engaging with the relevant academics immediately, since the health of Cape Town’s beachgoers is of paramount importance.”
That didn’t happen.
Instead, the City of Cape Town has launched a ferocious attack on Project Blue, the relevant academics, and even the labs used to do the seawater testing – one of which has previously been used by the city for the same purpose.
Project Blue has been accused of tarnishing Cape Town as a tourist destination; of being funded by shadowy elements who wish to collapse Cape Town’s reputation; and of failing to meet the most basic standards of scientific integrity.
It is at the best of times hard to stand up to the city’s exceptionally slick and effective media machine. It is almost impossible if you are a tiny environmental project: David v Goliath hardly covers it.
To give just one example of the torrent of abuse that has been directed towards a seemingly entirely well-meaning civic endeavour, City of Cape Town Mayco member (and DA deputy federal chairperson) JP Smith posted on Facebook a mocking meme which read: “Imagine if ‘Project Blue’ was also responsible for vehicle roadworthy clearance” and a picture of a broken-down car with the verdict “Roadworthy status: Passed”.
(This trolling also obviously doesn’t make any sense – it is Project Blue’s contention that the quality of seawater is worse than the city claims, not better.)
So what do you do, if you’re Project Blue and under this extraordinary attack for, effectively, an academic project which has enraged the city?
You try to get decent journalists to publish objective pieces setting out the relevant arguments, resulting in the kind of thorough reporting published on the matter by Daily Maverick.
But if you are a journalist reporting on a matter which in any way makes the City of Cape Town look bad: good freaking luck.
Immediately, the media machine swivels to point directly in your direction, like that Squid Games doll that shoots the contestants when they move.
Your inbox, and those of your editors, will be flooded with emails – cc-ing probably around 10 top city officials, for maximum intimidation effect – aggressively demanding edits and corrections and ideally just climb-downs and apologies.
Don’t believe me? Ask any Cape Town journalist who has been in this position. I am already braced for the torrent of E. coli headed my way as a result of this piece.
The end result: it becomes increasingly difficult to find journalists willing to report on anything which places the City of Cape Town in a bad light because the emotional toll it takes is simply not worth it.
It is a net loss for accountability and democracy.
DA plays the same game
The City of Cape Town and the DA are separate entities, and I don’t want to be accused of conflating them. But it is nonetheless true that there is often a fairly flimsy curtain between the two in real terms – as evidenced by the fact that JP Smith holds senior leadership posts in both the city and the DA.
The City of Cape Town’s media techniques are echoed by those employed by the DA.
The DA’s approach to journalists who write critically about them would be condemned as political intimidation from virtually any other party, but particularly from the ANC and EFF.
Last week, DA leader John Steenhuisen made a video appearance on another media outlet to name and shame a junior female journalist for Daily Maverick who had committed the crime of reporting on an answer he himself had given to Parliament.
Once again: when other politicians, like Julius Malema, have done similarly – singling out female journalists for their reporting while knowing that they are likely to face a torrent of social media abuse as a result – they have been roundly condemned, including by people in the DA.
The facts of that matter are as follows: ActionSA submitted an official parliamentary question asking Steenhuisen, the GNU’s Agriculture Minister, what vehicles he uses for his official duties and whether they are fitted with blue lights.
Legitimate politicking
Given that the DA before entering Cabinet ran an entire campaign to do away with ministerial benefits including blue lights, this is a fairly obvious piece of gotcha politicking from ActionSA. (It is also precisely the same kind of politicking that the DA has previously excelled at in Parliament when employing similar tactics on the ANC.)
It is, furthermore, completely legitimate – given that it is the job of the opposition (ActionSA) to hold the ruling parties (now the ANC, DA and others) to account, as the DA used to vehemently articulate before taking up their posts in the GNU.
Steenhuisen responded to ActionSA’s question asking him what cars he drove by listing three cars to a total value of R2.8-million: “The current vehicles used are a 2018 Audi Q7, 2019 Toyota Prado and 2020 BMW X5”. He confirmed they were all fitted with blue lights.
It would have been completely fair game for journalists to report on this parliamentary reply without asking for any further comment from the relevant politician – in fact, it happens all the time, when the politicians are from different parties.
After all, politicians are legally mandated to tell the truth to Parliament, so there shouldn’t be anything further to add.
On this occasion, Daily Maverick did give Steenhuisen the opportunity to comment on his official parliamentary reply. Our subsequent reporting included his clarification that one of the vehicles was used by his deputy; and it included his claim that although blue lights are fitted on his cars, he never uses them.
Read more: Steenhuisen’s R2.8m blue light SUVs spark backlash amid DA’s stance on VIP privileges
I say Steenhuisen’s claim, in this regard, because there is simply no evidence either way. We have no idea if, in reality, there are days or nights when Steenhuisen is running late for the airport and instructs his drivers to flip on the blue lights.
We only have his word that he doesn’t. That may be good enough for DA supporters, but it cannot be the empirical standard employed by any journalists worth their salt.
The history of South Africa has taught us, over and over again, never to take politicians at their word.
If a senior ANC politician were to be accused of using some or other perk, but simply denied doing so, would the public be happy about a journalist just abandoning the story?
Yet that is precisely what happened in the case of other media outlets regarding the Steenhuisen blue light story.
My jaw hit the floor when I saw that News24 had posted an apology to Steenhuisen for daring to publish a cartoon, by the brilliant Carlos Amato, which featured Steenhuisen with blue light vehicles.
“The illustration was created before the DA released a statement clarifying that Steenhuisen does not use the blue lights that are fitted to his vehicle,” News24 wrote.
“News24 and the cartoonist apologise for the mistake.”
That this happened is simply madness.
Once again, would News24 accept a simple denial from an ANC politician that they had done something as sufficient evidentiary grounds to retract commentary or reporting? Perhaps we are not privy to all the discussions between the DA and News24.
The situation is doubly concerning given that we have a clear example from another GNU minister that it is extremely easy and quick work to have blue lights removed from an official vehicle. Prisons Minister Pieter Groenewald, the Freedom Front Plus leader, says he has no blue lights on his cars.
If Steenhuisen wishes to send a clear message that the DA in power is walking the talk they talked as the Opposition, why not take the blue lights off his car?
Steenhuisen told BizNews that he didn’t want taxpayers to foot the bill. Laudable, but I’m sure many taxpayers would be more than happy to suck up the few thousand the blue light removal would cost in exchange for peace of mind that their elected representatives are forced to adhere to the same rules of the road as the rest of us.
But I also empathise with News24, because as Daily Maverick’s acting news editor last week, I was subjected to the same demands from Steenhuisen’s team that we change our reporting – again, reporting on an answer Steenhuisen gave himself to Parliament.
What the News24 example shows, chillingly, is that this kind of intimidation really works – and this is not an isolated incident.
Once again, ask any mainstream media outlet’s editorial staff: junior journalists are petrified to report critically on the DA.
The net result, once again, is a loss for accountability and democracy – precisely the values that the DA claims to hold most dear. DM
Disclaimer: Since the publication of this article, News24 cartoonist Carlos Amato has reached out to clarify that the reason for the retraction of his cartoon by News24 is because it was accepted that there was insufficient evidence to justify its premise.