The Mashatile obsession: When “Investigative Journalism” becomes selective political warfare

There is nothing wrong with investigative journalism. In fact, a healthy democracy needs journalists who are prepared to follow the money, interrogate political relationships and ask uncomfortable questions of those in positions of power.

But there is also nothing wrong with asking journalists a very simple question: Are you applying the same standard to everyone?

The latest News24 investigation into the Paul and Humile Mashatile Foundation Trust and its alleged links to people connected to the national lottery has once again placed Deputy President Paul Mashatile under intense scrutiny.

The allegations deserve to be investigated. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, it must be acted upon. Nobody holding public office should be above accountability.

But accountability cannot mean that certain politicians are subjected to relentless forensic scrutiny while equally serious allegations involving political opponents, powerful business interests and influential networks are quietly allowed to disappear from the public conversation.

That is where the credibility of the media becomes a legitimate subject of debate.

The question that must therefore be asked is: Where is the same urgency when it comes to the allegations surrounding Resolve Communications?

Former DA leader John Steenhuisen made serious public allegations concerning Tony Leon, former DA CEO Paul Boughey and the public-affairs firm Resolve Communications, including claims about privileged access, lobbying and attempts to influence government decision-making. The allegations were serious enough for the ANC to call for a full investigation, while ActionSA also called for an urgent investigation into the claims.

Yet somehow, the national conversation does not appear to have developed the same sustained intensity.

Why?

If the principle is accountability, then let accountability be universal.

If the principle is “follow the money”, then follow every trail.

If the principle is exposing political influence, then expose political influence regardless of whether the individuals involved are black or white, ANC or DA, left or right, government or opposition.

South Africans should be deeply suspicious of a media environment in which political relationships involving one side of the political spectrum are presented as evidence of corruption, while relationships involving another side are treated as merely political intrigue.

The issue is not whether News24 is allowed to investigate Mashatile. Of course it is.

The issue is whether Mashatile is being investigated because there is a genuine public-interest concern — or whether some sections of the media have become disproportionately invested in constructing a particular political narrative around him.

Those are not the same thing.

And this is where the language surrounding the Mashatile Foundation becomes important.

An association is not automatically corruption.

A photograph is not corruption.

Knowing someone is not corruption.

A person being connected to someone who knows someone involved in a particular industry is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing.

Investigative journalism is supposed to establish the evidence, explain the transactions, demonstrate the conflict of interest and give the public the facts. It should not invite readers to fill gaps in the evidence with suspicion.

That distinction matters enormously in a democracy.

Mashatile is the Deputy President of South Africa. He must therefore expect scrutiny. But he is also entitled to the same presumption that applies to every other public figure: allegations must be substantiated before they become convictions in the court of public opinion.

And the media must be especially careful when its reporting intersects with political battles.

South Africa's political landscape is already deeply polarised. The Government of National Unity has created an unusual political arrangement in which former political opponents now sit around the same Cabinet table. The lines between opposition politics, coalition politics, lobbying, business interests and government influence have consequently become more complicated.

That makes consistency in journalism more important — not less.

Consider the Resolve Communications controversy.

Steenhuisen's allegations were not made by some anonymous internet commentator. They came from a former DA leader and senior government minister. The allegations involved powerful political and business relationships and raised questions about access to government decision-makers. The DA itself had previously considered allegations concerning Steenhuisen and other internal disputes, although it ultimately did not institute disciplinary proceedings over the Resolve Communications allegations.

That does not mean Steenhuisen's allegations are automatically true.

It means they deserve the same rigorous public-interest examination that journalists demand when investigating politicians on the other side of the political divide.

That is the standard we should be demanding.

Not protection for Mashatile.

Not protection for the ANC.

Not protection for the DA.

Not protection for Tony Leon.

Not protection for Resolve Communications.

Nobody should receive political immunity simply because they happen to be aligned with a particular media narrative.

The danger of selective outrage is that it ultimately damages journalism itself.

When investigative journalism appears to repeatedly target particular political personalities while other allegations receive considerably less attention, readers begin to wonder whether they are being given journalism or political ammunition.

And that is a dangerous place for the media to find itself.

South Africa has a proud tradition of investigative journalism. That tradition must be protected. But protecting it means defending the principle that journalism must “follow the evidence”, not simply follow the political target of the moment.

So yes — investigate Mashatile.

Investigate the Foundation Trust.

Investigate the lottery connections.

Investigate every financial relationship.

Investigate every possible conflict of interest.

But then do something else:

Investigate everything else too.

Investigate the Resolve Communications allegations.

Investigate claims about political access.

Investigate lobbying.

Investigate private interests seeking influence over public policy.

Investigate the networks surrounding politicians across the political spectrum.

And when the evidence points to wrongdoing, expose it — regardless of who is implicated.

South Africans do not need a media that chooses political friends and enemies.

They need a media that chooses evidence.

Because if investigative journalism is genuinely about holding power to account, then the colour of the politician, the party they belong to and whether their politics are fashionable among particular sections of the media should be completely irrelevant.

The standard must be one standard.

Otherwise, what we call investigative journalism risks becoming nothing more than selective political warfare dressed up as accountability.

By Black Excellence Network RSA publicity department