Elephant+in+room+wants+out,+Tim+Cohen,+Business+Day+Weekender

Business Day, Johannesburg, 26 August 2006
=The elephant in the room wants out=


 * TIM COHEN**

INUITS apparently have hundreds of words for “snow" (Actually, it’s a myth, but anyway.) In Japan, there are several words for rice. And if you are in the journalism game there are several kinds of “facts".

Intimate acquaintance tends to lead to sub-definitions, whereas for most people, the general definition will do.

Anyway, in journalism, there are “actual facts" — these are facts that are readily available and verifiable. There are also “real facts", which are things that are not readily known but which you as a journalist have discovered. The great thing about “real facts" is that they can graduate into “actual facts" if the newspaper decides to publish them and they become widely believed.

And then there are “journalist facts", things that journalists know but cannot verify, and therefore are unable to convince their editors to publish.

“Journalistic facts" are sometimes cruelly derided as “gossip", “hearsay", “tittle-tattle" or worse.

It must be said that the similarity is hard to deny. But yet, there is a sliver of a difference between gossip and journalistic fact, and it lies in the fact that despite the lack of demonstrable evidence, they do inform the subtext of reporting.

Consequently, on very rare occasions, it’s best to be upfront about some journalistic facts, even though there might be not a shred of evidence for their veracity.

My problem with journalistic facts vests in the current trial of former deputy president Jacob Zuma. The problem is that I honestly believe that it’s impossible to truly understand the Zuma trial without recognising some “journalistic facts" that underlie the court interaction.

Let me just say this, and please bear in mind there is no proof (yet) that this is so.

It’s an actual fact that German prosecutors are investigating a possible €15m kickback in the sale of warships to SA by German shipbuilding consortium Thyssen.

It’s an actual fact that a very senior South African politician has been mentioned as the recipient of this money.

It’s a journalistic fact that this person is … well, actually, there is a further category of “facts", which consists of things that journalists believe but are too afraid to mention in public for fear of legal repercussions. Let’s just work on the basis that this person is a very senior South African politician.

But here is what is printable, because it’s easy to reach this conclusion simply by conjecture anyway. What if the money did not go to any particular person for their own benefit? What if it actually went to a political party, or a subdivision of the party? The person who collected the money might have done so on behalf of that party. Apparently, it’s a journalistic fact that in the process of transferring the money to that party, the recipient was allowed to keep the interest as a kind of agency fee.

So how does all this play into the Zuma trial? It’s a journalistic fact that many in the party know or suspect that money came into the coffers of the party or its subdivisions from sources unknown. It’s a journalistic fact that this money might or might not have been a consequence of being selected as a winning “bidder" in the arms deal lottery process.

The problem for both sides of the Zuma trial is that knowledge of the financial affairs of the party is the elephant in the room. Pressed too far into a corner, Zuma might be tempted to (hold your breath now) point out the existence of this elephant. So when Zuma makes statements in his court affidavit presented this week — like “(Mbeki) has been scurrilously accused of being party to improprieties in this regard" — what he is really saying is: “Do you want me to tell people about the elephant?" Well, do you?


 * From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/weekender.aspx?ID=BD4A257548**

638 words