Introduction
In this paper the focus is on the experience of journalists within Afrikaans corporations in the period of transition between the Apartheid regime and democratisation in South Africa, from 1985 to 1999. I map this period of transition in journalism in terms of key events such as the state security legislation and censorship from 1985, the lifting of formal censorship in 1990, and the democratic elections and the institution of the new South African constitution in 1994, and 1996 respectively. I argue that Afrikaans journalists in large media corporations such as Naspers, an Afrikaans media corporation, during the time of censorship faced severe restrictions in their access to information and had increased levels of self-censorship.[1] This state of formal and self-censorship started to change in the period of democratisation from 1990 onwards, as formal censorship laws relaxed, and the country started to “cross borders” into a democratic South Africa, allowing for more press freedom. In this paper, I investigate the experiences of five different journalists in the Naspers Afrikaans Newspapers corporation, from Beeld and the Burger newspapers, through oral history interviews. Most participants worked at Beeld during this period, with two having worked in the Burger as well. Most participants, three out of five, worked in the period of the democratic transition, in the early to late 1990s, with more senior interviewees having started work in the early to mid-1980s during the security legislation. I particularly sought to understand their experiences with the culture of journalism during the time and how it was shaped by the context of censorship from 1985 to 1990 and the democratic transition from 1990 onward. I explore topics such as how formal censorship shaped the media landscape; the phenomenon of “deep background”; the level to which journalists cooperated with the government in order to obtain information for stories and its impact; and levels of self-censorship which were present in the media. These factors of censorship and journalism largely changed during the democratic transition of South Africa in the 1990s, with the end of formal censorship laws, which resulted in a freer press, decentralisation of information flow, protection of more press freedoms and entry of new voices to the media.
South African Media Landscape
During the 1980s and early 1990s the media landscape of South Africa can be differentiated into three categories. There was the state-owned media, which dominated television and radio communication through the South Africa Broadcasting corporation (SABC), which was often seen as the mouthpiece of the regime.[2] Following this was also private print media, which can be differentiated into alternative news outlets and larger print media corporations. Alternative news outlets were independent, typically anti-Apartheid newspapers. Larger print media corporations in turn were divided into English newspaper corporations such as Independent News and Afrikaans newspapers such as the Naspers group, with publications like Beeld and the Burger.[3] Alternative newspapers often made up a smaller share of the news, while the South African print media was mostly dominated by larger media entities, with four large media corporations controlling 75% of the market during Apartheid.[4] This created a context where the state could already influence a large amount of information flow through broadcasting and public media, but also through the use of censorship laws implemented in 1985.
State of Emergency and Censorship in 1985
One of the largest influences on South African media were the censorship laws instituted in the state of emergencies between 1985 and 1990. In the 1980s, there was a surge of violent and nonviolent protests against white minority rule in South Africa, largely run by labourers and students. Of these events, two bomb explosions occurring on June 16, 1985 in Durban and Johannesburg would culminate in the government of President P.W. Botha of the Apartheid state instituting a partial state of emergency on July 20, 1985.[5] This partial state of emergency would be lifted in March 1986, only to have Botha´s government institute nation-wide measures in June of the same year to suppress protest and dissent to the Apartheid rule on a massive scale that would continue until 1990.[6] The state of emergency would have sweeping effects on the South African media landscape, by restricting the ability of newspaper journalists, editors and photographers to report. Journalists were not allowed to cover unrest situations or the conduct of government security forces in townships, under the threat of fines and prison sentences in case they published subversive statements.[7] Censorship targeted actions such as taking part in unrest, resisting or opposing members of cabinet or government officials, taking part in boycott actions against firms and educational institutions, civil disobedience such as refusing to pay rent, or taking part in restricted gatherings. [8] Subversive statements in turn were very broadly defined as those, “… which incited or encouraged members of the public or was calculated to have the effect of inciting or encouraging members of the public to: take part in unrest…”, or any of the above activities.[9]
Alternative Media´s Relation with Censorship
South African news agencies often had different relations to formal censorship that restricted their ability to be critical of the government. The censorship laws were of a particular legal nature, as the Apartheid state attempted to legitimise their actions as far as possible through the courts.[10] Due to this legal nature, alternative media outlets, such as the Weekly Mail,[11] developed a closer relation with their legal department to test the boundaries of censorship and comply at face value to the laws, while simultaneously still seeking to circumvent the spirit of the law, which intended to prevent reporting and criticism of the Apartheid government.[12] In this sense, the alternative media outlets took a much more active role in investigating cases involving the government, and skirted the edge of what censorship laws allowed, something which large media corporations did not test as much.[13] However, at the same time this brought the alternative media under greater scrutiny of the government. For instance, the Vrye Weekblad, an Afrikaans Anti-Apartheid newspaper, was shut down in 1994 following a legal charge from 1990 and the subsequent reparations. The charge was made against them by General Lothar Neethling, the then chief deputy commissioner of the Apartheid era police, for publishing reports that Dirk Coetzee, a former police captain, accused Neethling of supplying toxin to be used on Anti-Apartheid activists.[14] This case indicates that alternative media sources and their journalists were more actively criticising the government and were also under more coercive pressure from censorship laws because of the threat of being shut down. This could also indicate a possible influence on larger media corporations, as examples of crackdowns on alternative press could have encouraged more self-censorship and excessive caution with adhering to regulations at the cost of critical journalism.
Larger Media Corporation´s Relation with Censorship
Larger media corporations mostly adopted a code of self-censorship. In accordance with government censorship, senior managers and editors internally managed what could be published, but sometimes censored in addition to it as well.[15] This cultivated the practice and perception of large newspapers as being more conservative or complicit towards government actions under Apartheid than alternative news outlets. This point is reinforced in the reflections of Anton Haber,[16] the editor and co-founder of the alternative newspaper the Weekly Mail from 1985 to 1997, who states that while larger media agencies developed fierce valuations of independence in democratic South Africa, due to facing considerable political interference from the government they often acted as mouthpieces of the regime. Adri Kotze,[17] who worked as a general, crime, and later political reporter for Beeld, recounts from her period of work from 1990 to 1998 that initially certain stories, such as crime reports or police actions in the townships, were done from the perspective of the police, as journalists would often enter townships with them. However, while also not explicitly restricted, resources were not put as extensively towards stories in the townships, in contrast to alternative outlests like Vrye Weekblad. This was partially for economic reasons, as the townships were not Beeld and the Burger’s core readership.[18] However, censorship and the relation of senior Naspers officials with the government could also have played a role in establishing this norm.
Restriction and Limits of Information
Formal censorship laws affected the degree to which larger media corporations like Naspers operated. They affected the ability of South African journalists to pursue news stories and restricted the voices that could be accessed in these stories. As a journalist who worked for Beeld from 1982 to 1997 as a general reporter and eventually editor, Arrie Rossouw gives an insightful account on the restrictions of censorship.[19] Rossouw states that one of the biggest restrictions of the emergency protocols instituted in 1985, when he worked for Beeld in his first year as a political reporter, was that journalists covering politics from the parliament in Cape Town were not allowed to cover the townships.[20] The rioting and police actions in the townships could only be covered with police approval and sometimes with escort. This largely restricted the type of voices that people got access to during the Apartheid era, especially in reports on banned opposition organisations such as the ANC (African National Congress) and the SACP (South African Communist Party).[21] Kotze also mentions that in the 1990s, after censorship was lifted, the access to informants was still somewhat restricted due to Afrikaans news mostly catering to white Afrikaners, who tended to be conservative.[22] Thus places like Beeld, even though it was more liberal than other news outlets such as the Burger, was not necessarily the first place that black South Africans or anti-Apartheid informants would go to inform on news stories that might be critical of the government. Nick Bezuidenhout, a junior political reporter for Beeld in 1994, states that he and his colleagues did not know that many contacts in the ANC at the time.[23] This further limited information as journalists struggled to build contacts which caused them to report more cautiously on the ANC than was perhaps necessary once the party were unbanned in February 1990.
Dilemma of Deep Background
Perhaps due to this limited information, a problem of “deep background” emerged in large South African news organisations in their relationship with the government. Deep background, as described by William Lee is, “…a term commonly used by officials at the highest levels of government who want to disclose information to the press without attribution.”[24] This means that information can be published without giving any identification of where it was received from, or, as Rossouw indicates,[25] could be used to look for second or third sources to which it can then be attributed. Typically, in relation to the government, this type of information can be incredibly useful because, as Lee states, “…journalists are happy to receive such information because it gives them an advantage over their competitors.”[26]
There are both positive and negative effects of deep background when used by journalists. Rossouw explains that many of the senior journalists and editors gained insider information from the South African government through deep background, which informed them on a story that was going on that they could not necessarily publish.[27] The good side of deep background in this case was that it gave journalists sources of otherwise very limited information regarding politics. For instance, Rossouw recounts that he could use the information on the then banned ANC organisation to later in 1990 write on their political position more accurately. This was also perceived as a priority, as journalists could report on information which was otherwise restricted.[28] However, the danger of deep background, as Rossouw also indicates, is that it potentially allowed the government to shape the type of story that was written by controlling the narrative and the released information.
Self-Censorship
This management of the narrative also became more effective when the government decided to give information to a smaller selection of journalists. For instance, Rossouw explains that Naspers, when the parliament was still in Cape Town, had a team of ten journalists that worked and reported on politics in general.[29] This process was centralised and often had the most senior members making editorial decisions before distributing the reporting on politics in the newspapers, and producing copies for all the newspapers in the Naspers group to use. Piet van Niekerk, another journalist who worked for Burger from 1986 to 1999,[30] states that he felt that there were a lot of restrictions from senior editors on what could be written in the Burger, especially in the late 80s and early 90s. In one case, he was asked to sit with a minister of government by a senior reporter because of a story he was covering that put the government in a bad light. Van Niekerk indicated that he felt the senior members of Naspers and the Burger, and government officials had developed too close of a relationship that allowed for information control in the media.[31] This was also similarly remarked on by Adri Kotze, who indicates that she felt there was a “boys club”, which made getting access to contacts harder, as others would often go get a drink informally while gaining information from an informant. This was not necessarily a culture that she could get involved in due to her position and perhaps also due to the gendered aspect of work within the organisation.[32]
Lifting of State Security laws in 1990
In February of 1990, F.W. de Klerk, as the president of the country and leader of the National Party, gave a speech in which he unbanned the ANC and SACP, and lifted restrictions on media censorship.[33] For Rossouw this was a massive change in that he was all of the sudden able to express the deep background and information that he had gathered over the years.[34] After being invited by other university youth leaders to conferences in Lusaka, Rossouw gained contact with ANC youth leaders, which he used to gain insight and write on the now unbanned SACP and ANC leadership, their views, and what they would likely negotiate for.[35] More coverage of stories in the townships also seemed to have a strong effect on young journalists like Kotze, who states that, as a member of the Afrikaans community, she became much more exposed to the lives of black South Africans, their struggles, and the actions of the government after covering crime reports in the townships from the 1990s. [36] As Rossouw indicates, this seemed to have changed the Beeld newspapers overall, as the journalists felt much more open to cover stories and attempt to bring their readership into a new South Africa, in light of discussions for the end of Apartheid and transition to democracy that started in 1990 and culminated in the 1994 elections.[37]
New Government’s Attitude Towards the Media
The change in government in 1994 also seemed to greatly contribute to more freedoms for journalists to report in South Africa, as the new government wanted to guarantee freedom of the press in opposition to their predecessors. Nick Bezuidenhout recalls that he was covering a story on the People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (PAGAD), a group who committed murders and vigilante violence in the Cape Flat.[38] In his report he published information given by an informant in the police that indicated that the police had received warning of the attacks by PAGAD on gang members before they actually occurred, which the police claimed they did not have previous knowledge of. As a response, the police counterintelligence then used an old Apartheid legislation to subpoena Bezuidenhout in 1996, who risked imprisonment if he would not give up the informant who leaked the report.[39] However, in the end the charges were dropped, and three days later in an unrelated press conference, Nelson Mandela, upon seeing Bezuidenhout in person, asked, “Oh I thought you were in prison!”, as a small tease in front of the press. To Bezuidenhout this seemed to indicate that it was Mandela´s or the ANC government´s decision to drop the charges instead of pursuing them as it would have been the case under the Apartheid government. This story overall indicates the degree to which the government’s relations to journalists changed in being much less antagonistic, and further protecting journalists from harm. The new government also enshrined freedom of the press within the Constitution’s Bill of rights, as freedom of expression.[40]
Loosening of Self-Censorship
The centralisation of the media also relaxed due to the 1994 elections and the subsequent restructuring of South Africa, following the election of the ANC and the introduction of the new constitution in 1996. The elections themselves saw the ANC come to power and lessened the influence of National Party members with whom journalists have had contact relations in order to gain deep background. Similarly, the following restructuring of the country into nine provinces in 1996 also seemed to decentralise the power in the media. Piet van Niekerk indicates that the elections and the subsequent legislature restructuring caused a massive change in the media.[41] Van Niekerk states that, as a relatively young reporter, Burger sent him to cover local politics in the East-Cape, which was a job usually reserved for more senior members. While previously ten reporters were enough to cover parliamentary politics in the centralised location of Cape Town, the news agencies now had to broaden the scope of reporters to cover the nine new legislators in each new province. With more younger generations of reporters included, this broadened the number of voices that covered politics in the Naspers group. This might indicate some of the reasons why later junior journalists such as Adri Kotze,[42] Nick Bezuidenhout,[43] and Cobus Heyl[44]—who started in 1990, 1992, and 1993 respectively—did not mention having the experience of higher officials in the news organisation putting pressure on them to write a story a certain way. This is different from the experience of Van Niekerk who started in journalism before the democratic transition and experienced self-censorship from his bosses.[45] This could indicate that newer management started a cultural shift in Naspers that lowered the previous degree of self-censorship that was present in the media.
Responses to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
However, opinions on the democratic transition were varying and complex, and not all positive. One important event highlighting different responses to the democratic transition is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) from 1997 that investigated the role of journalism in the Apartheid.[46] Naspers officially decided not to participate in the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and instead only submitted a copy of its official history, “Oor Grense Heen” (“Across Borders”).[47] Arrie Rossouw recounts the reasoning from the senior members that Naspers did not have anything to confess to the commission, as they were not involved in upholding Apartheid.[48] Despite this, Rossouw and other Afrikaner journalists from Beeld, the Burger and Rapport independently made and signed a statement to the Commission acknowledging the role of Naspers in upholding the Apartheid state.[49] There were also further splits in opinion on the commission itself between Beeld and Burger, and among senior and junior journalists. Van Niekerk and Kotze recalls that the Burger saw the purpose of the commission as finding guilt rather than looking for reconciliation,[50] [51]calling it the “Bieg” (“Confession”) commission. Beeld was generally more open-minded in its approach to the TRC, if not as liberal as the alternative news outlets. In addition, Van Niekerk also mentions possible generational differences in the two news outlets. Beeld and the Burger sent their own journalists to cover the commission, distrusting the other newspapers’ coverage as excessively or not critical enough. However, junior journalists who did the coverage managed to find common ground and work together. This indicates perhaps the complexity of the divides within the media landscape on democratisation and the role of media during the Apartheid. It brings up questions of how much and in what way was the media involved in supporting the structures of Apartheid, a topic which would require further investigation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I find that the South African state´s implementation of censorship in 1985 largely restricted the information flow for all journalists but with varying responses from larger and smaller news outlets. While alternative news was active in its investigation and criticism of the government, it faced more severe pressure and backlash, and often closed due to court or police action. Larger news outlets in turn instituted more self-censorship, adhering to the restricted information available and enforced by the senior officials. Sometimes adherence and building of relationships within the government allowed for access to contacts and deep background one could not otherwise get, but it also carried the danger that news outlets allowed more government influence on narratives and the information that was available to the public.
With the lifting of censorship laws in 1990 and the subsequent elections in 1994, media freedoms started to be more protected, combined with the decentralisation and larger autonomy of journalists to critically write on topics, as previous deep background contacts either lost positions of power, or the information could in general be shared more freely. However, the media landscape was complex in its reactions to democratisation. While over time the press has grown to have a more positive and critical relation with the government, the transition to a new democratic South Africa had different responses to it, which were not necessarily all positive. This raises the questions of the role of media in democracy, and the degree to which media must be critical and independent of the government. The current government is undisputedly a big improvement from previous institutions under Apartheid, but also presents a potential dilemma by asking in which way can journalists be critical but also supportive of democratic change without undermining it. This issue presents additional challenges that could be explored in further research on media in periods of transition.
References
Bezuidenhout, Nick. History Dialogues Project Interview: Nick Bezuidenhout. Interview by Johard Heyl. Transcript, 23 May 2023.
Giliomee, Hermann. Die Afrikaners: ’n biografie. Eerste uitgave, Vyfde druk. Kaapstad: Tafelberg, 2012.
Graybill, Lyn. ‘Lingering Legacy: Apartheid and the South African Press’. Current History 99, no. 637 (2000): 227–30.
Harber, Anton. ‘Reflections on Journalism in the Transition to Democracy’. Ethics & International Affairs 18, no. 3 (December 2004): 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00478.x.
Heyl, Cobus. History Dialogues Project Interview: Cobus Heyl. Interview by Johard Heyl. Transcript, 15 May 2023.
Kotze, Adri. History Dialogues Project Interview: Adri Kotze. Interview by Johard Heyl. Transcript, 29 May 2023.
Lee, William E. ´Deep Background´. Interview by Sherrie Whaley, 29 April 2009. https://news.uga.edu/grady-professor-explains-relationship-between-journalists-unnamed-sour/.
Mail and Guardian Online reporter. ‘1985: The Year It All Started’, 13 August 2020. https://mg.co.za/from-the-archives/2020-08-13-1985-the-year-it-all-started/.
Martin, Karen. ‘Chronology of Some Pointers to the History of the Media in South Africa’. Omalley.nelsonmandela.org, May 1997. https://omalley.nelsonmandela.org/index.php/site/q/03lv02167/04lv02264/05lv02303/06lv02329/07lv02330.htm.
Pain, Paromita, and Ezequiel Korin. ‘“Everything Is Dimming out, Little by Little:” Examining Self-Censorship among Venezuelan Journalists’. Communication Research and Practice 7, no. 1 (2 January 2021): 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2020.1824435.
Rossouw, Arrie. History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw. Interview by Johard Heyl. Transcript, 22 May 2023.
‘South Africa’s Censorship Laws’. Index on Censorship 4, no. 2 (June 1975): 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03064227508532421.
South African Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. ‘South African Constitution: Chapter 2 Bill of Rights’. justice.gov.za, n.d. https://www.justice.gov.za/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng-02.pdf.
South African History Online. ‘General Lothar Neethling Sues Vrye Weekblad and the Weekly Mail’. sahistory.org.za, 16 March 2011. https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/general-lothar-neethling-sues-vrye-weekblad-and-weekly-mail.
South African History Online. ‘Afrikaner Newspapers and the Newspaper Industry from 1830’. sahistory.org.za, 16 July 2018. https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/afrikaner-newspapers-and-newspaper-industry-1830.
Trabold, Bryan. ‘“Hiding Our Snickers”: “Weekly Mail” Journalists’ Indirect Resistance in Apartheid South Africa’. College English 68, no. 4 (1 March 2006): 382. https://doi.org/10.2307/25472160.
Van Niekerk, Piet. History Dialogues Project Interview: Piet van Niekerk. Interview by Johard Heyl. Transcript, 22 May 2023.
Wikipedia. ‘Rapport (Newspaper)’, 14 January 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapport_(newspaper).
Wikipedia. ‘African National Congress’, 10 July 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress.
Footnotes
[1] Naspers, “national press”, was established in 1915 in Cape Town by supporters of the National Party under the leadership of J.H.H. de Waal with their first publication de Burger, later die Burger. They became one of the largest Afrikaans publication groups in South Africa, later releasing the Sunday Newspaper in 1965, which developed into the more liberal newspaper Beeld, as a way to attract the more urban readership in the north of South Africa. (South African History Online. ‘Afrikaner Newspapers and the Newspaper Industry from 1830’. sahistory.org.za, 16 March 2011. https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/afrikaner-newspapers-and-newspaper-industry-1830.)
[2] Although a public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) was accused of serving as a government mouthpiece. This was a conclusion in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings in September 1997 with a report issued in 1998 on the role of the media in Apartheid in possible human rights violations. The report stated that the SABC´s reporting was biased towards the ruling party. For example, SABC never reported on the police brutality against black South Africans and only showed the security forces in a positive light. (Lyn Graybill, ‘Lingering Legacy: Apartheid and the South African Press’, Current History 99, no. 637 (2000): 227.)
[3] A differentiation between Afrikaans newspapers and English newspapers is that Afrikaans newspapers generally tended to be more supportive of the Apartheid government, especially in the early years of their establishment in being pro-Afrikaans.
[4] Anton Harber, ‘Reflections on Journalism in the Transition to Democracy’, Ethics & International Affairs 18, no. 3 (December 2004): 86, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00478.x.
[5] Hermann Giliomee, Die Afrikaners: ’n biografie, Eerste uitgave, vyfde druk (Kaapstad: Tafelberg, 2012), 568.
[6] Giliomee, Die Afrikaners: ’n biografie, 570.
[7] Karen Martin, ‘Chronology of Some Pointers to the History of the Media in South Africa’, Omalley.nelsonmandela.org, May 1997, https://omalley.nelsonmandela.org/index.php/site/q/03lv02167/04lv02264/05lv02303/06lv02329/07lv02330.htm.
[8] Bryan Trabold, ‘“Hiding Our Snickers”: “Weekly Mail” Journalists’ Indirect Resistance in Apartheid South Africa’, College English 68, no. 4 (1 March 2006): 386, https://doi.org/10.2307/25472160.
[9] Trabold, ‘Hiding Our Snickers’, 387.
[10] Trabold, ‘Hiding Our Snickers’, 384.
[11] An anti-Apartheid alternative news outlet that was opened by journalists after two prominent liberal newspapers the Rand Daily Mail and Sunday Express closed. (Mail and Guardian Online reporter, ‘1985: The Year It All Started’, 13 August 2020, https://mg.co.za/from-the-archives/2020-08-13-1985-the-year-it-all-started/.)
[12] Trabold, ‘Hiding Our Snickers’, 388.
[13] During the Truth and Reconciliation hearings large Afrikaans media corporations such as Naspers were summarised by reporters from English language newspapers as being largely complicit with government actions and propounding their policies. Larger English newspapers, however, were also accused during the Truth and Reconciliation meetings of relenting too easily to the restrictions of the government for reporting and not testing the boundaries enough. (Graybill, Lyn. ‘Lingering Legacy: Apartheid and the South African Press’. Current History 99, no. 637 (2000): 228–229.)
[14] South African History Online, ‘General Lothar Neethling Sues Vrye Weekblad and the Weekly Mail’, sahistory.org.za, 16 March 2011, https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/general-lothar-neethling-sues-vrye-weekblad-and-weekly-mail.
[15] ‘South Africa’s Censorship Laws’, Index on Censorship 4, no. 2 (June 1975): 38–40, https://doi.org/10.1080/03064227508532421.
[16] Anton Harber, ‘Reflections on Journalism in the Transition to Democracy’, Ethics & International Affairs 18, no. 3 (December 2004): 79–87, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00478.x.
[17] Adri Kotze, History Dialogues Project Interview: Adri Kotze, interview by Johard Heyl, Transcript, 29 May 2023.
[18] Townships were black residential districts, racially segregated areas typically on the periphery of urban centres after the institution of Apartheid in 1948.
[19] Arrie Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw, interview by Johard Heyl, Transcript, 22 May 2023.
[20] Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw.
[21] The African National Congress was established in 1912 as the South African Native National Congress, to agitate for the rights of black South Africans. After being banned in 1960 by the Apartheid government, its members headquartered in Lusaka, Zambia and dedicated themselves to a campaign of sabotage and guerilla warfare. The ANC also created a partnership with the South African Communist Party in 1961. (‘African National Congress’, Wikipedia, 10 July 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress.)
[22] Kotze, History Dialogues Project Interview: Adri Kotze.
[23] Nick Bezuidenhout, History Dialogues Project Interview: Nick Bezuidenhout, interview by Johard Heyl, Transcript, 23 May 2023.
[24] William E. Lee, ´Deep Background´, interview by Sherrie Whaley, 29 April 2009, https://news.uga.edu/grady-professor-explains-relationship-between-journalists-unnamed-sour/.
[25] Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw.
[26] Lee, ´Deep Background´.
[27] Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw.
[28] Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw.
[29] Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw.
[30] Piet Van Niekerk, History Dialogues Project Interview: Piet van Niekerk, interview by Johard Heyl, Transcript, 22 May 2023.
[31] Van Niekerk, History Dialogues Project Interview: Piet van Niekerk.
[32] Kotze, History Dialogues Project Interview: Adri Kotze.
[33] Following years of protest from ANC and other anti-Apartheid movements (domestic pressure), economic sanctions from the international community (economic pressure), and the collapse of the communist bloc in 1989 that undermined the Apartheid narrative of protecting the country from communism, the National Party government under F.W. de Klerk was forced to start negotiations towards a democratic transition, by unbanning the ANC and freeing Nelson Mandela.
[34] Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw.
[35] The ANC headquarters was stationed in Lusaka, following their ban and exile from South Africa after the Sharpeville massacre in March 1960.
[36] Kotze, History Dialogues Project Interview: Adri Kotze.
[37] Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Rossouw.
[38] Bezuidenhout, History Dialogues Project Interview: Nick Bezuidenhout.
[39] Bezuidenhout, History Dialogues Project Interview: Nick Bezuidenhout.
[40] South African Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, ‘South African Constitution: Chapter 2 Bill of Rights’, justice.gov.za, n.d., https://www.justice.gov.za/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng-02.pdf.
[41] Van Niekerk, History Dialogues Project Interview: Piet van Niekerk.
[42] Kotze, History Dialogues Project Interview: Adri Kotze.
[43] Bezuidenhout, History Dialogues Project Interview: Nick Bezuidenhout.
[44] Heyl, Cobus. History Dialogues Project Interview: Cobus Heyl. Interview by Johard Heyl. Transcript, 15 May 2023.
[45] Van Niekerk, History Dialogues Project Interview: Piet van Niekerk.
[46] Graybill, Lyn. ‘Lingering Legacy: Apartheid and the South African Press’. Current History 99, no. 637 (2000): 227–30.
[47] Graybill, Lyn. ‘Lingering Legacy: Apartheid and the South African Press’. Current History 99, no. 637 (2000): 227–30.
[48] Rossouw, History Dialogues Project Interview: Arrie Roussouw.
[49] Rapport was another Sunday Newspaper in Naspers, established in 1970 with the merging of Beeld and Dagbreek, before Beeld was re-established as a daily newspaper in 1974. (Wikipedia. ‘Rapport (Newspaper)’, 14 January 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapport_(newspaper).)
[50] Van Niekerk, History Dialogues Project Interview: Piet van Niekerk.
[51] Kotze, History Dialogues Project Interview: Adri Kotze.
