Publication: Business Day
Issued:
Date: 2006-11-15
Reporter: The Editor
Reporter:
As
one of the many newspapers which have assumed for more than a year that Judge
Hilary Squires did indeed say, in his 2005 judgment in the Schabir Shaik fraud
and corruption trial, that the relationship between Shaik and then deputy
president Jacob Zuma was “generally corrupt” we owe Squires and our readers an
apology.
These apologies we make without reservation. We should have known he never said any such thing.
It
is incredible that the entire body politic in SA swallowed the myth that Squires
had indeed uttered those words. The lesson to journalists is abundantly
clear.
It may not yet be abundantly clear to the Congress of South
African Trade Unions (Cosatu), which ferociously criticised Squires and his
judgment on the assumption that he had found Zuma was party to a corrupt
relationship.
Cosatu apologised to Squires this week, but blamed the
media for publishing “false reports” for their error. It did
not, like many others will not, take responsibility for its own
errors.
Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi is fond of
reminding radio interviewers and the like, when questioned about reports
concerning Cosatu, that “you should not believe what you read in the
newspapers”. In the matter of the Squires quote, he strangely chose to ignore
his own advice. Why? Probably because he wanted to believe what he was reading.
That will most likely be true of everyone who has repeated the phrase since it
was first and incorrectly attributed to Squires. The power of suggestion has
hypnotised a nation.
Supporters of Zuma, perhaps especially Cosatu and
the Communist Party, might reasonably ask themselves why they did not pour over
the Squires’ judgment. Did they never look for weaknesses in it?
As the
letters columns on this page will show, the media has a lot to answer for, but
we can at least answer the questions the Watergate scandal cast at then
President Richard Nixon: what did he know and when did he know it?
All newspapers make mistakes all the time. What matters is
how quickly they correct when they become aware of them. Despite Judge Squires’
contention in a letter to a member of our staff, we have no record of being
advised by the judge earlier this year of the error we were repeating by using
the phrase.
This editor first discovered the existence of Squires’
(latest) letter last Friday afternoon and it was reported in our weekend
edition, The Weekender, the very next day. With acknowledgements to Business Day.