previous page

Inhoud -SJI 1998- Index

next page


First draft of history

John Yeld on the media and the TRC

by Marnus Hattingh

John Yeld is the Cape Argus's environmental reporter. For two and a half years he reported on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

What was for you the most significant moment of the hearings?

The first set of hearings in East London was very dramatic. The people were very nervous, there was this huge security, no one knew what to expect. That morning there were a couple of bomb threats and everybody had to get out. Then this old guy, an old campaigner in a wheelchair, came in. He just started crying about how he was injured by the police. Alex Boraine said to him, "Would you tell us what happened to you?" And there was this row of old widows sitting there with their heads down, and one lifted her head up and wailed - real loud - and the people were petrified at the real level of pain.

Were you ever instructed to report in a certain way?

No, I had perfect carte blanche. They would make suggestions sometimes for an overview, but I never had any instructions to cover certain things.

Was there ever a time that you had to ask your editor to remove you from the TRC beat, a time when you felt you had had enough?

No, unlike the radio journalists who covered it full-time, there was only one other print journalist I know of who really covered it full-time. I always had a little bit of environmental reporting I could fall back on. For me this was a wonderful antidote - I would come back and write something. At the time I was very conscious of that.

How did the other journalists cope with the drawn-out process of the TRC hearings?

Some of the radio journalists did have breakdowns. Antjie Krog admits she had a breakdown. I can see why the radio journalists were most affected, because they had to sit there the whole day, listening, and then they had to put their programmes together. Then, while you are actually busy putting your programme together, you had to watch it again and again. We only had our notes to look at when we wrote our stories.

All in all, were the hearings worthwhile?

Absolutely. There is no question in my mind whatsoever. But there is still a long way to go: an enormous amount has to come out. Some of the events were really surprising - shocking to people. But even with what we've learned so far - in my mind - there is absolutely no question that we needed to do it.

Do you think other journalists share your sentiments?

I haven't spoken directly with them, but I think they would tend to agree with me. The reactions are coming in the editorials, not from the people who are covering it themselves.

Did you ever think "this guy must be lying, yet here he sits asking for amnesty"?

Yes, sometimes you could see a person was lying, but as a journalist you couldn't say it, because it would have been a breach of the Commission Act.

Did you feel the need to change your style of reporting for your work on the TRC?

No. Some of my colleagues from other papers covered the treatment. I always reported what came naturally to me, in a fairly straightforward way. Some of the others had felt that it needed a more personal approach, that you need to put in your own emotional feelings and responses to it. So I think I did both. During the actual hearings I reported it straight, especially when the victims testified.


previous page

[ Tuisblad ] [ Publikasies ] [ Inhoud / Index ] [ Publications ] [ Home Page ]

next page