In a career in South African journalism spanning some 60 years I can safely say that I have never encountered a journalist who impressed me less than John Matisonn.

As News Editor of the Sunday Times under the late and great, Joel Mervis, it was my misfortune to inherit Matisonn. Not knowing what to do with him, I eventually gave him Pretoria as his bailiwick, in the futile hope that, in the heart of the Nationalist government, he might come up with useful material.

Now, in an organ of what is laughingly known as Independent Newspapers, he seeks to promote his book, God, Spies and Lies, by defiling the memory of the late editor of the Sunday Times, Tertius Myburgh, who has, conveniently for Matisonn, been dead for 25 years (see here).

When Myburgh, who had been a Nieman Fellow at Harvard, became editor of the Sunday Times in 1975 I was its news editor, having been appointed to that job by Mervis. Previously Myburgh had been editor of the Pretoria News which he had transformed from a sleepy provincial paper into a lively and informative purveyor of news and comment.

Under him the newspaper’s circulation rose as did its profits. Thus he was a natural cotender for the top job in SA newspapers, editor of the Sunday Times which he was offered and accepted.

I was then the news editor. I have no recollection whatsoever of Myburgh instructing me, the news editor, to pursue or not to pursue a story on political grounds. Not once did he ever suggest to me anything which would assist the Nationalist Party government.

Nor did he ever suggest that we should pursue a subject with the view to damaging the ANC. He knew that journalists whose lives had been spent digging up the dirt on the Nats would not accept instructions to be kind to them or to be unkind to the opposition or the ANC. 

It was, of course, common knowledge that Myburgh was an enthusiastic networker, dashing over to Pretoria to lunch with an ambassador, back to the office then back to Pretoria in the evening for dinner with a minister.

Perhaps he was too cosy with Nat politicians but he was equally so with what was then the Progressive Party which the Sunday Times supported at election time. He socialised frequently with Helen Suzman and other opposition leaders.

He was first and foremost a journalist and journalists must explore all aspects of whatever they are reporting on. He had been a journalist all his life, restlessly pursuing the news, phoning politicians on all sides, seeking different opinions and trying always to be as factual and as correct as possible. 

Had he not been an able journalist he would not have risen to the chair of editor at leading newspapers and stayed there.

It must not be forgotten that Myburgh was a born and bred Afrikaner, proud of his roots and his culture. He thus had a natural affinity for men such as FW de Klerk and enjoyed their company. But to suggest that he was some sort of willing tool, or a spy or informer for the Nats and their racist policies defies reason.

It would be fascinating to see what evidence Matisonn has that Myburgh, as he puts it, “blocked publication of reports about calls for the release of Nelson Mandela, unrest in the country, and meetings of the internal and external opposition.”

Give me a break. Matisonn is clearly ignorant about the inner workings newspapers. To achieve what Matisonn accuses him of Myburgh would need to have issued clear verbal and, more than likely written, instructions to journalists. Clearly, Matisonn does not grasp that no editor of a South African newspaper employing journalists opposed all their lives to the National Party’s rule could impose such restrictions on his staff.

Matisonn obviously cannot appreciate that no editor is all-powerful and that editorial staff are not generally disposed to slavish obedience. There is no way such an approach could have been kept secret.

In his delirious ranting Matisonn accuses Myburgh of rigging a sophisticated computer system so that he could delete four files of Broederbond members’ names. Again, give me a break. Myburgh was technically clueless. He would not have known where to begin with a computer. He could type rapidly but that was about all.

Matisonn stoops so low as to cite the late and egregious Eschel Rhoodie as the source for the view that Myburgh was the states’ “mole in the English press.” Mole? Just what could this mole tell the state that it didn’t already know? Or is Matisonn suggesting that Myburgh took his instructions from Pretoria as to what should be the lead article in the Sunday Times?

It all beggars imagination.

Myburgh moved me to edit Business Times, which I had started in 1966. Then I was appointed editor of the Financial Mail and later editor-in-chief of the FM and Business Day before becoming Chief Executive Officer of the SAAN group (which I renamed Times Media) in 1986 in which position Myburgh reported to me.

Thus I worked under Myburgh and he worked under me for many years. Yes, he did cultivate politicians on all sides because politics and news were his passion. All journalists cultivate their sources.

But for a rundown hack such as Matisonn to call him “a traitor to his staff, profession and readers” is disgusting and to do so on the basis of rumours and alleged remarks by low-lifes such as Rhoodie and the despicable John Horak is not only immoral, it is amoral.