Johannesburg — A FEW weeks ago, newly elected African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma, in his second online letter to the party faithful, launched a scathing attack on the media. We all know, of course, that he is involved in a number of lawsuits against publications and individuals for defamation.

Zuma criticised the media for being minority voices out of tune with the majority in the country, and mention was made of a media tribunal that would be answerable to Parliament. This was shortly before he began his international charm offensive with a visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he sought to reassure the world that he was not the demon the media mistakenly thought he was.

But then, last Friday, he said he saw nothing wrong with white journalists being excluded from a meeting he held with the Forum of Black Journalists. He justified this on the grounds that all South Africans come from different backgrounds and this gives them experiences they might want to share. Also, when asked if he thought it was constitutional to exclude some from such a meeting on the basis of race, Zuma equivocated, suggesting the forum should answer the question.

Any of the victims of the charm offensive who might have been persuaded might now again start having doubts.

Again, not so long ago, Zuma's advisers persuaded him not to go to a banquet with former world champion boxer and convicted rapist Mike Tyson. They were quite correct, given that last year it was Zuma himself in the dock on rape charges. What a pity they were not so astute last Friday -- simply because expressing happiness with a racially exclusive gathering again raises uncomfortable questions that are not helpful to a country that is trying to recover its credibility after the disastrous electricity blackouts.

The interim chairman of the forum, Abbey Makoe, was quoted as telling his enraged white colleagues that they "just do not get it". He's right, I don't get it.

A simple Google search shows that in the US there is a National Association of Black Journalists. It also reveals that many of the states in the US have similar forums. Indeed, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton addressed them last year. The question to be answered, though, is whether journalists were denied access to the occasion on the basis of race? I would hope not.

While racially exclusive organisations do leave a bad taste in the mouth some 14 years into our democracy, there does not seem to be anything wrong with them.

But as so many exclusive organisations do when a prominent person, such as the heir-apparent to the presidency, addresses them, the media is allowed in only for the duration of the speech and then it is business as usual.

The way in which the Forum of Black Journalists and Zuma went about their business last Friday causes one to wonder just what it was they were going to talk about. Given the way in which the ANC is now investigating itself -- both the arms deal and deals done through its investment arm Chancellor House -- apparently to dig up dirt against the Mbeki camp, the only surprising thing is that this was not the criterion for exclusion.

Now the Human Rights Commission is going to get in on the act after a complaint was lodged with it. This is also unfortunate, because it will further polarise the fourth estate. It will, of course, also be fascinating -- can it be constitutional for a racially exclusive association to exist and at the same time unconstitutional to exclude people on the basis of race?

Someone needs to explain this to Carel Boshoff and his community in Orania.

The real tragedy is the appalling judgment shown by both Zuma and the forum -- Zuma for his apparent contempt for press freedom, and the forum for dividing the fourth estate at a time when, as never before, we need to stand together.

Hartley is parliamentary editor.