Oral submission to the Press Freedom Commission
Below is a copy of my submission on February 1 to the Press Freedom Commission hearings
I do not purport to be an expert on the topic – my submission is based entirely on my personal experience with the print media. My opinion derives from what I consider to be unmitigated abuse of the power of the pen by those who have access to this power. While I have used the City Press newspaper to illustrate my point, my bad experience also came from The Star, Sowetan, Beeld, Citizen and SAPA.
At the outset, it is important for me to place on record that I hold a view that press freedom is integral to democracy. There can be no guarantee for democratic governance without robust and free media. Free media is the ultimate test of true democracy.
Having said that, I also hold a view that there is a problem with the press in South Africa, and there is a problem with print media in particular.
Based on my personal experience, I have narrowed the problem down to three basic issues:
- Too much reliance on anonymous sources;
- Speculation that masquerades as journalism; and
- A lack of accountability.
In dealing with these matters, I do hope the Press Freedom Commission will introduce the following remedies:
- The Press Council establishing and publishing a list (register) of persons accredited to practice as journalists;
- Limiting the number of anonymous sources in reporting;
- Insisting on the verification of facts; and
- Ensuring that there are consequences for biased, misleading and inaccurate reporting. Such consequences to be much more than a meaningless apology, rather to draw lessons from other professions such as the attorneys who can be deregistered by the Law Society and say, engineers who can also be deregistered by the Engineering Council.
The issue here for me is not whether this is regulation by peers or by the state, the issue is that there has to be consequences, or else the impunity with which journalists operate will continue unabated. Repeat offenders have to face consequences, such as being deregistered from the published list of accredited journalists.
BACKGROUND
In the period between October and December 2008, I lodged two complaints against City Press with the Press Ombudsman for publishing inaccurate, false and misleading articles against the Gauteng Department of Public Transport, Roads and Works (“the Department”) in the preceding six weeks. I was at the time the Head of the Department and its Accounting Officer.
In my written submission to the Press Freedom Commission (which I posted on my blog, www.thesbu.com), I provided a sequential account of events in an attempt to provide the Press Freedom Commission ("the Commission") with a thorough contextual background that I hope will elucidate the gravamen of my complaints against City Press. The questions and the responses thereto were restated as framed originally and there was no attempt to revise.
The submission was bifurcated into four parts:
- Questions from City Press;
- My response;
- Articles published (where applicable); and
- My commentary on the articles published.
The relevance of this to the work of the commission is that I lodged, not one, but two complaints with the Press Ombudsman (see complaint one and complaint two).
To say that the Press Ombudsman was ineffective would be an understatement – the only communication I received from the Press Ombudsman was the acknowledgement of receipt of the complaints. After a year had lapsed, through my attorney, a telephonic enquiry was made to establish what had happened to my complaints. A response from the office of the Press Ombudsman was that I should drop the matter and forget about the whole thing because I was no longer in the employ of the department.
The essence of my first complaint to the Press Ombudsman was essentially that:
- On 15 August 2008 I received a list of questions from City Press regarding the construction of Jabulani Hospital in Soweto;
- I answered the questions fully, including furnishing the correct figures regarding the cost of the project;
- Despite these answers, City Press continued to publish inaccurate information, including an incorrect figure of the total cost of the project;
- In its inaccurate reporting, City Press reflected that the Department had mismanaged the project or had spent more money than it ought to have spent;
- This publishing disregarded the information I had given to City Press; and
- I therefore submitted to the Press Ombudsman that City Press had breached section 1.1 of the South African Press Code, which enjoins the press to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.
The essence of my second complaint to the Press Ombudsman was essentially that:
- City Press inaccurately reported the issues by fabricating and misrepresenting the facts with regards to the email I had sent to the then MEC Ignatius Jacobs (details on my blog). City Press alleged that the then Premier Mbhazima Shilowa had made a finding about my conduct when no such finding was in fact made.
- The article in the City Press created a further false impression that the Premier had instructed Mr Peter Harris to investigate the matter relating to the Jabulani Hospital in Soweto when no such instruction was issued by the Premier;
- This publishing was done without seeking a proper and correct understanding of the relevant facts and was accordingly short of the basic standard of reporting; and
- I again submitted that City Press had breached section 1.1 of the South African Press Code, which enjoins the press to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.
The Press Ombudsman either failed to attend to my complaint or, alternatively, refused to attend to my complaint.
Even today, more than three years later, MY TWO COMPLAINTS HAVE STILL NOT BEEN ATTENDED TO. If they have been attended to, this has not been communicated to me.
To rub salt into the proverbial wound, the South African Press Council, or some other such body, awarded the Anton Harber Best Investigative Journalist accolades to the two journalists who were responsible for this untruthful, inaccurate and unfair reporting.
It is submitted that the wilful publishing of these stories by City Press was a violation of basic journalistic standards and accordingly unethical.
I further submit that the failure or refusal by the Press Ombudsman to attend to my two complaints is a clear demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the current so-called "self-regulation".
Whilst I support and respect the freedom of the press, I nevertheless believe that the media cannot and should not be allowed to publish unbridled falsehoods with impunity.
The Press Ombudsman cannot and should not be allowed to simply ignore or refuse to attend to complaints such as mine.
The media fraternity, through their organised formations, cannot and should not be allowed to hand out accolades to unethical journalists.
The stories published by City Press in 2008 have sought to portray me as a corrupt leader, and City Press should be ashamed that it has abused its purported powers and has stooped so low in publishing staggering falsehoods.
It is in this regard that I am appealing to the Press Freedom Commission to introduce the certain remedies, namely:
- The Press Council establishing and publishing a list (register) of persons accredited to practice as journalists;
- Limiting the number of anonymous sources in reporting;
- Insisting on the verification of facts; and
- Ensuring that there are consequences for biased, misleading and inaccurate reporting. Such consequences to be much more than a meaningless apology, rather to draw lessons from other professions such as the attorneys who can be deregistered by the Law Society and say, engineers who can also be deregistered by the Engineering Council.
The issue here for me is not whether this is regulation by peers or by the state. The issue is that there has to be consequences, or else the impunity with which journalists operate will continue unabated.
Repeat offenders have to face consequences such as being deregistered from the published list of accredited journalists.
It is a sad day for journalism when newspapers of City Press’s pedigree consistently violate the Press Code with impunity.
Such nefarious activities and practices by a newspaper of City Press’s calibre undermine efforts to build a society based on respect for truth and justice for all, the very fibre of our democratic ethos and political bloodstream.
What a crying shame!!!