Image created by AI
In a testament to the resilience of ethical journalism, the Press Council of South Africa has remained resolute amid contentious allegations from Independent Media. This comes in the wake of a defamation case involving reporter Karyn Maughan. Both News24 and Maughan filed a complaint against the Sunday Independent following a controversial article likening Maughan to Leni Riefenstahl, a Nazi propagandist. The piece in dispute was also circulated by Independent Online (IOL) and associated Independent Media titles.
The virtual hearing of the case, led by deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger, underscored the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the Press Code's standards. It was decided unanimously that the Sunday Independent, along with online entities that disseminated the contentious article, transgressed crucial clauses related to protected comment and journalistic integrity.
It is unfortunate that Independent Media has responded to recent findings against them by attacking the Press Council’s integrity. Read the background and the facts.. https://t.co/cTbA1iPhYr
— Press Council SA (@PressCouncil_SA) October 23, 2024
Journalistic ethics, particularly the Press Code's Section 7.2, safeguards the essence of free commentary. Still, it has boundaries – commentary cannot devolve into baseless vitriol. Meanwhile, Clause 3.3 prioritizes the privacy, dignity, and reputation of individuals. These safeguards ensure that the media's independence and objectivity remain intact, which Independent Media was found to have compromised.
Consequently, a retraction and an apology to Maughan were mandated. Further, considering the severe reputational damage incurred, an order to delete the contentious article online was issued. This decisive action is indicative of the gravity ascribed to responsible reporting and the preservation of an unbiased public record.
Independent Media's subsequent request to appeal was futile, as Judge Bernard Ngoepe of the Appeals Panel adjudged there to be "no reasonable prospect of success," given the seriousness of the assault on Maughan's character. Nonetheless, Independent Media leveled accusations of bias and lack of integrity at the Press Council, which the latter refuted by stressing its adherence to the Press Code and the transparency of its processes. Notably, all hearings are open to the public, save for sensitive cases involving minors or survivors of sexual violence.
Criticsm arose over the involvement of Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) as an amicus curiae in the proceedings, which Sunday Independent deemed an undue exertion of influence in the complaints process. Nevertheless, the council provided Independent Media with ample opportunity to respond to MMA's involvement.
This case isn't the Press Council's first altercation with Independent Media. A similar incident occurred in 2016 involving journalist Gill Moodie, leading to a directive for Independent Media to apologize for impugning journalists’ integrity— a directive that went unfulfilled when Independent Media rejoined the Council in 2017. The time-lapse and lapse in membership were citied by Judge Ngoepe as reasons for upholding the original sanction, adhering to standards and reputability in media adjudication.
The Press Council's unwavering commitment to fostering a media landscape defined by integrity, independent reporting, and respect for individuals' reputations has been vividly illustrated amid challenges. This commitment underscores the role of press councils in upholding the foundational tenets of free and ethical journalism.