Our heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of veteran journalists – photojournalist, Willie de Klerk and news journalist, Farook Khan.
*****
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) mourns the death of two veteran journalists – photojournalist, Willie de Klerk and news journalist, Farook Khan.
De Klerk died last Sunday aged 81. He was an “old-school” photojournalist, the first full-time black photographer to be employed by the Argus newspaper, then the largest publication in Cape Town, during the apartheid era.
In the trenches during the 1970s and 1980s, he was a mentor to many emerging photographers through the decades. On the Cape Flats, De Klerk recorded the daily battles that unfolded “between the youth – armed only with stones – and the might of the apartheid state”, as noted by a former Argus colleague Dennis Cruywagen in a tribute this week. De Klerk documented the October 1985 Trojan Horse massacre where he took photos of police hiding in wooden crates and then filmed them jumping out, opening fire and killing three protesters. He documented the destruction of District 6, a necklacing in the Eastern Cape and the police shooting of a schoolboy, Christopher Truter in Bonteheuwel in the unrest in 1976.
De Klerk’s multiple awards include runner-up in the South African Press photographer of the year in 1985, 1986 and 1987 and the Dutch Stichting World Press Association awards for sport, news and people pictures. His peers such as the late Alf Kumalo and Peter Magubane would attest to the fact that he was one of South Africa’s most outstanding and accomplished photojournalists of the apartheid era, wrote Cruywagen.
De Klerk’s funeral service will be held on Saturday at 9 am at Saint Margaret Anglican Church, 71 Hopkins Street, Parow.
Farook Khan was a veteran news journalist. He died at 75 while being treated for colon cancer. Khan worked for the Post Newspapers, Drum Magazine, the Daily News, the Sunday Tribune, Star and Pretoria News, amongst several publications. He captured the lifestyle of the Grey Street Casbah in a book he wrote titled the “Goodwill Lounge”. He captured the protests and campaigns against the Villa Road evictions in Sydenham.
“Farook was a colourful, lovable character. His lists of contacts included international figures in sport and entertainment as well as ordinary folks from every walk of life”, said former editor at Independent Newspaper Deon Delport. “He broke a host of stories through his hard work, tenacity and charm and many young journalists were taken under his wing.”
SANEF sends condolences to the families and friends of both journalists. They will be missed.
For more information please contact:
Mahlatse Mahlase – SANEF Chairperson 083 399-2852
Judy Sandison – SANEF Media Freedom Committee 082 571-3334
Kate Skinner – SANEF Executive Director 082 926 6404
Judge Raymond Zondo head of the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) has noted on 1st October 2019 the testimony of Colonel Kobus Roelofse at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture and the further allegations from whistleblower Colonel Naidoo. Naidoo told the Inquiry yesterday that several journalists including senior journalist at Tiso Blackstar, Ranjeni Munusamy received financial benefits from Crime Intelligence.
SANEF notes the problems that have been created by Col Naidoo’s mention of the fact that “journalists have been paid” without mentioning names. We believe that it is essential that the names are revealed and that the journalists implicated are given the space to respond.
We note that the Press Council Code is clear that “paid for” also called “brown envelope journalism” is completely unacceptable.
Section 2 of the Code deals with “Independence and Conflicts of Interest”. The Code states that:
The media shall:
2.1 not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism;
2.2 not accept any benefit which may influence coverage;
2.3 indicate clearly when an outside organization has contributed to the cost of newsgathering; and
2.4 keep editorial material clearly distinct from advertising and sponsored events.
SANEF champions ethical journalism. If anyone has any evidence of unethical journalism – including the very serious breach of accepting funds for journalism – we encourage them to go to the Press Council.
Further, we have launched our own independent Inquiry into Media Credibility and Ethics, chaired by retired Judge Kathleen Satchwell. We encourage any South African with evidence of journalists acting unethically or illegally to approach Judge Satchwell and the authorities, including the Zondo Commission. Please send submissions to – [email protected].
In terms of Munusamy, we again welcome the decision by Tiso Blackstar to grant her special leave. We note Munusamy’s strong denial of any wrongdoing, her detailed affidavit explaining the circumstances of her car repayments and related issues and her promise to cooperate fully with the Zondo Commission. We await the outcome of the Commission’s hearings and Tiso Blackstar’s internal investigation.
For more information please contact:
Mahlatse Mahlase – SANEF Chairperson 083 399-2852
Judy Sandison – SANEF Media Freedom Committee 082 571-3334
Kate Skinner – SANEF Executive Director 082 926 6404
Guests attending the breakfast roundtable discussion on “The combating of harassment and abuse of journalists: Seeking new rules of engagement on September 28, 2019
SANEF held a Breakfast Roundtable on World News Day marked by the World Editors Forum on Saturday, September 28, 2019. The roundtable focused on combating online harassment and abuse of journalists: seeking new rules of engagement.
The guest speaker was Rana Ayyub, internationally acclaimed Indian journalist and writer. Also, in attendance, was Commissioner Lawrence Mute, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa. Journalists and civil society organisations, including the Special Freedom Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, Media Monitoring Africa, the Press Council of SA and the Freedom of Expression Institute, made valuable contributions.
Indian investigative journalist Rana Ayyub’s book has not been published in her country, and yet it has sold over 700,000 copies.
By Glenda Daniels – the article was first published in the Daily Maverick.
Indian investigative journalist Rana Ayyub’s book has not been published in her country yet has sold over 700,000 copies.
This is a testament to how much people want to hear the truth and why independent journalism will always remain relevant. At the weekend, she spoke at an event in Johannesburg on combating online harassment of journalists. It was a pity few politicians pitched.
It would have been beneficial to all had the ANC and the EFF made the effort to attend a roundtable the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) held on Saturday 28 September – World News Day marked by the World Editors Forum.
The date coincided with Unesco’s International Day for Access to Information and celebrated “the work of professional news organisations and the impact they make on the communities they serve”.
In Johannesburg on Saturday, the online harassment of journalists and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on new rules of engagement regarding treatment, safety and protection of journalists were on the table, due to be signed. But this did not happen.
Political parties would have listened to the keynote address of famous Indian investigative journalist Rana Ayyub, who has gone through indescribable suffering.
But only two parties turned up (out of 14 represented in Parliament) – the DA, represented by Refiloe Nt’sekhe and Cope, represented by Dennis Bloem.
A number of journalists and civil society organisations, including the Special Freedom Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, Media Monitoring Africa, the Press Council of SA and the Freedom of Expression Institute, made valuable contributions.
The ANC and EFF would have heard the chilling story of Ayyub, who wrote the best-selling book Gujarat Files: Anatomy of a Cover-Up about the 2002 riots which killed more than 1,000 Muslims, an account which her own news organisation would not publish. Ayyub went undercover for eight months as a Hindu nationalist and detailed the killings of Muslims.
She was considered a “weak child” as she had suffered polio, but chose journalism, which requires a robust constitution, because she was “seeing injustice” and “wanted to give voice to the voiceless”.
Ayyub was trolled online and photoshopped into a porn video that was circulated far and wide-reaching untold numbers of people on Facebook and Twitter, including her father’s phone.
This is some of what she said on Saturday:
“They gloated about the loss of Muslim lives. My news organisation refused to publish due to political pressure. My country has never acknowledged the book. There were fake tweets in my name. I was doxxed (meaning her telephone number was posted online). I was sent rape and death threats. Copies of my book were burnt and sent to my house. After seeing the porn video, I was nauseated and I threw up, I was humiliated. Screenshots were on my timeline and on Facebook. I began to have palpitations and I couldn’t eat.
“I suffered a breakdown after the video. I had to be hospitalised and get psychiatric help. I still suffer from anxiety.
“Twitter said the video did not violate policy. Police officers said, ‘Mam, it didn’t happen to you, it’s online.’ They were laughing. Twitter worked with the police, nothing happened, nobody acted on it. Twitter and Facebook reached out but not because they were concerned but because they had to show they were concerned. Last week our prime minister [Narendra Modi] went to the UN to speak about peace and solidarity and in India, he speaks of hate. He has just received millions from the Melinda Gates Foundation for a ‘clean India’.
“Political parties have a role to play in these rape and death threats. Our prime minister follows these Twitter handles [which are threatening me]. There has to be dialogue. We need to engage with Twitter and Facebook on this matter. We need to sensitise political parties. I feel pessimistic.”
During a break after recounting this trauma, Ayyub disclosed that it didn’t get easier talking about it. But she will have to talk about it at book events planned for her visit to South Africa over the next few days.
Talking at this event brought back all the trauma and emotional violence she had suffered and she had to walk outside to get some air.
Ayyub pointed out that her situation was not isolated. For example, Maria Ressa of the Philippines was threatened with rape and murder, body-shamed and even jailed following publication, in Rappler, of her exposures of the corrupt Filipino president Rodrigo Duterte.
In Mexico, Turkey, Syria, Venezuela, China and the Middle East journalists are “disappearing” – a common euphemism for being kidnapped and tortured. The most famous case was Saudi Arabian Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered.
Ayyub has been given a column at the Washington Post. She started her talk half-jokingly recounting that she was recently told: “Great to see you joined the Washington Post, Jamal Khashoggi was there too.”
In “free” Western democracies, for example, the US and the UK, whistle-blowers are jailed and called “enemies of the people”, a term previously used to describe political enemies.
Also at the Sanef roundtable, former Webber Wentzel, now privately practising, media law expert Okyerebea Ampofo-Anti sketched the legal framework covering journalism internationally and locally, pointing out that according to Unesco, 530 journalists were killed between 2012 and 2016 and women are particularly at risk.
The persecution of journalists is a global problem and these are not isolated cases, said Ampofo-Anti, citing many cases of kidnapping, disappearance, torture and murder.
She stressed that political will and commitment was imperative to stopping violence against journalists, framing the crisis within “patriarchy” and a “backlash” against women. Men don’t like women speaking truth to power, she said. They find it offensive but tend to find their voices anonymously via bots, which are all over Twitter.
Salutary about Ampofo-Anti’s input was evidence that the more this continues the more the truth-respecting public (those outside politics, in other words) will suffer as journalists will self-censor.
“In recent research done in Europe, 15% of journalists said they abandoned the story [after being intimidated], 31% said they toned the story down, 23% said they withheld some information. Not everyone is like Rana,” said Ampofo-Anti. “Journalists were asking: ‘Am I willing to put my children’s lives at risk.’ Silence results.”
The roundtable might have contributed to a better understanding between journalists and the parties who vilify journalists. At the moment, the EFF targets journalists (unless the journalists are waving the EFF flag) who uncover corruption within their party, in the way the ANC of former president Jacob Zuma (and his enablers who made and continue to make excuses for his corruption) do. For them, it’s in the interests of the country if journalists sing praise songs in the way China’s patriotic “journalists” do.
Journalists don’t want or need to be liked. But they demand political leaders take the lead, that threats of violence stop so that they can do their job of informing the public of the truth and holding the powerful to account.
Instead of engaging, the EFF has been attempting to subjugate journalists by “banning” them from their events, though it has no power to ban the reporting of news. Its supporters, also attack journalists on social media, with threats of rape and murder dished out liberally.
Sanef took the EFF to the Equality Court on August 2019 to argue that the party had enabled an environment of intimidation and harassment of journalists. The EFF argued it had no control over its supporters. Judgment has been reserved.
These developments form the backdrop to Saturday’s roundtable and formulation of the draft MOU.
Meanwhile, many in the ANC have one foot in its Stalinist past and one foot in democracy. They do not understand why we need journalists to be independent and hold power to account. Politicians shake their fingers at journalists, like ANC deputy secretary-general Jessie Duarte’s rant to an eNCA journalist: “Who do you think you are? … lord of the media … you just a journalist”. It would be comical if it were not so tragic.
The DA are no angels either, especially considering former leader Helen Zille’s remarks and attacks on journalists on Twitter.
The way forward: Important points from the event
Duarte’s discourse would be in violation of many resolutions and declarations internationally. These range from the UN’s Article 19 on Universal Declaration of Human Rights where “everyone has the right to receive and impart information”, through Unesco’s resolutions on the safety of journalists, to our own Constitution in the Bill of Rights, section 16, which says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression which includes freedom of the press and other media.”
The MOU lists 17 points to cover journalists’ safety. These include no harassment on and offline, no intimidation, no forcing a journalist to reveal their sources, no encouragement of party supporters to accost journalists in their homes and public spaces, and no parties disclosing to supporters or the public, personal information about journalists, such as their contact details.
These were on the table.
The DA raised this: “What about false accusations by the media?”
This was relevant in the light of some journalists having tainted themselves recently. For example, allegations have been made at the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture about corrupt journalists and media companies.
Cope’s Bloem questioned whether there was any point in just two parties signing an MOU. Besides, they would obviously have to get the mandate of their parties before making any agreement.
It was suggested that the MOU on issues of online harassment and safety of journalists be put forward as a motion in Parliament. Bloem felt if the MOU was taken to Parliament, with an ANC majority, it would surely be meddled with or blocked.
The plan now is that the political parties present will be given a month to discuss the MOU.
Regarding “soft law” and international organisations, Lawrence Mute, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa, pointed out that organisations keep framing new resolutions and new working groups, on top of old declarations. Do we need more of this? he asked.
The meeting concluded that big media tech companies, particularly Twitter and Facebook, need to be tackled. They should be made to pay up when their platforms are used to spread the kind of vitriol and misogyny Ayyub experienced – such as fake porn videos.
It was also clear that the media must clean up its act and play fair. Crooks in the craft of journalism (those alleged to be involved with political parties and those constantly making mistakes) and those who do PR for political parties and pose as journalists, should leave the journalism landscape.
If the public can trust journalism more and be supportive of the profession and individuals who serve within it, the Ayubbs of the world and the truth will win.
Disclosures and declarations: Glenda Daniels is an associate professor of media studies at Wits University, a Sanef council member, a press representative on the Press Council, a Sacomm executive member, a feminist and media freedom activist. She writes here in her individual capacity.
As the world recognises and respects the International Day of Universal Access to Information on the 28th of September key media groups are celebrating the day by releasing a report that sets out a seven-point plan that can ensure Internet access for all in South Africa.
Media bodies include the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF), the IABSA (Interactive Advertising Bureau of South Africa) Media Monitoring Africa and the Association for Progressive Communication (APC).“While we have much to celebrate, in terms of our access to information legislation, the digital divide continues to undermine our democracy. It is critical that we have a plan that government, public independent bodies, the private sector, civil society and the public can all get behind and help close the digital divide,” said Chris Borain, IABSA chair. The report that is being launched outlines 7 core elements, founded on a Human Rights approach and has access to the internet for all as its core goal. “All South Africans – and especially those who cannot afford it and other marginalised groups – need a daily first tranche of free internet access to exercise their basic human rights such as access to government services, participating in the digital economy, looking for jobs, online communication and for learners and students to access online educational resources. This is the only way to achieve universal access to information and digital equality for citizens, including the rural poor who have access to mobile phones,” said Koliwe Majama, from APC.
At the 2019 International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) in Pretoria, they expressed the need for a national effort to coordinate existing legislation, policies and initiatives to provide citizens with a basic level of universal free internet access.
The group noted that while the South African government has made domestic and international commitments to take steps towards achieving universal access to online information, these commitments cannot be achieved without providing for a level of free access, in particular for disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would otherwise not be able to enjoy internet access.
The report’s seven-point plan aims to assist the government with proposals to take steps towards progressively realising a basic level of universal free access to online information, both within the government itself and through engagements with private entities and other stakeholders.
The proposed plan endeavours to provide a comprehensive approach to universal and free internet access, from the gradual introduction of free municipal wifi as a basic service and access at other government sites, underpinned by a set of standards for free access, to digital literacy programmes. Full details of these proposals are captured in the report and are summarised here.
The universal internet access proposals are part of a three-pronged approach to achieve the objectives as set out in the Promotion of Access to Information Act (2000), to “actively promote a society in which the people of South Africa have effective access to information to enable them to more fully exercise and protect all of their rights”
First, it must be made easier for citizens to use PAIA to access information. A major improvement in the law will be to make provision for pro-active disclosure of information, as prescribed by the African Model Law on Access to Information, published by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 2013. A major review and update of PAIA are required, beyond the current process to add clauses on party funding.
“The importance of access to information on our young democracy cannot be underestimated, it enables journalists to do their work, citizens to get the information they need and hold those in power accountable and it helps the government ensure they make evidence-based policy decisions. While we may not be as far as would like in quashing the digital divide, there is no doubt that if we all work together, apply the principles on which our Constitution is based, not only can we ensure a more equitable country with access to the internet for all, but we can help stimulate our economy, ensure better service provision and deepen our democracy,” said Mahlatse Mahlase, SANEF chairperson.
The second issue – and a logical consequence of proactive disclosure – is for information holders and access to information activists to vigorously pursue the open data and open government agenda. As a founder member of the United Nations initiated Open Government Partnership (OGP), the South African government has already made ambitious commitments to establish open data portals, with projects ranging from Open Justice, Open Budget (such as the Vulekamali and Municipal Money data portals) and Open Elections, all of which are in different stages of implementation. However, South Africa still needs to deliver on a number of commitments made in its OGP National Action Plan.
With all this information available online, the third requirement to ensure “effective access to information” as PAIA requires, is to provide universal access to the internet. In 2016 the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights called on African governments to take legislative and other measures “to guarantee, respect and protect citizen’s right to freedom of information and expression through access to internet services”.“We believe the 7 point plan offers a practical and considered approach to realising internet access for all, for not only does it talk to clear strategies and approaches for internet access, it also ensures that access is accompanied by the provision of critical digital literacy skills and that there is also a plan to set out minimum standards as well as oversight and monitoring mechanisms. We are thrilled to be launching this report on such an important day,” said William Bird, Director of Media Monitoring Africa.
his article was published last week Tuesday, Sept 17 in the Daily Maverick
Last week Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema declared that Daily Maverick, their investigative unit Scorpio, and independent investigative journalism unit amaBhungane would no longer be ‘allowed’ to cover EFF events or briefings. The ban imposed by the EFF on various media entities may well be unconstitutional as it seems to infringe on the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in section 16 of the Bill of Rights.
Anyone who has ever had a run-in with a bank, a cellphone provider, or any other large private entity will be aware that such private entities wield enormous power and that they often use this power to infringe on the rights of individuals. Similarly, anyone who has ever been turned away from a nightclub because of their race or has been falsely told that a rental flat is “no longer available” (also because of race) will know that it is not only the state that infringes on the rights protected in the Bill of Rights.
The drafters of the South African Bill of Rights were aware that power also resides in the private sphere and can and are often abused by private actors. They, therefore, rejected the traditional approach towards the protection of human rights which exclusively focused on the abuse of power by the state. Instead, they extended the direct and indirect application of the Bill of Rights to private parties. This means that in certain circumstances not only the state but also private individuals, organisations and institutions have a constitutional obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.
The direct application of the rights in the Bill of Rights to private parties is mandated by section 8(2) of the Bill of Rights, which states that:
“A provision of the Bill of Rights binds a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right.”
The wording makes clear that not all of the rights in the Bill of Rights will always bind all private institutions and persons. The nature of the right and the nature of the duty imposed by it may be such that a private institution or individual will not be in a position to limit the right in any way. For example, the right of detained and sentenced prisoners guaranteed in section 35(2) of the Bill of Rights will not normally place any obligations on private institutions or individuals as private individuals or institutions who do not legally detain and imprison people – the state does.
But private individuals and institutions will have a duty to respect many other rights – including the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in section 16 of the Bill of Rights. In Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & Others v Essay N.O. and Others, the Constitutional Court dealt with the extent to which section 8(2) will impose duties on private parties to respect specific rights in the Bill of Rights.
In that case, the court held that the right to basic education guaranteed in section 29 of the Constitution prohibits private parties from infringing on the right to education, for example, by failing “to respect the existing protection of the right by taking measures that diminish that protection held that right”.
The court then proceeded to explain:
“It needs to be stressed however that the purpose of section 8(2) of the Constitution is not to obstruct private autonomy or to impose on a private party the duties of the state in protecting the Bill of Rights. It is rather to require private parties not to interfere with or diminish the enjoyment of a right. Its application also depends on the intensity of the constitutional right in question, coupled with the potential invasion of that right which could be occasioned by persons other than the state or organs of state.”
When one applies these principles to the right to freedom of expression, it becomes clear that the right will often impose obligations on private individuals, organisations and institutions not to do anything that would interfere with the enjoyment of this right. Section 16 states – in part – that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes “freedom of the press and other media” and “freedom to receive or impart information or ideas”.
A private individual, organisation or institution may not have a positive obligation to promote the freedom of the media and may not have a constitutional duty to take steps to make it easier for individuals to receive or impart information, but does have a duty not to do anything that would “interfere with or diminish the enjoyment of a right” to freedom of expression.
Where private individuals, organisations or institutions take steps to prevent members of the media from doing their job, that private individual, organisation, or institution will be infringing on the right to freedom of expression because they would be interfering with or diminishing the enjoyment of the right.
For example, if EFF members again go on a rampage and trash a clothing store in some or other shopping mall, and the owners of the mall prohibit members of the media from entering the mall to try to stop them from reporting on the trashing of the store, this will constitute an infringement on the media’s right to freedom of expression.
Of course, in terms of section 8(3)(b) of the Bill of Rights courts are permitted to develop rules of the common law to limit the right that applies to private parties, provided that the limitation is in accordance with the limitation clause. In the example above, courts may develop common law rules to strike the correct balance between the right of owners to regulate access to their property and the right of the media to report on public events that occur on that property.
While the right will apply to a private party whenever that private party attempts to curtail the ability of the media to gather information and to report on a matter of public interest, the right would arguably apply more intensely and would have a more devastating impact if it is limited in ways that affect the democratic process. In such cases, the court would be more reluctant to impose limits on the infringed right in accordance with section 8(2)(b).
As the Constitutional Court has stated in S v Mamabolo (E TV, Business Day and the Freedom of Expression Institute Intervening) freedom of expression is important, among other reasons, because of its democracy-enhancing effects. In that case, the court held that freedom of expression:
“… lies at the heart of a democracy. It is valuable for many reasons, including its instrumental functions as a guarantor of democracy, its implicit recognition and protection of the moral agency of individuals in our society and its facilitation of the search for truth by individuals and society generally. The Constitution recognises that individuals in our society need to be able to hear, form and express opinions and views freely on a wide range of matters.”
The decision by EFF leader Julius Malema to ban certain media organisations from covering EFF events or briefings directly implicates the proper functioning of the democracy and it is highly unlikely that the court will sanction the limitation of the right.
The ban impacts negatively on the media, but – perhaps even more importantly – it impacts negatively on the ability of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom of expression. Where the media is hampered in doing their job this impacts on the ability of individuals in society to receive information, information that will enhance their ability to make informed and meaningful decisions about politics – including about their view of the EFF.
The fact that the EFF is a political party and therefore performs a public function intimately linked to our constitutional democracy places an even heavier burden on the party (as on any other political party) to respect the right to freedom of expression.
Unlike, say, the owners of a shopping mall, the EFF is a direct participant in democratically elected bodies and thus a primary political actor. This gives it immense power and influence not only over its supporters but also in the democratic process. Its decision to ban some media entities from covering its events or briefings may, therefore, have a significant impact on the ability of these media entities to do their job.
What makes things worse is that the ban was imposed to punish media organisations for reporting on alleged corruption and theft committed by EFF leaders. In other words, the EFF is trying to punish media outlets for doing their job. While it may not succeed, the EFF is attempting to get the banned media entities to stop investigating the alleged corruption and theft of its leaders. It is also sending a message to other media outlets to warn it to refrain from investigating and reporting on wrongdoing by EFF leaders. It is an act of intimidation aimed at avoiding any accountability and scrutiny by the media.
While this intimidation will obviously impact negatively on the affected media organisations, it is important to realise that they are not the only ones whose right to freedom of expression is being infringed. The EFF ban is ultimately aimed at ensuring that ordinary voters are deprived of all relevant information that would allow them to make an informed and reasoned assessment of whether the EFF is a party to be supported or rejected.
To some extent then, the “real” victims of this ban are voters. The EFF is trying to prevent voters from accessing negative information about the party. If the party succeeds it will rob voters of the ability to make an informed and reasoned decision about whether to support or reject the EFF. The ban is therefore at its heart anti-democratic.The banned media outlets, therefore, have an excellent chance of persuading a court that the EFF decision unconstitutionally infringes both on the freedom of the media and on the freedom of ordinary individuals to receive information that will help them to make proper political choices. DM
Guests attending the breakfast roundtable discussion on “The combating of harassment and abuse of journalists: Seeking new rules of engagement on September 28, 2019
A draft document has been released by the International Convention On The Safety And Independence of Journalists And Other Media Professionals.
The purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the safety of journalists and other media professionals in times of peace and during armed conflict, and to safeguard their ability to exercise their profession freely and independently in an enabling environment, without facing harassment, intimidation or attacks against their physical integrity.
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) has noted the findings of an independent inquiry into allegations of censorship and editorial interference at Primedia.
The Inquiry chaired by Terry Motau SC found the talk show host, Karima Brown had breached the provisions of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) Code.
Brown lodged her complaint against 702 station manager Thabisile Mbete, two days before her contract as host of the “Karima Brown Show” lapsed.
SANEF welcomes the fact that the Inquiry was instituted. We believe that editorial independence is sacrosanct. We believe that newsrooms must be insulated from outside interference including pressures from both political and commercial interests. All allegations of interference need to be comprehensively investigated and adjudicated on.
We welcome the fact that the Inquiry makes several suggestions regarding possible amendments and/or improvements to Primedia’s editorial policies and procedures. We hope that these recommendations are seriously considered.
For more information please contact:
Sam Mkokeli – SANEF Media Freedom Chairperson, 082 084 2051
Kate Skinner – SANEF Executive Director 082 926 6404
The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) has noted the testimony of Colonel Kobus Roelofse at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture on 18 September 2019, implicating Tiso Blackstar senior journalist Ranjeni Munusamy in accepting gratification from the Crime Intelligence unit.
Roelofse testified that he uncovered a payment of R143 621.78 from a secret slush fund of the police’s Crime Intelligence unit towards Munusamy’s vehicle finance account in July 2008. At the time, Munusamy worked as a communications consultant for clients, including the Friends of Jacob Zuma trust.
SANEF has noted Munusamy’s denial of the allegation and welcomes her decision to cooperate with the Zondo Commission.
SANEF champions ethical journalism and has launched its own Inquiry into Media Credibility and Ethics, chaired by retired judge Kathleen Satchwell. We encourage any South African with evidence of journalists acting unethically or illegally to approach Judge Satchwell and the authorities, including the Zondo Commission.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorised as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyse and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. Opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always active
Necessary cookies are essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Analytics
Analytics cookies are used to track user behaviour on our website. We process these cookies to understand user engagement and improve user experience on our website.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
