Menu

Rich Mkhondo

Education & Training

Rebuilding Trust Between Journalists and the Public

, , , ,

By Georgina Crouth

Ethical lapses, media sustainability, bullying, mental health support, training and rebuilding trust between journalists and the public were key talking points at the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) conference on media ethics on 15 May.

SANEF conference on media ethics was held in response to the Satchwell Inquiry, a report of the investigation into media credibility and ethics written by retired judge Kathleen Satchwell and panel members Rich Mkhondo and Nikiwe Bikitsha, both journalists.

SANEF has held four webinars in recent months to look into the issues raised by the 300-page report.

The Satchwell Inquiry was commissioned by Sanef in June 2019 in response to a series of high-profile stories published and then retracted by the Sunday Times between 2011 and 2016. It was released in January 2021.

The report noted trends in the sector that had contributed towards the erosion of public trust, the decline of editorial independence – including the encroachment of media owners – and shrinking newsrooms linked to large-scale retrenchments.

Forum chairperson Sbu Ngalwa said Sanef hoped to use the report not only to guide its interactions with the government, corporate funders and civil society but also to steer its thinking around the support of journalism as a public good and a key pillar of democracy.

Sbu Ngalwa, Newzroom Afrika’s politics editor, explained: “In January, when the Satchwell Inquiry report was released, Sanef issued a statement saying while the media had been lauded for investigative work that had helped our democracy, we believe the media must continue to [be introspective] to strengthen the relationship of trust with the public.

“We said we would rigorously debate the report’s 69 recommendations to assess how they could be implemented in the advancement of ethical journalism.”

Since the start of the pandemic, the sector has lost not only colleagues but also more than 1,000 jobs. However, Ngalwa said, there were some green shoots: audiences returned to traditional media as they looked for trusted news sources; and digital audience figures improved dramatically, with some news sites seeing a rise of 72% in traffic in March 2020 alone.

While the media continued to be under attack from detractors and targeted by disinformation campaigns, the biggest threats to the industry were not just bullying by politicians, criminals or a hostile police force, it was the sustainability of the media, he said.

Keynote speaker and prominent jurist Judge Bernard Ngoepe called on the media to work towards “a perfect society”.

“When journalists say ‘I can do it because the law and the Press Code allow it’, that’s the wrong attitude. It shifts away from a fundamental objective for journalism – to try to build a perfect society.

“It may be impossible to attain but we have to accept that it’s a perpetual pursuit. There are positive dynamics that are achieved in the pursuit of a perfect society where there is freedom, democracy, elections and equality.”

Ngoepe warned that journalists should not report in ways that would compromise investigations or divulge information for a scoop that could prejudice investigations.

“Say to yourself – would this be a good thing and make a positive contribution towards society?” Having a fixed, determinable moral compass should guide journalists to the right decisions. “Your ethics – not just the law and code – must drive you to achieve your objectives,” Ngoepe said.

Songezo Zibi, a former editor of Business Day who left the media in 2015 over ethical concerns, was candid about his experiences.

Describing democracy as a system of self-rule that relied heavily on those who had  “sacred duties” that were essential for its preservation, Zibi said journalism was an indispensable pillar of democracy because it provided a channel for elected representatives and other public officials to communicate truthfully so that the people always knew what was being done in their name.

It also provided a platform for ordinary people to share views and expose what their needs were, he said.

Journalism, though, played another role: to “deliberately and doggedly shine a light on the dark corners where the truth that is in the public interest may lay hidden”. But since journalists were unelected, their credibility was drawn from assumed integrity – that they would always present an accurate, complete version of events and the facts.

“This is an extremely powerful position for unelected tradesmen and women to occupy in a society,” Zibi said. “They can influence political events and the course of history whether what they write is accurate or not. As a result of this power, it is important for journalists and editors to remain humble and committed to truth out of respect for the public and its welfare.”

There were many instances where journalists had been careless, arrogant and untruthful. And, when their mistakes were pointed out, they doubled down. This, he cautioned, was not a good thing.

A number of factors were to blame, Zibi said, starting with unconscious arrogance, which alienated the public from journalists because they fought for the freedom of the press and not for the right of the public to know what was being done in their name.

“This humble formulation is important because it places democracy, our system of self-government, at the centre of the problem and the purpose of journalism, not journalists, for seemingly narrow and self-interested reasons. Journalists do not do the work they do for their own edification but in service of the people and open democracy.”

Tolerating rogue journalists (and media owners) who failed to apply the appropriate standards of conduct and commitment to truth was another blight on the sector.

These were journalists and editors who were comfortable with providing insufficient, or even inaccurate context, making material omissions or deliberately failing to give respondents sufficient time to respond.

“It still happens that media relations professionals get emailed questions on a Saturday to respond to within a few hours … I cannot think of any reason why this would happen except ensuring that the subject of the story has insufficient time to respond meaningfully.”

Journalists also had inherent biases, which resulted in a failure to scrutinise everyone equally – from Treasury to private corporations.

Other little “missteps and habits” may seem benign, Zibi said, but they were insidiously harmful, such as the terms of endearment journalists had for politicians, referring to the secretary-general of the ANC as “SG” or Julius Malema as “CiC” or “commander-in-chief”.

The problems, though, are not entirely journalists’ making: in South Africa, media owners use their platforms to drive their own agendas and peddle lies, while politicians bully journalists for anti-democratic purposes.

Journalists compete with billions of voices on the internet, but many seem to believe they have some special right to exist. But they don’t, said Alan Rusbridger, a former editor of The Guardian. “The only way to justify our right to exist is to be better than the internet – and that means quality.”

The public is smart – if they can see journalists are doing stories that matter to them, if they can see the courage it takes and that journalists are working towards the highest ethical standards, they will support them.

“A lot of journalists don’t want to enter into conversations; they despise that whole aspect of social media,” Rusbridger said. But social media had brought about a revolution in the way journalists communicated and the way audiences respond.

“They’re not respectful and they’re rude and challenging. The first reaction of journalists is to switch off. ‘Our readers are horrible, we don’t want to engage with them, social media is a cesspit.’ We need to engage.”

Being a journalist was no easy job – the pay was poor, resources were scarce and the work was dangerous, acknowledged Zibi. But it was also a calling and a sacred duty.

“Let us continue to respect it and treat it with the reverence it deserves, for to do so is to honour the blood and tears of those who fought for this system of self-government we ought to protect with all we have.”

#This Article was published in the Daily Maverick

7 (2)

Media sustainability and universal access to public interest journalism

This is the Executive Summary of the Media Sustainability & Universal Access to Public Interest Journalists.

This report seeks to contribute to SANEF’s mission of achieving media sustainability and universal access to public interest journalism, and it forms part of SANEF’s response to the Independent Panel Report in the Inquiry into Media Ethics and Credibility, prepared by retired Judge Kathleen Satchwell, Nikiwe Bikitsha, and Rich Mkhondo. In particular, Recommendation D35 calls on SANEF to—
“[s]upport research into the financial viability and sustainability of all forms of news media, examining international approaches to funding independent media, including but not limited to taxation incentives/exemptions, allocation of public funds, the pursuit of royalties, levies on online advertising revenue routed offshore by online platforms, or other such methods.”

This report does not purport to offer the solution to media sustainability in South Africa. It does, however, present a series of policy options to promote media sustainability drawn from local, regional, and international comparative practices and examples for further deliberation and debate. Notably, this report complements a variety of recent and ongoing media sustainability initiatives5 and offers the reader a high-level overview of options that may be tailored for South Africa’s unique media landscape. Specifically, this report presents eight media sustainability strategies and over fifteen direct policy considerations.

These include:

• The establishment of a Media Sustainability Fund (MSF): One of the priority media sustainability strategies for SANEF is the possible establishment of an MSF. The mission of the MSF — which may include what is referred to as a local content fund in the Independent Panel Report6 — is to support the development, sustainability, and independence of public interest media organisations, in pursuance of the right to freedom of expression and democratic principles. In fully considering an MSF, this report considers its potential mission, eligibility criteria, sources of funding, and its structure and oversight.

• Promoting access to public interest news websites: Alongside an MSF, substantially reducing data costs and advocating for the zero-rating of public interest news websites and content have been identified as priority measures for SANEF. In considering these sustainability options, data costs, internet access, and possibilities related to zero-rating access to public interest content are considered.

• Fostering competition in the digital economy: In line with international trends, this report notes international developments, particularly in Australia and the United States, relating to fostering competition in the digital economy, including through enhanced engagement with the so-called FAANGs (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google). In the South Africa context, this report suggests possible areas of engagement with South Africa’s Competition Commission.

• Considering tax relief and other state support schemes: Allied to fostering competition in the digital economy, tax relief and other state support schemes are documented, including possibilities associated with converting license fees to a bespoke tax, the introduction of a new online advertising tax, and various other tax relief proposals for public interest media organisations and donors, including, for example, a proposed amendment to South Africa’s Income Tax Act to allow for tax deductions for businesses, donors, and individuals who subscribe to a community and local media.

• Engaging with different subsidisation, subscriptions, and other income-generating models: With an emphasis on comparative international examples, the benefits of subsidies are discussed, alongside the potential of “access tiering” — the practice of offering memberships and subscription discounts to older persons, students, and social grant recipients — and new business models.

• Assessing the potential of coupon and open-access systems: By way of new sustainability strategies, this report introduces a possible coupon and open access system which facilitates subscriber access to premium content on multiple public interest news websites; and it investigates the openTrust model, which promotes corporate social investment.

• Considering the establishment of public interest wire services: To assist with what Frances Cairncross refers to as the “humdrum task or reporting on the daily activities of public institutions” and to promote community media, the establishment of public interest wire services to assist under-capacitated public interest media organisations and ensure that additional public interest media content is produced and distributed for publication, particularly on matters relating to the exercise of the democratic function and its institutions; and to (2) collect local content from community media organisations and distribute it to larger media houses for a fee is discussed.

• Promoting education, training, and leadership: Lastly, this report reflects on the importance of fellowships to train young journalists, continuing development opportunities for mid-career journalists, and the need for the South African government to fund media information literacy (MIL) initiatives.

The report concludes by noting that despite years of decline in advertising revenues and the devasting impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, public interest media actors are proving to be resilient, working tirelessly to develop new media sustainability strategies. This research seeks to complement this tide. With concerted and collective action — and the requisite political will — strides can be made in not only sustaining public interest journalism in South Africa but working towards an enabling environment in which it can grow and flourish.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The South Africa National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) is thankful to everyone who has participated in this process.

For initial reviews of the preliminary draft of this report, SANEF is thankful to Izak Minnaar, Kate Skinner, and the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism.

For interviews based on the preliminary draft of this report, SANEF is thankful to Kate Skinner, Nwabisa Makunga, Professor Franz Kruger, Bilal Randeree, Izak Minnaar, Mary Papayya, Adriaan Basson, Mahlatse Mahlase, and Sbu Ngalwa. For reviews on the further draft of this report, SANEF is thankful to all of the participants who participated in the SANEF Ethics and Sustainability webinar on 5 May 2021, and to Phathiswa Magopeni, Martina Della Togna, Dunisani Ntsanwisi, Professor Franz Kruger, and Kate Skinner for their comments.

Importantly, SANEF is thankful for and acknowledges the recent research by Dr Harry Dugmore1 and Reg Rumney which has contributed significantly to this report. This report was prepared with the assistance of ALT Advisory. ENDS

Diversity and Ethics (2)

Are Anonymous Sources Threatening Journalism Ethics?

, ,

Rich Mkhondo runs The Media and Writers Firm

27 October 2020

Opinion by Rich Mkhondo

This article has been published here:

Johannesburg – When one of my favourite broadcasters, the late Jim Lehrer – of America’s Public Broadcasting Station, was asked if he had day-to-day guidelines for practising journalism, he said: “Well, yes, and here they are: “Do nothing I cannot defend;

“Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me;

“Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story;

“Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and as good a person as I am. Assume the same about all people on whom I report;

“Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise;

“Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label everything;

“Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions and

“No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously. And, finally, I am not in the entertainment business.”

Essential elements of journalism

Every time I read this, I remember my first journalism lecture at Rhodes University in Makhanda, when we debated the essential elements of reporting:

  • Accuracy
  • Truthfulness
  • Objectivity
  • Impartiality
  • Fairness
  • Accountability

It is sad to see that in this day and age, some journalists ignore ethical standards as espoused by Lehrer – may his soul rest in peace – and the professional standards we learn from journalism schools which are emphasised by concerned editors.

Forty-three years since one of the implementers of apartheid white minority rule, Jimmy Kruger, arrested editors and banned The World and Weekend World, and 26 years into a democratic South Africa, is the state of media freedom in our Rainbow something to be proud of?

No.

While there are no threats to the freedom of the media as there were 43 years ago, the state of the media industry is as messy and more confusing due to the ever-changing business models, diminishing capacity of news organisations, declining profits, fake news, misinformation, the over-reliance on unnamed sources and declining public trust.

Ignoring ethical guidelines

It is a pity that these days, some news sounds or reads more like a biased commentary which has more opinion than facts.

Some journalists ignore ethical guidelines for the sake of sensationalising the news in the quest to be seen as hard-hitting newsmen and women.

Of course, journalism has seen a sudden shift because of the advent of blogs and social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, as well as the overwhelming urge to promote one ideology over another.

Despite the shift to digital media and more competition for advertising and print newspaper sales and circulation, ethical decision-making and journalistic integrity, should remain steadfast.

Unfortunately, we continue to see the media spin narratives to serve their own interest by using cherry-picking stories, using compromising pictures, taking content out of context, or promoting misleading headlines and relying – sometimes over-relying on anonymous sources.

Use of anonymous sources

In addition to sensationalising news for commercial and political gain, journalism ethics is suffering from the growing use of anonymous sources. Amid journalism scandals and hand-wringing about media credibility, the use of anonymous sources has run amok.

When I was trained as a reporter, editors insisted that we always strive to get both sides of every story. We were never allowed to publish unconfirmed rumours or to quote unnamed sources.

Now, all the rules have changed. The 24-hour news cycle, growth of online news, competition for audiences, viewers and listeners, means unnamed sources are used increasingly to break stories leaked by officials seeking to get their views before the public.

Rumours by anonymous sources are tossed into the air or headlined in print, to be proved or disproved later.

Of course, there is an argument that anonymous sources are an essential tool of investigative reporting. Used well, anonymous sources are an indispensable tool for supplying depth and critical insight to complicated stories.

For intrepid journalists, one needs to answer two facts about the source:

* Does the source actually have all the facts and knows what he or she is talking about, and or,

* Does the source have a hidden political or economic agenda and/or an axe to grind?

Scepticism of unnamed sources

I can think of no common journalistic shortcoming more threatening to media credibility than over-reliance on unnamed sources.

I am not surprised that members of the public are often sceptical of unnamed sources. Almost invariably people assume that any quote without a name attached to it was made up by the reporter.

Indeed, while readers are sceptical of anonymous sources, sometimes they are necessary. In deciding to use them, the value of the information they divulge must be weighed against the credibility questions that anonymity raises.

Of course as human beings, journalists may fall short of reader expectations. That doesn’t make the mistakes or thumb-sucking stories alright.

Everyone knows that sometimes the information may be sensitive but important enough to make anonymity acceptable.

To offset any public doubt, instead of just identifying someone as an “unnamed source,” or a “source who declined to be named,” the editors need to explain the sources’ motives for coming forward and what qualifies them as being credible. For instance, the journalist and his or her bosses may note what position the source holds in an organisation or company.

Also, for an unnamed source to carry weight, the information must be so important, the media house may not be able to get it anywhere else. Also if known, the source would face harm or serious loss.

No wonder news organisations and individual reporters value unidentified sources so much that they go to great lengths to protect their identities.

Guidelines for using anonymous sources

One may say surely there is a big divide between whistle-blowers and run-of-the-mill anonymous sources who freely bash political and/or business opponents.

That is why the world-famous newspapers, The New York Times and Washington Post have outlined guidelines for helping journalists decide whether to use anonymous sources. These guidelines are:

* Promises of anonymity must be authorised by the editor;

* Anonymous sources should be used only for a just cause;

* Anonymous sources should be used only as a last resort;

* Sources should be as fully identified as possible, with reasons for anonymity explained in the story;

* Proportionality: editors should balance the potential harms and benefits in any use of anonymous sources;

* Anonymous sources can only be used with just intentions by the reporter, the media and the source; and

* Use of anonymous sources requires independent verification by a second source.

* Unnamed sources or not, a true journalist must be able to display professional ethical standards unswayed by inherent human frailties such as political or business allegiance which may make one vulnerable to ethical lapses.

Rigorous self-criticism

Therefore, the media fraternity should strive for a rigorous self-criticism over any perception of irresponsibly forsaking professional morality.

In their book, Doing Ethics in Journalism, authors Jay Black, Bob Steele and Ralph Barney pose three ethical standards for journalism:

* Seek truth and report it as fully as possible. Be thorough, accurate, and fair).

* Act independently. Avoid outside influences that would compromise the credibility of the reporting.

* Minimise harm. Reporting does not occur in isolation. The effects of reporting can cause harm, often unintended.

Is anyone listening?

There is no doubt that the duty of the media is to shape the mind and the opinion of the public.

Maybe it is time that the public demand professional and higher standards from the media industry by boycotting media companies that have journalists who do not adhere to the expected ethical standards.

* Rich Mkhondo runs The Media and Writers Firm (www.mediaandwritersfirm.com) a content development and reputation management hub.

Obituaries

Rich Mkhondo: Remembering The Ambitious, Inspiring, Pioneering, Enterprising and Gifted Shaun Johnson

,

Through this remembrance to the late Editor and Writer Shaun Johnson, I am learning that the greatest tribute in our power to pay a departed friend is the reverent acknowledgement of our obligation to remember them, writes Rich Mkhondo in news24.

Many of us have experienced that feeling of vicarious dread of paying tribute to a departed friend or family member.

The challenge has always been to state whether such a tribute reacquaints us with that person or will it merely recount facts of a life and endearing traits.

I first met Shaun Johnson at Rhodes University. He was my Journalism and Media Studies tutor in my first year. So why do I mention tutoring?

Because just about anyone can set him or herself up as a tutor and stories are legion of the incompetents, the professional know-alls, who do far more harm than good.

But Shaun was different. Even during the dark days of apartheid, there was enthusiasm written all over him.

He had a good sense of humour to break the ice as our country struggled with the impact of racist bigotry at an institution reserved for white people at the time.

I think his ever-smiling demeanour was the secret to his success. He had this honest smile which almost said: “You can trust me, I am on your side.”

Shaun was a disciplined human being without overdoing it. He was ambitious, inspiring, pioneering and enterprising without avarice.

He was a gifted writer, a teacher without guile.

Even at the peak of white privilege, Shaun was a golden boy who had no goose to lay golden eggs for him. He was just self-made.

So democratic was his mind and his soul, and so genuine was his interest in helping the few black people who then Minister Chris Heunis gave “Ministerial consent” to study at an institution reserved for whites.

While this may feel like such a small moment at the time, as I look back on it, it exemplified perfectly how generous Shaun was with his time.

As a journalism student and tutor, the creative work that mattered most to him was building a democratic journalism fraternity.

It didn’t matter who Shaun was helping, it didn’t matter what the colour of their skin was. It didn’t matter where they went to school. What mattered was that he was building a democratic nation amidst the apartheid rubble.

He taught by example… I followed his journalism techniques.

And one of the first things I learned from him was that you could have a list of prepared questions for an interview, but you had to be a good listener to be able to field follow-up questions.

This sounds obvious, but it is not.

After we both graduated from Rhodes, we remained friends over the years and crossed paths at South African Associated Newspapers, then owners of Rand Daily Mail, Sunday Express, Sunday Times and later Business Day.

It was at Argus Newspapers where we rekindled our relationship again. Shaun supported my fellowship stint at the Philadelphia Inquirer, my first overseas sojourn.

When I returned from my year-long stint at the Philadelphia Inquirer in December 1986, Shaun was at the airport to pick me up. He drove me to my home in Katlehong.

There was this whitey who was not afraid to drive me into a black township.

Ten years later, while I was working for Reuters, Shaun recruited me back to then Independent Newspapers as a correspondent in Washington. The “boss-friend” relationship continued as I represented the group from North America.

Even though we drifted apart during the past 15 years because of family and career obligations, we remained in touch, albeit occasionally. I called to praise his work. He did the same.

During the 2010 FIFA World Cup, we had lunch in Cape Town and Shaun took me through his journey at the Mandela Rhodes Foundation.? He was still the Shaun I knew. He had not lost his passion and love for whatever he did.

Two years ago I called him to complain that distance and family life prevented us from keeping in touch. We promised to make up. Little did I know…

Through this remembrance to Shaun I am learning that the greatest tribute in our power to pay a departed friend is the reverent acknowledgement of our obligation to remember them.

Through Shaun, I know that the strength of a nation lies in the character of its people. You and I will long remember the deeds of our deceased that were ever mindful of our trust.

Shaun was mindful of our trust.

So, one of the great moral writers of our time has departed, leaving a broad legacy which spans decades.

He was an activist, journalist, writer, editor, friend and mentor to many.

A great humanitarian and brilliant writer, Shaun’s legacy comprises two major themes: first, democracy encompasses universal values which do not assume a nationality; second, equality for every single human being in South Africa and the whole world irrespective of race, religion or colour.

Together, these themes constituted the message which characterised his professional life and long career.

Let us remember that this lifetime endeavour by Shaun should not be mistaken for an esoteric and intellectual exercise.

It was, in fact, the epitome of a committed democrat which was rooted in the concepts of pluralist existence and common humanity.

Rest in peace Shaun.

South Africa is poorer without you amongst us.

– Rich Mkhondo runs The Media and Writers Firm – content development and reputation management hub.