Depending on which side you believe, the Press Council expelled Independent Media (IM) for its refusal to retract and apologise for it piece comparing News24's Karyn Maughan to Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl, or that IM resigned.
Either way, there's schadenfreude from other media when Independent Media gets it wrong again. IM deserves the opprobrium, though.
Other media (OM) sententiously write about "ethics", "apologising when we get it wrong" and "self-correcting". Do they, though? They only apologise when forced to, which is not a genuine apology.
Media regularly skirt or break the line. In South Africa this particularly concerns stories about "racism" - untested, unconfirmed and defamatory allegations are assumed to be true. News24 has been identified as particularly egregious - Pretoria High School for Girls, Wilgenhof, Food Lovers boerewors roll man.
With the racist label, reputations are damaged, lives destroyed. The baying media are unscathed, though.
Other examples, the Groundup editorial that accused ICC judges of bribery if they didn't rule for SA against Israel. And Rebecca Davis buying into the racism conspiracy, without evidence, about Poland grounding Ramaphosa's support plane during his Ukraine visit.
It should not take a Press Council hearing, or complaint to the internal ombuds, to realise the line was overstepped at the editing stage.
The cynic in me thinks turnaround is fair play when a journalist and media company - SA's Fox News, News24! too - are likened to Nazis. Because isn't that what it means today to be called a Nazi - a zealot, an extremist? It was unprofessional and even unethical for IM to compare Karyn Maughan to Leni Riefenstahl but surely no-one thinks she is. That's hyperbole, a metaphor, the Nazi epithet especially.
But describing Wilgenhof, and by association its residents, as a "Nazi" house of horrors is worse. Yet that's how the media reports matters that goes against its political stance. Or suppresses commentary that's contrary its position. Regarding social issues, the mainstream media tends to zealotry.
OM says the Press Council "expelled" IM. IM says it resigned. OM fudge and say it's expulsion if they were about to be expelled. But Maughan's own X post says IM resigned - it can't be more definitive than that: "Independent Newspapers and IOL have withdrawn from the Press Council after being ordered to retract, apologise for and delete an opinion piece they published about me, in which they compared me to a Nazi propagandist."
So why insist with the narrative IM was expelled? Given Maughan's post, will OM including DM "self-correct" and amend their reporting to reflect IM resigned? Unlikely because OM has an axe to grind because, they say, IM is bringing the profession and industry into disrepute. An industry that's already in trouble.
Objectively, IM actions are dubious, and the Surve cult, for want of a better word, unsavoury. But OM are disingenuous believing they behave in strict accordance at all times with the letter and spirit of the press of conduct. They're not choir boys.
The suggested thing to do as IM seems intent on crashing its reputation all by itself is tone down the self-righteousness and humbly say "there for the grace of God go I".
Update: The Press Ombuds has ruled Daily Maverick must apologise to Pretoria High School for Girls for misreporting.
Comments
Post a Comment