At the beginning of the month The Press Council of South Africa ordered Daily Maverick to apologise for its coverage of the Pretoria High School for Girls alleged racism story. For context, the mainstream media always assumes such allegations, even if unfounded, are prima facie true before any investigation is initiated and completed. So DM is no exception.
I've not seen DM apologise yet, which was to be published in a prominent place on its website. I emailed a DM editor and asked why the delay. I asked if they intend to or have they appealed the decision. There was no response.
DM regularly, stridently trumpets the importance of the Press Council and its and media's adherence to the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Press Code). It was scathing of Independent Media's expulsion, or resignation depending who you believe, from the Council. DM claims that when they make a mistake, they apologise and rectify matters. However, regarding Pretoria Girls, they justify their coverage as the journalist had tried and failed to get access to the school's side, an explanation the Council's ruling dismissed.
According to Richard Wilkinson in Politicsweb, media continue misrepresenting the racism angle and report there's misconduct and racism at the school without giving the context of these dubious findings. By now, especially after the school's governing body inquiry found no evidence of racism, the media ought to know the Gauteng government and its race-baiting (and incompetent, corrupt) politicians cannot be believed. But racism reports persist.
Also in PW, SA Canegrowers' Andrew Russell said DM rejected their right of reply to independent journalist Joan van Dyk's piece, mentioning them, arguing for the sugar tax aka levy. The introduction to his op-ed said: "This reply to a piece on Daily Maverick naming SA Canegrowers was rejected by Daily Maverick, so we decided to print it elsewhere to ensure balance and fairness in the debate".
Van Dyk was critical of the industry (other activists are more blatant and defamatory than she). I'm curious why DM denied their response.
I too wrote to DM about Van Dyk's article saying DM ought to have fact-checked it because her (sugar activists') assertions that the tax and lower sugar consumption was leading to healthier lifestyles, ie causality, is not supported by the facts of increasing, and concerning, prevalence of obesity, diabetes and heart disease in SA. The trend has increased after the tax was introduced in 2018. A quick internet search produced the facts - I included the links. Russell said much the same thing.
Van Dyk came across as biased and far from "independent". Russell said she's appeared in sponsor-funded "webisodes" - "American Michael Bloomberg is funding the South African lobby for an increased sugar tax by bankrolling NGO group Heala" - advocating the tax. (I haven't verified that.)
I knew my letter wouldn't be published but even if it's not, it's important readers share their opinions. But not allowing a person or organisation the right of reply when being the subject of critical reportage, or allowing them to set the record straight, is biased and manipulating the narrative which media, including DM, do all the time. But politicians, especially ones favourable to the media, are regularly given this opportunity.
Incidentally, in 2020 DM published an article by Tiara Walters quoting an interviewee, Rob Simmons of UCT Zoology about cats allegedly slaughtering Cape Town's wildlife, who made a borderline defamatory statement about me, without knowing anything about me. My name was not mentioned but Simmons, DM and Walters knew the person he referred to was me.
It happened like this: After the sensationalistic article about the matter, I'd emailed all of them that Simmons' study was flawed for various reasons. I said my cats very seldom, most never, hunt and kill wildlife, never mind the 800 a year Simmons claimed they did. But DM/Walters published his fabrication in the follow-up article anyway. DM did not publish my response to that or include it generally in readers' comments to the story in the follow-up article.
So I guess it's okay to spread lies about people even if they're not identified by name, and often then too. The media knows best and never should apologise. Instead they go schtum when challenged. The Press Code, like similar standards in other spheres and professions, is only observed in the breach.
DM's deafening silence to the Council's instruction to apologise over Pretoria Girls is representative of the media's disingenuous, self-righteous and self-serving trumpeting of its putative ethical code.
Comments
Post a Comment