PRESS freedom is essential for a healthy democracy, as it provides access to credible, factual, reliable, and unbiased information, which is crucial for keeping society informed.
In contrast to the ideals that accompanied the establishment of our democracy in 1994, when South Africa made significant strides in embracing media freedom and freedom of expression, some media houses, such as Independent Media – a company with an impressive record of breaking stories – have experienced very little of the progress achieved since then.
With the ushering of the new government, the country saw the rise of media houses from the dark days of apartheid when media was controlled by the government, ensuring very little accurate reflection of the harsh realities of the brutal apartheid system.
For a while, some believed this would ensure that media freedom as a right and one of the primary necessities kept citizens informed and empowered and enabled the nation to engage, contribute to the discussion, and make meaningful and informed decisions.
Now, 30 years later, some of the well-known apartheid media failed to keep their old apartheid agenda under wraps. Those who have always historically controlled the industry, along with their preferred narratives, try to intimidate and bully Independent Media and its journalists to self-censor, restrict free media, and ensure that people’s ability to make up their own decisions is undermined.
In recent years, foreign-funded organisations have renewed their intention to censor other voices through continued hostility demonstrated through Independent Media by other competitors who appear to be well-protected.
Damaging attacks by some of the dominant media houses, who hunt like a pack of wolves, repeatedly target and bash not only the entity but also journalists in the employment of Independent Media – which created the impression that the company was a rogue media house led by clueless individuals.
Aziz Hartley, former independent Media Editor in Chief, stated: “Democracy and freedom of expression are destroyed when the media and journalists are used as instruments to drive personal agendas or settle scores.
“A free media is the bedrock of true democracy, as it is meant to keep us informed, give voice to the voiceless, and hold those in power to account. A rather unfortunate fact is that media products struggle to survive without advertising, and it is here that those with resources – or access to resources – sometimes use them to influence what gets reported.
“This situation then becomes a powerful mechanism to prevent the truth from being exposed or deal with so-called detractors. This mechanism gets used to drive a certain narrative in favour of those in powerful positions and/or those who control the purse strings. Objectivity, transparency, the truth, and a free press become the victims during this process. It creates distrust in the media and is a recipe for corruption. It is what dictatorships are made of.”
He stated that disinformation and fake news should be treated as punishable offences.
Hartley further said that the legislation was needed to address these challenges because they were a real threat to free media and posed a potential risk to the country.
“Reputations and even lives get destroyed when disinformation and fake news go unchecked. While journalists deliberately peddling disinformation should be stripped of their titles and barred from the profession, creators of fake news should be exposed and brought before the court.
“For the media to regain respect, we need journalists who stand up to those in power, no matter what it costs, as long as the truth gets told,” he said.
Hartley emphasised the need to afford others a right of reply and felt that constructive criticism should continue to be the building block of a genuine free press.
In her letter to readers addressing the ongoing disputes between the entity and the self-regulatory body, the Press Council of SA (PCSA), allowing the Council’s demand for the removal of an opinion piece, Editor in Chief Adri Senekal mentioned independence and the right to publish diverse opinions without fear of retribution were non-negotiable principles that the media house would defend vigorously.
“It is with great reluctance that I must now state that if this pattern of harassment and disregard continues, Independent Media will have no choice but to withdraw from the Press Council.
“Our commitment to press freedom, the right to free speech, and the promotion of a diverse and robust public discourse is unwavering. We cannot and will not accept a situation where the Press Council is used as a tool to silence voices that challenge the status quo or to serve the interests of our rivals.
“Should the Press Council continue down this path, we are prepared to proceed with our plans to exit the Council,” she said prior to the media house announcing its final decision to leave the Council.
Last month, Independent Media voluntarily withdrew from the PCSA, with the council responding by announcing the expulsion of Independent Media on October 23.
PCSA stated that it expelled the media house because of an opinion piece stating that journalist Karyn Maughan shared similarities with the Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl in that she operated as a propagandist in her coverage of the legal disputes involving Sekunjalo, the newspaper’s parent company.