One of the aspects of having a free press is the right of ordinary citizens to lodge complaints against the press when they behave in an irresponsible and prejudiced manner. The primary purpose of the press is to gather and distribute news and opinion enabling citizens to make informed decisions about the issues at the time.
South Africa has a press Ombudsman who you can send complaints to when you see unfair reporting in the media. But there is a catch, which we will get to later.
The South African Press Code of Professional Practice can be found in the Press Ombudsman and Appeal Panel Constitution. It states:
1.1 The press shall be obliged to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly. 1.2 News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner, without an intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by: 1.2.1 distortion, exaggeration, or misrepresentation |
Last year John Matshikiza from the M&G incensed many readers with a rasping hyperbolic attack on the Israeli security barrier. The M&G was taken to the Ombudsman by ordinary South African citizens and the Ombudsman ruled against the M&G. Matshikiza was forced to apologise and a right of reply was awarded to the complainants.
These built in security checks ensure that the people have a say in ensuring the media uphold the press code of professional practice.
The problem is that it is now virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to successfully bring a complaint to the press Ombudsman. The Ombudsman rules of Procedure have been changed and I'm incensed that they have gotten away with these changes for so long already.
The new rules describe a legitimate complainant as:
Complainant shall mean and include any person who or body of persons which lodges a complaint, provided that such person or body of persons has a direct, personal interest in the matter complained of. |
This means that even if the complaint is legitimate, it cannot be brought to the attention of the Ombudsman unless the complainant has a direct personal interest in the matter. I.e. I could not bring a compliant to the Ombudsman about an article on Israel that is distorted, exaggerated, or untruthful because I do not have a direct and personal interest in the matter. The system should be awarding power to the citizens who support and are influenced by our media, yet the new conditions render ordinary citizens powerless.
I will provide a link to the Press Ombudsman and Appeal Panel Constitution later today.
Comments