/ 11 March 2011

SA press takes a hard look in the mirror

The Press Council is reviewing its own system in the light of criticism and hearing submissions from far and wide.

Many people interested in the quality of journalism in our country and in freedom of expression have given us their views as the Press Council reviews its structures and operations. (If you have not done so yet, you have until March 15.)

The review was prompted partly by the criticism of our system by the ANC during its push for a statutory media appeals tribunal and partly because it was in any case due — the current system has been in place for three years. We could have dismissed the ANC criticisms as politicking, but instead, in August last year, the Press Council decided to look at itself in the mirror and review the entire system.

It is not surprising that many of the submissions we have received so far have paid particular attention to the issues raised by the ANC: the “toothlessness” of the Ombudsman and the waiver that complainants sign, declaring that if they use the Ombudsman’s office they will not thereafter go to the courts or other tribunals with the same complaint.

The submissions on the sanctions have ranged from people who suggest that the current ones be retained to those who propose that the Ombudsman impose fines on errant publications and journalists and award damages to the injured.

Those who propose that we retain the current system quote from authorities such as Miklós Haraszti: “Voluntary regulation is most effective when sanctions do not include financial penalties. Any system involving fines becomes more legalistic and confrontational, with lawyers arguing over the size of penalties to be levied. “This dilutes all that makes self-regulatory bodies practical and useful.

“There is evidence that financial penalties are not an effective punishment for newspapers because the increased sales from an intrusive story can outweigh the subsequent fine. Moreover, the impact of fines will vary widely and unfairly, depending on the wealth of the newspaper involved.” Those arguing for fines point to the harm caused by breaches of the code. The range of suggestions on the sanctions is wide.

The waiver has generated heat, both inside and outside the ANC. Currently, when my office receives a complaint, we send the complainant the waiver form to sign. It explains why we can handle the complaint only if the complainant signs the waiver: “The waiver is designed to avoid tribunal-hopping and to prevent a publication having to answer twice on the same complaint…

If your goal is to clear your name quickly and cost-effectively, you would choose our system. If it is other relief you seek, you might choose another route…” Here again there is a range of submissions, ranging from proposals that it remain in place to those who argue the waiver may be unconstitutional.

Other key issues that have emerged from submissions are:

  • The membership of the council and the way the members are appointed;
  • The membership and role of the Press Appeals Panel;
  • Legal representation in the system;
  • The creation of the position of Public Advocate; and
  • Amendments to the Press Code.

The people and organisations that have given written and oral evidence to the task team doing the research for the review are impressive. Among them are: the Law Society of SA, which represents 20 000 attorneys and 5 000 candidate attorneys; the Centre for Constitutional Rights; Media Monitoring Africa; Harvey Tyson, former editor of The Star; the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa; Mr Ralf G Will (oral); John Kane-Berman, Institute of Race Relations; academics Guy Berger and Jane Duncan; the Freedom of Expression Institute; Reg Rumney, academic; Simanga Sibeko; the Muslim Judicial Council.

We are still tallying the submissions and transcribing the oral inputs. The only disappointing part of the process was the disappointing attendance of the general public at the public hearings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town. The council is however satisfied that it gave South Africans the opportunity to be heard.

The process from now: after the deadline for submissions, on March 15, the task team will have a workshop where each of the submissions will be evaluated.

Three criteria will be used in evaluating each suggestion:

  • Will the proposal lead to improvement in the quality of journalism in South Africa?
  • Will the proposal make our system more efficient and effective?
  • Is the suggestion practical?

And now for the elephant in the room: has the ANC’s push for a statutory media appeals tribunal dissipated? Hardly. The organisation has welcomed our review but also reminded us that it is bound by its resolution at its National General Council in Durban last year to ask Parliament to investigate the desirability of a statutory tribunal. We aren’t out of the woods yet.

For more information on the review and to see the current constitution of the Press Council, the SA Press Code and complaints procedures, go to www.presscouncil.org.za or phone 011 484 3612