There’s no question that the tale of Jacob Zuma, the man who would be president, has been the story of the year.
The story has presented journalists with many ethical pitfalls, and the media have come in for a good deal of criticism. Most recently, Zuma hit at the Mail & Guardian for its report (December 2) that he told senior alliance leaders he had had consensual sex with the woman who has accused him, but denied raping her.
Zuma’s lawyer, Michael Hulley, accused the paper of ‘unethical conduct” and of ‘crossing the line”. Statements from the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party also denied the reported meeting had taken place.
The paper’s editor, Ferial Haffajee, asked me to look at the story, and to consider how the succession battle in the ANC should be covered. Let me try.
The story disclosed what Zuma’s defence to the rape charge is likely to be. Traditionally, that would have set red lights flashing — the law is sharp about contempt of court, which is anything that may prejudice a court case.
The fact that he was only charged after the report appeared offers a legal defence — contempt of court can only arise when proceedings are pending.
In addition, the ‘consensual sex” account has found its way into the public domain elsewhere, too. Angela Quintal wrote in The Star earlier this week: ‘From the day that news first broke of the alleged rape, Zuma’s aides have repeatedly told reporters that Zuma denied the allegation, but that he admitted to consensual sex with the 31-year-old Aids activist.” Similar reports have appeared in City Press and other media.
If the Zuma camp has been involved in putting this version about, despite its strenuous denial of the M&G story, it is at least co-responsible for any prejudice to the court case.
But there is another question, a simpler and more fundamental one: was the story accurate? Did Zuma meet alliance leaders and make these claims about his relations with his accuser? The report was attributed to ‘impeccable sources”, and, in reaction to the furious denials, the paper said it stands by the account.
But it is not enough for a story to be right — it has to be persuasive, too.
Confronted with two versions, readers would have to weigh up the evidence: on the one hand, an account attributed to unnamed sources; on the other, strenuous denials by those said to have been involved.
The M&G would have been in a stronger position if it had presented clearer evidence, particularly indications of where the information came from. I am told that the story came from one excellent source, who for various reasons does not want to be named.
Where the politics are so murky, one source may not be enough, no matter how good. Even under much less loaded circumstances, people’s understanding and perceptions of events varies. Two witnesses don’t see exactly the same car crash.
Haffajee has already said the paper will raise the bar, and insist on triple sourcing all stories. In many stories in the paper, it has been made clear that several sources were tapped for a particular story.
It’s a good instinct, but it is not just about numbers. The quality of the sourcing matters. Journalists need to ask themselves who the source is, whether he or she is in a position to know what they claim, and to look for corroborating evidence.
In general, sources should be identified, so that readers can judge the information’s reliability. Of course, there are circumstances when somebody legitimately asks for their identity to be protected. Such requests should be accepted only when there are very good reasons — but then, of course, they must be honoured absolutely.
First prize, always, is to name people directly. Where that is not possible, it is often possible to give some indications of where the source is situated — in the police, for example, sympathetic to one side or another, a company official.
The other criticism of the M&G is that the paper did not ask for a response from Zuma, or from the SACP and Cosatu leaders who were reported to have attended the meeting. I am told that several attempts were made to contact the players, but that these did not succeed in time.
The story would have benefited from a clear indication of what attempts had been made to get comment. In addition, reporters need to keep a precise and detailed record of their reporting: which phone calls were made when, what happened, detailed notes of conversations et cetera.
The higher the stakes, the greater is the need for journalists to take care. And there is no story with higher stakes at the moment than the story around Zuma — at issue is the leadership of the ruling party, and the country.
The air is thick with leaks that bene-fit one side or the other. How should this kind of information be dealt with?
It can’t be excluded simply because it serves somebody’s agenda. A story can be true, and also serve a political purpose. Journalists need to have an eye on both elements. If the story is untrue, the discussion ends there — the story cannot be published.
If it is true and makes good propaganda, caution is advised. It needs to be corroborated more carefully than usual, and the supporting evidence presented to readers. But if it stands up and is in the public interest, then it should be published.
Always, though, the question of agenda should be asked and answered, if possible in the story. We should indicate who benefits from a particular disclosure, and make any connections between the agenda and the source as clear as possible. This gives an even stronger reason to be as clear as possible about the source of a story.
Also, the ‘dirty war” behind various media disclosures becomes a legitimate and important subject of coverage, as Anton Harber, Caxton professor of journalism at Wits University, has written.
These are complicated times for journalists. They demand both boldness and care, as well as maximum transparency about our own methods.