Media Ethics Transgression

This essay considers the article entitled “Julius Malema on the ropes” that was published on the Times Live website on 31 October 2011 for an analysis of media ethics. Herein it will be argued that this article transgresses many journalistic standards including violation of privacy, social responsibility and proper use of sources. It is important to uphold these journalistic standards in order to sustain the accountability of the media. The accountability of the media is essential as it plays the role of watchdog in our society, being responsible for the exposure of dishonesty, corruption and malpractice ( Schultz, 1998; 4).
Julius Malema has been viewed as a highly controversial South African Politician. He was once a member and leader of the African National Congress Youth League but was ultimately expelled for sowing division in the party and for bringing it into disrepute on 24 April 2012 (Bauer, 2011) . This expulsion took place nearly six months after the publication of the article “Julius Malema on the ropes” appeared on the website of Times Live.
The time it took before any significant action was taken against Julius Malema renders the article published by the Times Live somewhat misleading. The term “on the ropes” holds the connotations of immanent failure, one quite strongly associated with boxing when one opponent manages to push the other onto the ropes of the ring with a barrage of blows. Considering the connotations of the term it would appear that the article is suggesting that Malema was soon to meet with failure. The article discusses an ongoing investigation into the financial affairs of Julius Malema while suggesting immanent action to take place. It should be noted that a police warrant for the arrest of Julius Malema was issued on 21 September 2012, nearly a year after the publication of the Times Live article suggesting the fast-approaching prosecution of Julius Malema.
The headline of the article in discussion is deemed misleading to the public as its suggestion took more than a year to come to fruition. This can be considered as a transgression of media ethics as it is the duty of the media to create an informed public in order to help them shape debates and the making of decisions (Finlayson, 2005). Times Live created unwarranted speculation regarding the arrest of Julius Malema by entitling their article “Julius Malema on the ropes”. At the time of publication there was no indication as to when the prosecution of Julius Malema might take place. The following is an excerpt from the article that Times Live might use to justify their choice of headline ““it was just a matter of time” before authorities acted”. This is a very vague statement as “a matter of time” can be interpreted in many different ways and within a variety of different time brackets. The in text quote here also raises concerns regarding media ethics which will be discussed shortly, however it is now an appropriate time to deliberate over how the editor or sub-editor might have better handled the selection of the stories headline.
The following is an extract from South African Press Code
“10.1. Headlines and captions to pictures shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or picture in question.”
The report published by Times Live is a summary and current status of the investigation into the financial activities of Julius Malema by the Hawks, an elite South African police unit, and the South African Revenue Service. There is no evidence in the report that suggests when, or even whether at all, the prosecution of Julius Malema might take place other than the following, “The Times has established that the net is closing in on Malema”. The article does not go on to reveal how The Times have established that the net is closing in on Julius Malema, another topic of contention regarding media ethics which will be raised later. It would seem as though The Times has appropriated the use of their headline by claiming they have established that his prosecution is imminent, however providing no evidence of their claim. The headline for the story in question thereby does not adhere to the South African Press Code regulations regarding headlines as the headline has been self appropriated and is therefore in transgression of media standards and ethics. A more suitable headline chosen by the editor or sub-editor might have read “Latest on Julius Malema Investigation”.
Returning to the media ethics in question regarding the excerpt ““it was just a matter of time” before authorities acted” it should be noted that no indication is made as to the source of the text quote. This article goes on to make other claims for which no source has been provided, namely “In the hope of immunity from prosecution, some of Malema 's benefactors are said to be cooperating with investigators” and “The Times has established that it”(the probe into Julius Malema’s financial affairs) “has caused serious headaches for the authorities and tensions among Malema 's allies”. The last claim is accounted to “insiders” by The Times, yet considering that the article mentions politicians, the Hawks, SARS, an engineering company and Julius Malema’s family trust the affiliation of the said “insiders” is left rather ambiguous. These vague and unattributed sources that form an integral part of the article compromise the integrity of the media industry as a whole. When a source remains anonymous there is no way for the public to assess the validity of the information which undermines the credibility of the media (Retief, 2002; 118).
The use of anonymous sources in this article opens up an entire debate regarding the legitimacy and intention of anonymous sources (Retief, 2002) as well as compromise the integrity of the article and the entire media organisation. Johann Retief has a lot of interesting comments regarding anonymous sources in his book entitled Media Ethics: An Introduction to Responsible Journalism. He raises the issues that sources have the ability to manipulate journalists for their own intentions (Retief, 2002; 118). He also brings to light that when sources request confidentiality they can say anything to a journalist without having to provide any form of solid evidence (Retief, 2002; 118). These are all serious issues that could result in an unknowing transgression of media standards and ethics by a journalist. An anonymous source has the ability to say what they wish, this in turn gives them the ability to spread false allegations that could cause serious harm to the reputation of those against whom they might be testifying as well as the media organisation (Retief, 2002; 126).
The use of anonymous sources in the Times Live article “Julius Malema on the ropes” raises the question of the reliability of the information presented by the article. The use of the anonymous sources in this case may be as a result of the Times Live’s desire to avoid the “chilling effect”. The “chilling effect” occurs as a consequence of an anonymous source being revealed against their will and as a result refusing to testify in the future (Schauer, 1978; 685). The “chilling effect” would result in a loss of viable sources for the journalistic profession. The use of named sources however would have added credibility to the “Julius Malema on the ropes” article.
It can be argued that the confidentiality of these sources was retained as the information provided was in the public interest. The public interest however is a hotly contested term (Jones, 2011). The South African Press Code has this to say regarding the confidentiality of sources and the public interest
“11.3. The press shall not publish information that constitutes a breach of confidence, unless a legitimate public interest dictates otherwise.”
The article “Julius Malema against the ropes” makes use of confidential sources and might justify that use as the information provided is deemed to be in the public interest. Some of the content however does not meet the classification of public interest. The following was published in the article under criticism
“Malema is expected back in the country today after jetting out of Johannesburg on Friday for an all-expenses-paid weekend of booze, parties and luxury at the R10-million wedding in Mauritius.”
The manner in which this information was obtained is not made clear in the article. It is also not clear at all why this is relevant to an article regarding an update on the investigation into Julius Malema’s financial affairs. The money being spent at the wedding is not his own and therefore has no relevance to his financial affairs. The revealing of information regarding his travel arrangements is also deemed an invasion of privacy as that information is irrelevant to the article in question. The fact that the source of this information has not been identified is also an issue for concern. A belief exists among media professionals that the public’s right to know takes precedence over an individual’s right to privacy (Folkerts et al, 1998; 407, Jones, 2001; 163). This might be the manner in which the Times Live justifies the publication of the information regarding the private financial affairs of Julius Malema but it does not justify the publication of his travel details and wedding attendance. It should be noted that the fact that a person is a public figure does not entitle the public to know everything about them (Stuart, 1990, Jones, 2011; 169). The following is an extract from the South African Press Code
“4.1. The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives and concerns of individuals. The right to privacy may be overridden by a legitimate public interest.”
The extract regarding Julius Malema’s wedding attendance and travel details is not appropriate or in the public interest for this article. It might be considered appropriate were it to be published in a celebrity tabloid but not under the political section of the Times Live website. Hence the publication of Julius Malema’s travel details and wedding attendance under the political section of the Times Live website transgresses media ethics and journalistic codes.
At the time of publication it had not been established that the information regarding Julius Malema’s financial affairs was in fact true. The lack of credited sources in the article suggests that there might have been a cause for defamation in the article. The article suggested the imminent prosecution of Julius Malema, which could very well have deterred business interaction with him. The article qualifies for defamation as it publishes information, that at the time had not been verified, and was harmful to his reputation (Famau, 2003; 3).
The final case is that of whether the article was in the public interest or the interest of the public. Julius Malema was a highly publicised politician in South Africa at the time and it is fair to say that his controversial life held the interest of the public. In the day and age where there is an access to private information the desire for access to private information has grown (Jones, 2011; 163). The highly publicised nature of the life of Julius Malema lead to the blurring of lines regarding what was in the public interest and therefore ethical media decision making. During this time it was as if any information that surfaced regarding Julius Malema was obligated to be published. An explanation for this exists in that South Africa encompasses a community ethic in which the values of the community form the basis of ethical decision making (Rao&Wasserman, 2007; 40). At this time in South Africa the community wanted to know about Julius Malema and this lead to unnecessary and at times inaccurate assumptions being published about him.
The article entitled “Julius Malema on the ropes” that was published on the Times Live website on 31 October 2011 transgressed journalistic standards and media ethics. The article violated the privacy of Julius Malema as it published information that cannot be deemed to be in the public interest, namely his wedding attendance and travel details. It also published an array of information suggesting his imminent prosecution in relation to his financial affairs without the citation of adequate sources. This raises the question of defamation as at the time there was no confirmation of any illicit dealings by Julius Malema yet the article published as fact, information that was harmful to his reputation. The anonymity of sources that provide crucial information to the article compromises the integrity of the article and of the media as it leaves the reader questioning the validity of the information that is published. The controversy surrounding Julius Malema had the ability to blur the lines of public interest and lead to unethical decisions being made that transgressed journalistic standards.
References
Fahamu (2003). “RIGHTS VS REPUTATIONS: Campaign against the abuse of defamation and insult laws. Article XIX, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. [O]. Available:http://advocacy.africaliberalnetwork.org/upload/docs/Freedom%20of%20Expression%20handbook.pdf. Accessed on 14 April 2013
Finlayson, Gordon (2005) Habermas: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press Inc. New York
Rao, S. & Wasserman, H. (2007). Global media ethics revisited: A postcolonial critique. Global Media and Communication.(3), April 1 29-50.
Jones, Nicola (2011), “When the public interest is not what interests the public: an investigation of privacy as a media ethic in South Africa” In Natalie Hyde-Clark (ed.), Communication and media ethics in South Africa (Juta: Cape Town) ,pp.162-172 [ISBN: 978-0702178092]
Retief, Johan, (2002) Chapters 7&8, “Confidentiality” and “Conflicts of Interest” in Johan Retief, Media Ethics: An introduction to responsible journalism (Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York), pp. 117—146 [ISBN: 0195781376]
Schauer, Frederick (1978) Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect. Available: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/bulr58&div=39&g_sent=1&collection=journals Accessed on 13 April 2013
Schultz, Julianne (1998) Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge University Press Available: http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gWSyb0o8hkoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=media+watchdog&ots=GktLM8is4P&sig=FIPWIxMbrDgn6wH0EGrg3IXbEzk#v=onepage&q=media%20watchdog&f=false Accessed on 13 April 2013

References: Fahamu (2003). “RIGHTS VS REPUTATIONS: Campaign against the abuse of defamation and insult laws. Article XIX, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. [O]. Available:http://advocacy.africaliberalnetwork.org/upload/docs/Freedom%20of%20Expression%20handbook.pdf. Accessed on 14 April 2013 Finlayson, Gordon (2005) Habermas: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press Inc. New York Rao, S. & Wasserman, H. (2007). Global media ethics revisited: A postcolonial critique. Global Media and Communication.(3), April 1 29-50. Jones, Nicola (2011), “When the public interest is not what interests the public: an investigation of privacy as a media ethic in South Africa” In Natalie Hyde-Clark (ed.), Communication and media ethics in South Africa (Juta: Cape Town) ,pp.162-172 [ISBN: 978-0702178092] Retief, Johan, (2002) Chapters 7&8, “Confidentiality” and “Conflicts of Interest” in Johan Retief, Media Ethics: An introduction to responsible journalism (Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York), pp. 117—146 [ISBN: 0195781376] Schauer, Frederick (1978) Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect. Available: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/bulr58&div=39&g_sent=1&collection=journals Accessed on 13 April 2013 Schultz, Julianne (1998) Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge University Press Available: http://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gWSyb0o8hkoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=media+watchdog&ots=GktLM8is4P&sig=FIPWIxMbrDgn6wH0EGrg3IXbEzk#v=onepage&q=media%20watchdog&f=false Accessed on 13 April 2013