There is only one way to put out fire of media misadventure

The Sunday Times must have been hoping that last week’s admission of wrongdoing in a series of stories dating back to 2013 would put to rest a matter that has haunted the paper and successive editors for five years.

“We committed mistakes and allowed ourselves to be manipulated by those with ulterior motives,” editor Bongani Siqoko said in an unusually prominent and lengthy apology for what his predecessors had allowed to happen.

The editorial has, however, had the opposite effect to what was intended: it stirred up the matter, raising as many questions as it answered.

Who played them, and how? Who in the Sunday Times was responsible? Was there full accountability? How could this happen just a few years after a previous 2007 inquiry into stories that went wrong (of which I was part)?

Other outlets were offered the same stories but saw through the political agendas that were being foisted on them and did not run them, or covered them in a very different way.

The SA National Editors Forum has said it will hold an inquiry into editorial integrity. This is an important intervention, as long as it is not too narrow. If one wants to examine the impact of state capture on media, one also has to look into others who were even more seriously compromised, notably in the SABC, MultiChoice and Independent Media.

Part of the problem is that it was not quite clear what Siqoko was doing. He wasn’t retracting the stories, just admitting there were mistakes in them and they were not as balanced and complete as they should have been. Rather than clarify what the real story was, he gave a right of reply to Johan Booysen, a former policeman who was one of those whose life was turned upside down as a result of the stories.

In fact, Siqoko was hurriedly responding to threats by Booysen and forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan to take action, including going to the Zondo commission of inquiry and promoting a consumer boycott of the newspaper. O’Sullivan was angry about a more recent report about himself and had sent threatening letters to editors and journalists.

Matters were further complicated by the fact that some of the reporters and former editors involved were not happy with Siqoko’s apology.

Former editor Ray Hartley released to friends a piece that Siqoko had declined to publish, and which then quickly circulated on social media. He admitted errors but stood by the basics of the story. What was meant to be an elegant closure of a difficult period is now messy, unresolved and causing distress across the industry.

At a time when we should be celebrating investigative journalists who exposed and helped stop state capture, the enemies of media freedom are using this to make sweeping denunciations of all journalists and calling for regulations and control that would be used against those who got it right as much as those who got it wrong.

There have been strong calls for the Sunday Times to name those who misled and “played” them. Journalists have been pushing politicians and government officials to come clean in order to deal with the scourge of “capture” and prevent it happening again. Why do they themselves not do so?

If the source is deliberately feeding false or misleading information, have they not themselves broken the covenant with a journalist to not name them? Should the journalist not be obliged to out them, to ensure that this does not happen again?

THE SUNDAY TIMES APOLOGY, WHICH WAS MEANT TO BE AN ELEGANT CLOSURE OF A DIFFICULT PERIOD, IS NOW CAUSING DISTRESS

Journalists are divided on this, with some saying sources must be protected in all circumstances if we want others to come forward and help us expose wrongdoing. It seems the case is strong: there is no reason to protect a maligned source who has caused harm by misdirecting the journalist. There is no way that serves the public good to offer such protection.

However, the Sunday Times case has complications. The investigations were done by a team, and as many as six names could appear on the story. Some have left the newspaper and do not accept the apology. They stand by their stories, and maintain the newspaper is pandering to critics, rivals and bullies by apologising. So to name the sources would mean breaking someone else’s covenant. How can you reveal the identity of someone else’s sources?

The only way this fire is going to be put out is by journalists doing what they expect of others: to have a full, transparent, third-party inquiry that answers these questions and points to what has to be done to prevent a recurrence. Siqoko threw a log on to the smouldering fire, now the media industry needs to mobilise a brigade to put out the flames.

● Harber is Caxton professor of journalism (adjunct) at Wits University.