Sanef’s dismissive response to harassment of a witness inglorious
0n September 13, three television reporters from SABC News, NewzRoom Afrika and eNCA did the unthinkable when they decided, together with their camera crews, that it was befitting to put a story above respecting a witness’s constitutional right to privacy at the Senzo Meyiwa trial.
They harassed him. They deliberately ignored his endless rejection to make a comment live on television, which is tantamount to not getting consent from someone and yet going ahead to do whatever you want to do. This is how serious this matter is.
The many reports last week provided us with a blanket report of naming the television stations instead of the specific names of the reporters.
It was an unfortunate story, as the storytellers became the centre of the story. Even more disheartening was the response (read dismissive comment) from the SA National Editors Forum (Sanef). Journalism in this country is ridiculed; if it is not allegations of journalists that are bribed, it is reporters who don’t respect citizens’ basic human rights.
Our newsrooms are full of unprofessional, unethical reporters and journalists whose egos are bigger than the size of a courtroom.
Then Sanef issues a lame statement that was both condescending and lacked remorse. And the lack of remorse is picked up in these lines from its pronouncement. “As much as the actions of the journalists were uncalled for, the immediate reaction to ban them from the court proceedings was also unfortunate as it meant most television viewers’ privilege of watching the live proceedings was taken away from them. This court case has huge public interest.”
What irks me the most is an apology that is written for the sake of writing it, and not to fully acknowledge the wrongfulness of the behaviour of the journalists.
To talk about a revised manual that was shared with the journalists to familiarise themselves with how they should conduct themselves in court is dangerous. It is irresponsible, it is careless, and it speaks to how the fourth estate of this country has set low standards.
They should know how to conduct themselves in a professional and acceptable manner. Some of them pride themselves on being called senior reporters but their behaviour is as juvenile as that of a citizen journalist. Those three reporters should know better.
It makes one worry a lot about where these journalists obtained their journalism qualifications. I wonder if they missed their lectures on media law and ethics, and if they did or didn’t, they certainly do not deserve to practise journalism. Over a decade ago, I sat in a lecture hall where all the basic principles of how to conduct
yourself as a journalist were outlined. One does not even need a silly booklet from Sanef to know these basics.
And 10 years later, I remember those principles like yesterday, they are entrenched in me. These are the same group of journalists that ask silly questions such as, “Are you saddened by the death of your loved one?” to the bereaved. Respecting another citizen’s basic human rights should be known by every respectful and respectable journalist.
By the way, it is in this very court case where a lawyer was removed from the bar. A clear example no mediocrity or unprofessionalism will be acceptable.
Furthermore, it is the same court case where journalists were banned. If anything, the judge and his colleagues understand the seriousness of not respecting the ways of working in their courts. However, Sanef chose to protect their misconduct and sing the old boring song of “it’s of public interest”. No story is above basic human rights.
If this is how Sanef is going to conduct itself, maybe we should do away with it. It can’t just be about the glitz and glamour at Nat Nakasa awards. There should be a strong sense of accountability or just close shop. A slap on the wrist for irresponsible and unscrupulous behaviour by journalists is not enough.