Far from being impartial, the Press Council has morphed into an instrument that selectively enforces media standards, targeting publications like Independent Media while sparing favoured players within SANEF’s ranks. The bias is glaring in how it treated the Independent Media, says the writer.
Image: IOL
By Edmond Phiri
The censorship cartel led by the Press Council and the South African National Editors' Forum (SANEF) failed to silence Independent Media (Indy). When one looks deeper and lifts the veil on the Press Council of South Africa, it becomes abundantly clear that this council is far from the "neutral arbiter" it claims to be. Beneath the surface, it is enmeshed in relationships and alliances that cast doubt on its legitimacy as an impartial media regulator.
The Press Council has drifted far from its original purpose as a body representing the interests of a free and balanced media. Instead, it has become an institution seemingly orchestrated to uphold a select media oligarchy while stamping out dissenting voices. Independent Media’s departure, rather than a retreat, is a courageous stand against this entrenched and disturbing bias.
SANEF, a powerful media lobby group, has long held significant sway over the Press Council. For a body claiming to oversee media standards, the fact that SANEF nominates two council members is concerning. How the Press Council treated Independent Media reveals its partisan stance. It has exposed that they seem determined to control which media voices should dominate South Africa’s information landscape.
One cannot ignore the outrage SANEF demonstrated in 2013 when Independent Media was acquired by Sekunjalo. At the time, Nicholas Dawes, then SANEF’s chair, wrote a scathing Op-Ed condemning the sale, arguing that Sekunjalo’s ownership would "erode the quality" of South African journalism. This public, politicised stance underscored SANEF’s clear opposition to Sekunjalo's influence in the media sector. Their actions at the time, lobbying against the deal and inciting fear about Indy’s future, laid the groundwork for a toxic, adversarial relationship that continues to this day.
SANEF’s longstanding feud with Independent Media, stretching back over a decade, exposes why the Council cannot be impartial when handling disputes involving Indy. The recent Karyn Maughan case proved the point.
Fast forward to the case involving News24’s Karyn Maughan and Sunday Independent (following my March Op-Ed), and the entrenched bias becomes glaringly evident. My opinion piece, which drew parallels between Maughan’s conduct and that of Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl, was swiftly condemned by SANEF. The Press Council delivered a draconian ruling against Sunday Indy, demanding retractions, deletion and apologies. But there is a conspicuous silence on why this judgement was so one-sided.
Not only did SANEF and its allied media bodies openly condemn my critique of Maughan, but there are also direct conflicts of interest embedded within the council itself. Ben Winks, the same lawyer who represented Maughan in her legal challenges involving former President Jacob Zuma, also sits on the Press Council. Can genuine neutrality exist when someone with vested professional interests is directly involved in the council’s decisions? The intertwining roles and connections raise serious questions about whether the council’s verdicts are truly impartial or simply reflect a hidden and wider agenda.
The SANEF-Press Council nexus is, ultimately, a self-serving alliance. Their alliance undermines the principles of objective media regulation. Corridor rumour has it that SANEF was once using office space provided by Media24, a competitor of Independent Media. This overlapping of interests creates a regulatory echo chamber, where the censorship cartel reinforces its own biases using the quasi-regulatory bodies.
Far from being impartial, the Press Council has morphed into an instrument that selectively enforces media standards, targeting publications like Independent Media while sparing favoured players within SANEF’s ranks. The bias is glaring in how it treated the Independent Media.
For long, Independent Media has been subjected to a sustained campaign of discrediting and delegitimisation. The attacks are not just about individual rulings or cases; it is a systemic effort to undermine one of the few media voices outside SANEF’s orbit. Independent Media, because of its willingness to challenge prevailing narratives and confront powerful interests, represents a threat to the status quo that SANEF and the Press Council appear determined to preserve.
The unholy alliance between SANEF and the Press Council is a blemish on South Africa’s media landscape. Independent Media’s withdrawal from the council was not a necessary act of defiance, a bold rejection of a biased regulatory body that has lost its way, particularly the censorship cartel.
* Edmond Phiri is an independent writer, analysis and political commentator.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Related Topics: