Daily Maverick’s Questionable Ethics: Anton Harber's Premature Attack on Independent Media
In an alarming display of journalistic misconduct, Daily Maverick's Anton Harber published a scathing article about Independent Media, a day before the company's hearing with the Press Council. This ill-timed publication undermines the integrity of the Press Council’s processes and calls into question Harber’s ethical standards and motives.
The article, which pre-empts the Press Council’s review, is a blatant attempt to sway public opinion and potentially influence the Council’s decision. By releasing such a charged piece without giving Independent Media the right to reply, Harber has exhibited a disregard for balanced reporting and fair comment.
This premature attack not only undermines the integrity of the Press Council's processes but also raises questions about Harber's ethical standards and motives.
Harber's banal rhetoric is a typical tactic of foreign-funded media outlets like the Daily Maverick and New24, which use attack dogs like him to portray themselves as progressive voices who continuously try to undermine Independent Media.
As usual, Harber's approach is smug and self-righteous, as if he is one who has never erred.
Harber perpetuates the illusion of impeccable judgment and infallibility, reinforcing the narrative that his insights and critiques are beyond reproach. This portrayal shields him from accountability for past missteps or biases and enhances his credibility among followers who view him as a steadfast advocate for ethical journalism.
The self-appointed doyen of journalism is quick to pontificate on ethical journalism, yet he is duplicitous and undermines the very values he argues for in his piece on an Independent Media case at the Press Council. The complaint involves an opinion written by Edmond Phiri on Karyn Maughan and her handlers.
One of the signifiers of liberal media's agenda and their agents, such as Harber, is the obsessive criticism of the perceived failures of black-owned media companies such as Independent Media, which bravely holds the current dispensation to account and, in doing so, vexes their white-monopoly capital puppet masters.
Harber has been dogged in his approach and criticism of Independent Media, relishing in a narrative that demonises a black-owned media house and its fearless journalism.
Harber's reputation as an attack dog in media circles stems from his tendency to aggressively target and criticise specific individuals, organisations, or ideas. His role often involves amplifying critiques that align with specific agendas or narratives, effectively serving as a weapon in ideological or political battles within the media landscape.
This approach is intended to undermine the credibility and reputation of those in his crosshairs, influence public opinion, and shape discourse.
His interests are apparent: He seeks to diminish or silence opposing viewpoints and uses his pseudo-media influence to sway public perception, discredit dissenting voices, and reinforce dominant narratives favoured by his backers.
However, individuals like Harber raise concerns about journalistic integrity and impartiality. They blur the line between journalism as a vehicle for objective reporting and commentary and a tool for advancing certain agendas.
This phenomenon underscores the importance of transparency and ethical considerations in media practices, ensuring that critiques are grounded in factual accuracy and genuine inquiry rather than serving as tools of manipulation or suppression.
*Senekal de Wet is Editor-in-Chief at Independent Media