Franz Kruger writes for the Mail & Guardian:
In anybody's terms, the Valentine's Day shooting of the model Reeva Steenkamp by her Paralympian star boyfriend was a sensational event. It drew unprecedented local and international attention, and will continue to do so as the judicial process unfolds.
There was immediate blanket coverage, which included information on the kind of evidence the police were believed to have uncovered. The Sunday papers went particularly far in this direction, reflecting the police case that he had murdered his girlfriend. In one paper, there was a kind of cartoon strip that showed what might have happened.
As the bail hearing unfolded afterwards, it became clear that these accounts were open to challenge. Some details, such as the existence of a bloody cricket bat, proved to be pure fiction, as Pistorius's defence sought to create doubt about the state's case.
At the very least, the bail hearing must have been almost as embarrassing to some newspapers as it was to the hapless investigating officer whose testimony was dismantled in court. Of course, the trial has not begun properly, and the evidence from both sides will be subjected to much closer scrutiny.
The coverage has led to a debate about the limits of court reporting. The sub-judice rule is designed to prevent issues before court being prejudged and to forestall undue influence over a court case. What this means in practice, however, has been unclear for some time.
Relaxed approach
In its strict application, the rule meant that only material actually presented in court could be reported and no opinion on the strength of a case or a likely outcome was permissible. As the media lawyers Dario Milo and Avani Singh have pointed out, a 2007 ruling in the Supreme Court of Appeal has loosened the reins somewhat. Although it accepted that publicity can harm the administration of justice, the court said damage needed to be clear and demonstrable before the media's freedom to report could be limited.
The ruling gave official approval to the more relaxed approach that has become standard practice, although it does not help a great deal in determining what exactly constitutes clear harm.
The relaxation of these rules is welcome, because it established that the courts cannot exist in a sanitised bubble of their own making. Immunity from public discussion cannot be achieved and is not desirable. But this does not mean there should be no limits. I was uncomfortable about some of the initial Pistorius coverage in that it encouraged a view that the matter was clear and his guilt established. This is a problem because it is unfair to the accused and because it may undermine public confidence in the court's final decision.
Much has been made of the fact that we do not have a jury system and so the danger of improperly influencing the court case is much diminished. This is, of course, valid and sets the South African situation apart from that in Britain and elsewhere. But it does not deal with the other two concerns.
It is more often the way information is presented than the detail itself that can cause a problem. By all means, report on the alleged cricket bat – but maybe it should be presented a little more cautiously, making it clear that various explanations and additional facts may yet change the picture.
It is true that the rise of social media has changed the landscape. They provide a new platform for valuable insights and new facts – mixed in with rumour, speculation and half-baked opinion. It seems to me that the implication of this development is not that journalists should publish everything "because it's out there anyway" but that they should hold on to a key advantage they have: the claim to trustworthiness based on thorough research and balanced presentation.
Spin doctors
A more careful approach also provides some defence against the dangers of being manipulated by spin doctors. Already, the coverage shows the signs of opposing PR strategies at work, with stories of "prayers for Oscar" competing with claims of past violence on the front pages of various newspapers. It seems that the motto of the day is "No front page without Oscar", which leaves a great deal of space for spin to be presented as news.
Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. This story will be with us for a long time and we should cover it in a way that ensures that our credibility with readers stays with us too.
The headline on last week's front-page lead story in the Mail & Guardian was one of those that can irritate readers. The story quoted several sources saying that a group of ANC lobbyists based in KwaZulu-Natal was working to prevent the party's deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa, from assuming the party's top position after Jacob Zuma steps down.
The headline declared "Why Cyril won't be king", assuming, very smoothly and without a shade of evidence, that this group's aim will be achieved. It is always fun to predict the political future but it's an uncertain business. There will be other factions with different ideas – and a hundred things may happen to stymie this goal.
But the M&G confidently predicted how it will turn out. It's like talking to eight (or more) Democratic Alliance sources who say they are working to capture Gauteng from the ANC, then writing as fact that they will do so, with the headline: "DA to capture Gauteng".
Maybe the paper's crystal ball needs to be sent in for repairs.
This article appeared on the Mail & Guardian website
No comments:
Post a Comment