News of the World muddied the water

The past fortnight has been horrendous in the world of media as we have come to terms with the criminality which the News of the World passed off as journalism.

As expected, all manner of missiles have been flying our way.

The British government has announced that there will be a broad inquiry into the matter and a review of the regulation of media. And politicians across the spectrum have been making ominous noises about the power of the press.

The more dramatic responses have painted the entire media world with the News of the World brush, with many saying, "You see what these people get up to when they are not properly regulated" and "So that is how they get their stories."

It is important to put this whole saga in perspective.

The crime, for that is the only way one can describe it, was committed by a muckraking tabloid not renowned for its love of ethics. The rest of the British media, including other tabloids, would never dream of employing some of the tactics used by the News of the World.

Glossed over in this rush to condemn the media in its entirety is the fact that the mess was exposed through good old journalistic work by The Guardian newspaper.

The fact is that journalists the world over are more appalled by the antics of the News of the World than anyone else. From Fiji and Burkina Faso to Iceland, we are all reaching for the sick bucket.

We, members of this most noble tribe, pride ourselves in the fact that we sweat for stories. We hunt information, painstakingly piece it together and paint a picture. Admittedly, we don't always do this perfectly and our execution is not always elegant. Being human, we also make mistakes.

Many a time we hit dead-ends because we are just not able to get to that extra source or lay our hands on that additional document or find enough corroboration to publish.

Floyd Shivambu would feel very much at home were he to walk into a newsroom on deadline and hear the number of F-words screamed out as stories crash, leaving gaping holes on pages or news bulletins.

Investigations are even more frustrating. After months of digging and loads of resources thrown at an investigation, we are often forced to dejectedly walk away empty-handed.

But the News of the World would have none of that. Not for them the frustrations of ordinary news-gathering. To them, it was the story at whatever cost. And now!

It is a tragedy that the fallout is likely to have repercussions in lands far away from Britain. Dictators, dirty politicians, dodgy businessmen and all manner of scoundrels have found their defence. Governments will use this episode to try to encroach on the free media space. In the UK itself, a country where media freedoms have been sacrosanct, there are rumblings about some or other form of reining in the media. The mood is hostile.

In South Africa, we are fortunate that we do not have the media culture of "do whatever it takes" to get the story. Despite what the detractors argue and believe, there is generally a strong adherence to ethics in our media. The regulators in print and electronic media exercise strict oversight over breaches and are universally respected and feared.

We do not pay for stories, as happens elsewhere. The worst infringement in this regard comes in the form of two or three magazines buying exclusive rights to celebrity weddings, the first picture of a famous person's newborn or access to a sought-after newsmaker. The rest of us frown on the practice and we do our best to muscle past the musclemen who guard this exclusive access.

I am not trying to paint a picture of South African media populated by priests, imams and rabbis. We have had our fair share of ethical and factual lapses in the past and may do so in future. But when these have occurred, we have moved quickly to deal with and learn from them. Those among us who deliberately strayed from ethical rectitude have felt the wrath of the tribe as fellow journalists descended on them like a crazed mob.

But we cannot be complacent. British society allowed the News of the World to become the monster it became. It humoured and gave leeway to Rupert Murdoch, that despicable specimen who presided over the most callous and cowboy years of the institution. The British political establishment, from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, made him feel untouchable. Even after the royal phone-hacking scandal some years ago, the News of the World was not judged harshly enough by Britain.

In addition to having a strong non-statutory regulatory mechanism, South Africa can avoid ever having a News of the World type of crisis through journalists themselves being vigilant, recommitting themselves to the highest ethical standards and exercising harsh peer review.

Society also needs to tell us when it feels we are betraying its trust.

The last thing we must allow is for the foes of media freedom to use this sorry saga to wrench free speech from South Africans.