This week AfriForum’s Kallie Kriel took to X to celebrate a Press Ombud ruling in which an online publication was directed to retract and apologise for a news report that had been found to be untruthful, inaccurate and unfair.
The publication in question had reported that Kriel, along with other representatives of the Afrikaner lobby group, had travelled to the US on a crusade “to spread misinformation” about an alleged white genocide in South Africa, a move believed to have spawned diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
More than 180 X users weighed in on the post. Naturally, most of the commenting users were those sympathetic to AfriForum. And a lot of them took a dim view of the sanction, stopping short of labelling the ombud toothless. Dismissing it as a slap on the wrist, they were in unison in calling for a more severe penalty.
“How about a hefty fine? The damage is done. Nobody cares about an apology after the fact. Punish them hard,” retorted one user who posted under the handle @PretoriaNinja.
Another who went by the handle @granny_is_right concurred: “Retractions are not good enough. There must be financial penalties as well. No-one reads retractions.”
The ombud, one-third of South Africa’s newspapers and online news publications’ co-regulatory regime, which includes the Press Council and the Appeals Panel, is not known for imposing fines on members of the council found to have fallen foul of the Press Code.
But @PretoriaNinja's and @granny_is_right’s laments were not farfetched. Another domestic media watchdog, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA), routinely fines broadcasters who infringe the Code of Conduct applicable to players in that industry.
Incidentally, in 2021 the Satchwell Commission recommended to the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) to “reopen the consideration of sanctions — fines or suspension from media organisations — for journalists who commit ethical breaches since the current Press Council requirements avail very limited restorative justice to aggrieved or harmed members of the public”.
Chaired by retired judge Kathleen Satchwell, the commission was established by Sanef to seek “clarity on those challenges confronting the media industry generally and journalists in particular which hinder the appropriate, honest, accountable and effective reporting necessary for advancing and strengthening constitutional democracy in South Africa”.
Kriel’s triumphalist post could not have come at a better time — at the height of a rumpus over whether deputy minister for women Mmapaseka Steve Letsike and communication portfolio committee chairperson Khusela Diko’s call for the regulation of podcasts constitutes an affront on free speech as claimed by podcaster MacGyver Mukwevho’s legions of supporters on social media platforms.
Mukwevho, who has gained notoriety for asking guests on his platform Podcast and Chill cringeworthy questions laden with explicit sex, last week took aim at television personality Minenhle Dlamini, mouthing off offensive and humiliating utterances that one cannot repeat here. There have been many other complaints stemming from Mukwevho’s interviews, some of which have led to lawsuits and criminal charges.
In addition to being anti-regulation, some consumers of his toxic content have argued that the move by Letsike and Diko was fuelled by political opportunism. Others have oddly reasoned that, instead of regulating podcasts, those who have suffered at the hands of the likes of Mukwevho should be encouraged to lawyer up and head to court.
The point of this opinion is not whether, in taking up the cudgels for Dlamini, Letsike and Diko were grandstanding. That would only serve to trivialise Mukwevho’s despicable conduct.
But Mukwevho’s platform is not the only one to have courted controversy in recent times. Just over a month ago, we saw musician Reason aka Sizwe Alakine storming the set of another podcast, Piano Pulse, in a near-violent confrontation. He had taken umbrage with the unsavoury comments the hosts had made in reference to fellow musician and girlfriend Gigi Lamayne.
The point of this opinion is not whether, in taking up the cudgels for Dlamini, Letsike and Diko were grandstanding. That would only serve to trivialise Mukwevho’s despicable conduct.
Instead, I am taking issue with the meritless claims that extending regulation to podcasts amounts to taking away the constitutional right to freedom of expression and that suing the podcasters is the only appropriate recourse.
Mass communication has evolved over the past two decades. While the public relied on newspapers, radio and television for news, information and opinion, the advent of social media has revolutionised the free exchange of ideas.
In electronic media, podcast talk shows are streamed on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and X, providing easy public access to content — often at the fingertips, thanks to the proliferation of smartphones.
The self and co-regulatory approach to media accountability as seen through the BCCSA and the Press Council is highly effective albeit with imperfections here and there. It is nothing like the stillborn Media Appeals Tribunal, which made headlines back in 2010. It is aimed at ensuring responsible and non-harmful broadcasting and publication of information. At the same time, it reinforces the independence of the media and ensures that the right to free speech remains untampered with.
As part of the self-regulation regime, radio stations are duty-bound to put the BCCSA promos on heavy rotation, calling on listeners to report noncompliance with the Code of Conduct. The system is effective. It saw Metro FM sending popular disc jock DJ Fresh packing in 2019 for uttering an offensive word during a broadcast. There have been many other examples before DJ Fresh.
Similar accountability mechanisms extend to television, where the Film and Publication Board (FPB) sees to it that channels warn us ahead of the broadcast of movies and series that are deemed harmful to sensitive viewers.
It is thus commonplace to see the letters SNLV (Sex, Nudity, Language and Violence) or PG (Parental Guidance) on the screen during the broadcast of film and television productions that are for adult viewing only. Failure to take these measures while screening harmful content attracts fines that could be as high as R750,000.
Because it is not a creature of self-regulation, when carrying out its mandate, the FBP counterbalances the right to freedom of expression with the rights to access to information, dignity, privacy and the rights of children.
On the question of litigation, bodies such as the BCCSA and the ombud were always meant to provide a speedy resolution of complaints and disputes between parties in a setting that is not saddled with heavy financial costs, formalities and complexities that come with court processes.
It is well established that mounting a case in court does not come cheap. In addition, lawyers who offer services on a pro bono basis are hard to come by. Besides, why must victims be burdened with the responsibility to spend money they might not have to vindicate their rights when there could be cost-effective services such as those offered by the BCCSA and the ombud to achieve the same outcome?
With this information publicly available, it is unclear why Mukwevho’s supporters cry of “censorship”, raise strange arguments like “you don’t want to see a black man succeed” or “why don’t you go to court” at the mere mention of accountability and regulation. They are well within their rights to hold politicians accountable over dissatisfactory public services, but their fight should not be to the detriment of everybody else.
Under no circumstances should new media such as podcasts enjoy free reign to spew bigoted misogyny disguised as free speech without consequences when other forms of media are kept in check. Such a state of affairs is a slippery slope.
The standards to which radio is held should be extended to podcasts. Perhaps the FPB mandate should also cover podcasts since such platforms are audiovisual. Not only would this bring the regulatory environment up to speed with the rapid developments in the media scene, it would also ensure that there is punitive and corrective action against offenders.
Ultimately, this will deter those who see the fun in Mukwevho’s appalling conduct while ensuring that the cruelty visited upon Dlamini and others does not recur.
• Segalwe is a trained journalist, a communication professional and an author. He writes in his personal capacity
For opinion and analysis consideration, e-mail Opinions@timeslive.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.