The apology by the Sunday Times in relation to its publication of a number of false stories is appreciated. The subsequent news that two senior journalists involved have left the newspaper shows something is being done.
However, these actions fall short of giving us confidence in the paper, given the actual and potential damage to people's reputations.
The false narrative created by unsubstantiated reporting regarding the Cato Manor "death squads", the South African Revenue Service and the Zimbabwean renditions has left a trail of destruction. Innocent people have been besmirched and have had their reputations irreparably tarnished.
The consequences of these false stories have been far-reaching, and those unfairly implicated have faced the spectre of suspension and criminal charges, while some have even lost their jobs, not to mention suffered public condemnation.
A mere apology does nothing for those whose lives have been rocked to the core. It rings hollow and cannot undo the damage that has been done. When people fail the test of justice in other spheres there are consequences that the perpetrators must face. That is the essence of justice.
Given the trail of destruction left by the stories one would have expected some form of explanation of how they could have got things so wrong, what went wrong, who was to blame and what has been done to ensure it does not happen again.
Having read the stories over and over, other readers may feel that the narrative being put out now is the false one and that the stories, as initially reported, are true. The failure to explain only engenders doubt in whatever the newspaper puts out, and rightly so.
Our constitution provides for the protection of media freedom. The media in this country enjoys freedoms that journalists in many other countries can only envy.
According to Reporters Without Borders, SA ranks third among African nations on the media freedom barometer. For the sake of our democracy, it is important for SA to feature at the top. Media freedom is an important building block for an informed society. It is also critical for safeguarding democracy. This freedom cannot be taken lightly because it came at a great cost.
Over the years we have worked tirelessly to ensure there was an appreciation by the media and the public of the meaning of media freedom.
As the government we are on record in coming out strongly in condemning members of the public who have interfered with the work of journalists. This we did to make sure that the media performs its duties without any intimidation or fear.
We have even gone as far as acceding to the self-regulation approach that the media called for, yet South Africans still wake up to unsubstantiated stories and mere apologies being offered to people whose lives have been ruined.
Again we have been told that every media house has its own verification process to test the veracity of facts and information. There is a Press Council, which is a structure that has been put in place for the public to voice its grievances with the media, should there be a need to do so. This is only applicable to those media houses that subscribe to the council.
Former KwaZulu-Natal Hawks boss Johan Booysen, who was given a right of response in the same newspaper, tells us that he did contact the journalists in question and offered his response, which clearly was ignored.
The processes failed in this case, and that is worrying. When some of the media are no longer seen as impartial, or viewed as being untrustworthy, then democracy is on shaky ground.
The news that the South African National Editors' Forum has commissioned an investigation of editorial integrity following a meeting with the Tiso Blackstar management in light of the scandal at the Sunday Times is encouraging. We can only hope that this will assist in protecting our young democracy.
In the week that we commemorate the anniversary of Media Freedom Day, commonly known as Black Wednesday, there will undoubtedly be introspection on these recent developments in the media space.
When the media gets it wrong it has always been acceptable to appreciate the apology that is published in the next issue and given the same prominence.
What happens when a newspaper consistently makes errors of reporting over time that are damaging to persons? Where is justice in such a case?
Such apologies end up being a mere slap on the wrist, considering what people have had to go through over a considerable length of time. When lives have been destroyed through falsehoods, an apology does little to undo the damage.
Maybe if there are real consequences in such instances, journalists and editors will think twice before publishing uncorroborated information. The rush to be first to break the news cannot be at the expense of ethical behaviour and high journalistic standards.
The Sunday Times has apologised for its mistakes, but the question is how many other stories has it not owned up to, and instead opted to quietly leave the lie or distortion in the hope that they will pass unchallenged?
Consumers of media deserve better, and certainly our nation deserves better. Media has to educate, inform and entertain. Journalists have to accurately reflect the underlying dynamics in society and report fairly and objectively at all times.
As the government, we hope that this reflection will result in a new approach that does not simply involve going after low-hanging fruit.
Perhaps there is room for a sharper focus on the underlying issues that continue to hamper our progress.
We would also argue that there is room for more reporting that reveals a fuller and less distorted picture of the context of our challenges.
It is up to us to turn this sad chapter in our democracy into a moment of renewal and change.
• Phumla Williams is the Acting CEO of GCIS and cabinet spokesperson..