In a world where media houses are competing for eyeballs in the superhighway of information, the ethics of news coverage are often sacrificed at the altar of clicks. Gasant Abarder examines in this #SliceofGasant column how some media outlets got it horribly wrong and broke the law in covering the Milnerton High School bully saga.
One role of the media is to bring the temperature down in tumultuous and volatile times. It is meant to make sense of complexities so that the public can digest difficult situations that happen in our world. In the case of the Milnerton High School bullying case, the media fell short of this responsibility.
Firstly, let me put this on record: without the mom resorting to the measure of making the video public on social media, the action against the bullies may never have seen the light of day. It was necessary for the media too to give it national coverage because this was an incident that I hope is never ever repeated. The bullies must face the full might of the law and pay for their crimes.
But if you’re a credible media organisation, you need to exercise restraint and ask yourself as an editor or gatekeeper of news: do you sacrifice your credibility for thousands of clicks to show upward metrics or do the right thing to keep your brand intact? It is your ethical and legal responsibility to protect the minors involved.
The South African Press Council’s Press Code for journalists and media practitioners is clear when it comes to reporting on children, be it the victim or perpetrator. Both categories and their identities are to be protected at all costs.
In short, it says: The South African Press Code requires exceptional care when reporting on children (under 18), prohibiting identification or interviews that could harm them unless a legal guardian consents and it is in the child’s best interest, or there is a clear public interest.
It goes further to say it is illegal to publish any information that could identify a child who is an accused, witness, or victim of a crime, which also includes disclosing their school or home, unless a court authorises it.
The Milnerton High School case is interesting to the public, but is it in the public interest to publish that video? Before the bullies appeared in court – albeit that some are already 18 and over – the full video was shown and their faces plastered all over posts. The victim was also identified. The law says even after minors appear in court, their details and personal information may not be disclosed.
But these guarantees are not only protected by the Press Code. The protection of children is also a prominent feature in the Constitution, the Criminal Procedures Act and the Film and Publications Act. So, not only have mainstream media organisations acted unethically, but they have also broken the law.
Bullying is endemic in our country. A colleague had to stay out of work to deal with a school that is reluctant to deal with a child bullying her child. Among children, it is both verbal and physical abuse. There is no doubt a culture of bullying in South Africa. There is bullying in families, friend groups, places of work and among the lawmakers who run our country and their offices.
The media has a very special role in our society to ensure that it shines a light on injustice and to address the bigger conversations about bullying instead of just going for the clicks to show to advertisers that you’re being read. Instead, a lot of what passes for credible journalism these days involves taking the low road.
There was a way to bring the vicious beating of the child to light without using the very graphic visuals and footage or identifying the children involved. You can describe what happens in the video, and do so vividly with words where you leave little to the imagination. That is the craft of journalism, and if you are to be taken seriously as a media house, that is your responsibility.
Publishing the videos and faces of children – before or after they appear in court – is as wrong as the act of bullying. In fact, it is another form of bullying. Organisations like the South African National Editors’ Forum and the Press Ombudsman are quick to pronounce on matters involving the media. But it is silent when media houses that subscribe to the press code ride roughshod on the rules of engagement, and that makes it complicit.
The South African media has created secondary trauma for the children involved in the bullying case. It needs to take stock and do better.
Also read:
Bravo to Cape Town Marathon organisers for doing the right thing
Picture: Mikhail Nilov / Pexels
