In defence of the media

WE the media – whether it be political or investigative or whatever form of journalism – derive our mandate from section 16 of the Constitution.

This section in the Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of the media as well as everyone’s freedom of expression. In execution of our duties in creating an informed society we have to be mindful of a number of our subjects’ constitutional rights. In our country the Constitution is the supreme law, and therefore any behaviour that is deemed to be contrary to the Constitution is invalid and illegal.

In dealing with the matter of people’s privacy and dignity, the media have to reconcile the competing constitutional imperatives of freedom of expression, dignity and privacy.

The Australian Press (in particular) and the local media have come under fire for reporting on yet-to-be-formally released teenage sensation Caster Se menya’s gender test results. The charge is that the media has grossly violated Semenya’s human rights in rushing to publish the results before she could be properly notified of the outcome through the relevant channels.

There is no doubt that the teenage world champion from Limpopo has been treated unfairly in this saga. But before rushing to point fingers at the media, it is critical to pause for a second and establish, with sobriety (not of a judge), if the Fourth Estate is really the culprit here.

As in many countries that put a high premium on the freedom of expression, Australia has a Press Council, which is tasked with ensuring that a free press conducts its duties in a responsible and ethical manner.

The Press Council’s principle three specifically deals with the issue of pri vacy and states: “Readers of publica tions are entitled to have news and comment presented to them honestly and fairly, and with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest.”

Here in South Africa we have the Press Code of Professional Conduct, which enjoins us to maintain high journalistic standards in our profes sion. But the code is unambiguous when it comes to the principle of public interest.

“The public interest is the only test that justifies departure from the highest standards of journalism,” it says.

What can be deduced from the Aus tralian Press Council and SA Code of Conduct is that a case of an overwhelm ing public interest will prevail over a public figure’s constitutional right to privacy, provided that the information to be revealed is directly linked to the public figure’s official duties or is the bone of contention in relation to their performance, as is the case in the Semenya storm.

It’s therefore reasonable and rational to arrive at the conclusion that the media is not at fault here. Almost everyone would agree that a case of overwhelming public interest in this instance is absolutely compelling. The Fourth Estate in Australia, South Africa and elsewhere was justified in prema turely reporting on the matter.

Athletics South Africa and the Inter national Association of Athletics Feder ations (IAAF) are the real culprits here and have to share the blame. Suffice it to say that the IAAF’s treatment of Se menya has been atrocious. But making the media a scapegoat does not cut it. The media of South Africa and the world are well within their rights here.

Cedric Mboyisa is political editor of The Citizen. This column first appeared in The Citizen newspaper.