Independent Media slams Karyn Maughan Press Council ruling as ‘threat’ to freedom of expression

IN the wake of a contentious decision released on Tuesday, August 6, Independent Media has slammed the SA Press Council ruling in favour of a complaint made by News24 and journalist Karyn Maughan against an opinion piece by Edmond Phiri.

Independent Media has characterised the decision as a “serious misstep” endangering press freedom and revealing the Press Council’s systematic prejudice.

Independent Media denounced the decision in a sharply worded statement, stating that it compromised South Africa’s open communication and free speech values.

Citing many procedural flaws and charging the Press Council of overt prejudice against Independent Media, the media house expressed grave questions about the impartiality of the Council’s proceedings.

The media house underlined the following:

• The Press Council ruling is a threat to freedom of speech and media freedom.

• The ruling was taken without considering all the facts presented, especially the strong refutation of the false claims by News24.

• The Press Council has demonstrated strong bias against Independent Media, and this ruling is nothing but censorship of dissenting voice(s).

• The Press Council admitted Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) as amicus curiae without prior alert to Independent Media and giving us a chance to respond to the claims.

• The Press Council has applied inconsistent standards and rules about opinion pieces, whereby it rejects some petitions while entertaining others.

• We will not be silenced by biased and reactionary rulings from the council.

• In our appeal, we will indicate to the council that we will not delete the article, and we are not going to apologise for what was clearly an opinion piece.

• Previously, Independent Media had set up its own press ombud headed by qualified legal persons. Major media houses worldwide have their own internal ombudsman, with appeal processes. We thought that when we joined the Press Council, it would show unity with all the media houses in the council, but clearly, we were wrong. The environment remains hostile to Independent Media, and if this continues, we will have to review our decision to rejoin the council.

• Our participation in the Press Council, while the rights of Independent Media were entirely ignored and denied would not be in the best interest of our media house and company.

The late-stage participation of Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) as amicus curiae during the hearing forms the core of Independent Media’s complaints. “The Press Council’s decision to admit MMA without prior notice and the weight given to their arguments in the ruling represents a gross miscarriage of justice,” the statement read.

Independent Media says this action startled them and denied any chance to challenge the MMA’s comprehensive 15-page submission, which was later underlined in the final decision.

The statement read: “The Press Council’s decision to admit MMA without prior notice and the weight given to their arguments in the ruling represents a gross miscarriage of justice.”

Independent Media contends that this procedural transgression broke natural justice standards, creating a hazardous precedent whereby the Council seems more enabler of inter-media dispute than an unbiased judge.

Beyond technical problems, Independent Media argues that the decision essentially misunderstands the nature of opinion journalism. The demand of the Council for factual support of an opinion piece, they contend, distorts the core of editorial commentary and places unjustified restrictions on opinion writers.

“The ruling falsely conflates Independent Media with Sekunjalo and dismisses our strong refutation of News24’s speculative allegations,” the statement read.

Independent Media questioned the Council’s Press Code interpretation, accusing it of selectively applying criteria favouring its competitors.

Independent Media has promised to fight what it sees as an effort to suppress critics. “We will not be silenced by biassed and reactionary rulings,” the statement read, stressing their resolve to appeal the decision and preserve the controversial opinion piece on their platforms once more.

The media group underlined its dedication to preserving press freedom and cautioned that further Press Council animosity could cause Independent Media to rethink its membership.

The statement also slammed more broadly what Independent Media believed to be racial prejudice in South African media output. “The Press Council’s dismissal of Dr Iqbal Survé’s complaint against Chris Roper, juxtaposed with their condemnation of Mr Phiri’s critique, reveals a blatant racial double standard that cannot be ignored.”

The media house argued that the decision contrasted sharply with the protection given to controversial cartoonist Zapiro, whose black figure images have been extensively attacked as racist.

Independent Media is adamant in its goal to create a varied and dynamic media environment in South Africa even as they get ready to contest the decision. “We believe that diversity of thought is crucial to a healthy democracy, and we will not be determented by rulings that seek to narrow the bounds of acceptable public discourse,” the statement read.

While the struggle of Independent Media with the Press Council is far from over, the result of this clash could have major effects on the dynamics of media control in South Africa and press freedom going forward as the media house rallies its legal team.