The Editor made Leigh Mathews mum cry on radio and engaged in a dreadful debate in public. Hasn't this woman and the Mathews family suffered enough? The Editor of You magazine should be taken to task for just the way she handled - or in this case not - the issue on air. Despite the legal issue, the moral ramifications are clear. The media aren't above the law - they are accountable to society. The arrogance of this publication is astounding. Lets hope the law takes its rightful course with this blatant disregard for it.

I would like to see both criminal and civil proceedings against the editor. She is clearly out of her depth and has no idea what she has done. She may well have let a brutal murdered go free - all so she can sell more magazines. She should be ashamed and she should be punished.

I'm a qualified journalist and I think Esmare Weideman (the editor of You) should pack her bags. Please write a letter to you.co.za and tell them that she should pack her bags and go back to the plaas she came from.

It is high time that the South African media re-assessed its morality. What YOU did was illegal. The big excuse for that seems to be that "everybody" disregards sub judice. But beyond that, the question that remains in my mind is: 'Do we really need a court to tell us what is right?' There is no defense for this (and other instances) of pure sensationalism and greed. The editor's arrogance when speaking to Mrs Matthews was the cherry on an already shameful cake.

I agree. The bottom line here is no matter what your job, you are a human being first. What YOU did and what the editor did on air simply shows that we have forgotten common human dignity and decency. Let's hope that something comes of this, and YOU are made to pay (money), perhaps that will discourage future disregard for human dignity.

How can a magazine even think of publishing such an article even if there is a slightest chance of giving that accused the smallest slither of a chance of an exit pass. I say sue them, jail the bitch and close the magazine down.

To grasp You's dilemma one only needs to look at the readership the You/Huisgenoot "franchise" has built up over past decades. It's no secret that they're aiming at the the highly uninformed. As a journalist, though not losing sight of the entertainment value of my work, I've always felt the need to uphold journalism's primary responsibility - to inform; especially those unable to interpret, or who do not have access to other sources of information.

When asked if YOU seeked to inform, one can only answer the question with a NO. Playing with the "uninformed" minds of their readers, the magazine should not only be held liable for it's article on the Matthews case, but also for the decades in which it "dunmbed down" its readership.

The media in SA has to play an active roll in making information available to a broad spectrum - not doing so should be punishable.

It's refreshing to see a journalist stand up and criticise his fellow-scribes when he feels justified; what the editor of YOU/Huisgenoot did is unconscionable, especially after she has admitted (in press reports of 18th October)that she consulted her own legal people prior to publishing, was warned of the possible ramifications, yet said; "I thought it was worth the risk anyway, as it was unlikely to affect the outcome of the trial" or words to that effect.

The time of - "publish at your peril" - should be brought to the attention of journalists and editors of doubtful moral fibre; just think of all the furore that followed the wrongful reporting of the alleged six rapists of a baby girl in the Kimberely area.

Just don't buy that YOU magazine anymore, haven't we all been disgusted by it's contents before? It's the gathering of the banshees gossiping over other's dilemmas.

EEEEEUUUU!

As a journalist too, I had the greatest respect for Esmare, a journalist who went from the world of newspapers to lead one of the largest circulation magazines in SA - even if it is a trashy publication.

However, her growing arrogance has now finally come to a head. Her decision in the Matthews case is irrepresible and I sincerely hope that severe action is taken before South African journalism plummets to an all time low.

More than that though, we should question Esmare's decision to print such an article - it is quite simply because millions of people every week insist on reading such hyped up crap.

Here's not to you and you and YOU.

Shame on You.

There should be repercussions for such actions. This woman is a disgrace to the South African media and she should face a disciplinary hearing.
I thought the days of cheque book journalism for one, were history and secondly, knowingly jeopardizing the legal proceedings of such a high profile case - for a story, is appalling.
Did this woman miss the ethics lectures when she went to journalism school?
What an embarrassment to YOU/Huisgenoot and Media 24.

Disgrace-magazine has no morals or values!

Esmare says that You went ahead and ran the article (even though they knew it was unlawful and had been advised against it by their legal team) because they felt it was in the public's best interests to do so. I think I'd like to be the one who decides what's in my "best interests". In fact I think I could do a better job than she can. Hands up those who agree that convicting a killer is more in the public's best interests than a trashy rendition of something that may or not have happened. And, if the story was fabricated by Moodley's cell-mate, but we have trial-by-media as a result, what about his interests as a member of the public?
The only reason Esmare says she can get away with it is because the people responsible for deciding Moodley's fate are "learned" individuals, in which case they probably don't read this tabloid crap in the first place.
I think an example needs to be made of You.

It seems most of the people on this forum don't read You Magazine by their own admission. I therefore find it strange that they feel so qualified to comment on the article. I DID read the article and found nothing that through being published could jeopardize the case. In fact I would find it rather disturbing if the police did not already know everything long before it had been published. If all media stuck to the outdated law as it stands the Sunday Times, Rapport and many of the daily's would have nothing to report. The interview in question was handled very badly by 702 Talk Radio and Tim Modise. Leigh's mother is obviously highly emotional and should never have been allowed to vent her anger and hatred on public radio. She should rather channel it in the direction of her daughter's killer. The press should be allowed to report on any topic without restriction. You have the right not to buy the publication, but judging from You and Huisgenoot’s sales figures the vast majority of the magazine buying public feel differently.

You read YOU, therefore you're exempt from taking part in this discussion on the basis of your intellect.

Think this is all pretty much a storm in a teacup. If we are sending out the media police they might want to make a call to Heat Magazine. Lovely photo of Rebecca Loose jerking off a big! Now that’s something for all you mother grundies to get your teeth into!

As someone who’s studied journalism and law I feel compelled to comment on this.
Andrew, it’s fairly simple. The sub judice rule exists so that the media don’t provide commentary, sway public opinion or divulge facts that can potentially influence the outcome of a court case. How that applies in this case is that YOU published a confession which they paid for (automatically that brings into question the integrity of the article). The print run is such that it’s a certainty people will be influenced by the article, be it the public or the court officials presiding over the case, regardless of whether the story is true or untrue. That fact undermines Moodley’s right to a fair trial because the proceedings are now prejudiced. One of the reasons the sub judice rule exists is to ensure a fair trial for the Defendant and The State. Only when facts have been presented in court can the media report on them. YOU ignored that rule in spite of the fact that their lawyers explicitly said that they were contravening it. Now, Moodley’s lawyers have a leg to stand on (however limp) when it comes to pushing for the trial to be thrown out.
The media needs to be brought into line definitively. For too long it’s been flippant when it comes to matters of the law, even going so far as to name witnesses in protection programmes who are placed in those programmes for their protection.
The fact will always remain that someone is innocent until found guilty - by the law, not from some cell-mate who was paid for his version of events which (knowing YOU) were probably sensationalised and embellished on.

The entire magazine industry will be tarred with the brush of irresponsible yellow journalism. And imagine if the alleged killer goes free on the grounds that he is not being given a fair trial, quite possible.