ProJourn anti-media tribunal

Such a call raises the spectre of Apartheid-era attempts to control the media and its right to report freely and without hindrance. Such a tribunal would rob the public of its right to information, set media freedom back decades and erode the hard won freedoms of our new democracy. The media is an industry that regulates itself.

The Ombudsman, Joe Thloloe, is a highly respected journalist who has more than once proved the independence of the office in his rulings. Allegations made in the Letters section of Business Day on Thursday 22 July 2010 that he refuses to police former colleagues or 'bite the hand that feeds' should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Calls, reiterated in said letter, to end brown envelope journalism (where journalists are paid to compromise their integrity and editorial independence) through a 'zero-fault' system are unnecessary, given that this rarely happens in South Africa and, in instances where it does happen, are dealt with rapidly and effectively by editors, as in the recent Ashley Smith/Cape Argus case. In this case, the money paid to Smith was under the direction of the premier of a (then) ANC-led province and was aimed at undermining a rival faction in his own party. Yet the only action taken so far was by the Cape Argus, which published details on what had transpired as soon as they became known, and took action against the offending journalists.

Issues that have been raised by critics of the current system include that it is a form of self-regulation and that bodies going to the Ombudsman have to waive their right to seek legal recourse on the matter if they take it to the Ombudsman.

ProJourn believes that self-regulation is a reasonable and accepted means for an industry to govern itself. The media profession is not the only one regulated this way - the legal and advertising industries both immediately come to mind.

The second issue, that complainants have to waive the right to legal recourse when taking a matter to the press Ombudsman, may need further debate, and may indeed need to be revisited. If so, that should only happen after transparent discussions, involving all interested parties, so that an outcome can be reached that delivers the best possible solution to the problem while preserving those media freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and protecting the rights of those being reported on.