This thread is dedicated to discussions related to biased media reporting and censorship. This includes developments related to the ANC's proposed Media Tribunal and the proposed Protection of Information Bill.

This judgement illustrates why news coverage by the SABC must always be taken with a giant pinch of salt. Vindicates my stance of never having watched a full SABC news bulletin for years (although I feel its weather and sport coverage is sometimes better than e-tv's).

Thankfully we have a free press and an independent judiciary to keep government and the SABC in check.

--------------------------------

Judge finds SABC guilty of distorting news, lying
Widespread manipulation took place under Zikalala, court rules
CHANTELLE BENJAMIN
Published: 2011/01/26 06:38:21 AM

A HIGH court judge in Johannesburg has found the SABC guilty of manipulating the news in 2005 and 2006, in a ruling that will boost criticism of the way the public broadcaster covers politics.

Judge Neels Claassen ruled in the South Gauteng High Court that there had been widespread manipulation of news under the SABC’s former head of news, Snuki Zikalala, and that Mr Zikalala had "dishonestly tried to cover up this manipulation".

With political interference and the hand of President Jacob Zuma clear in the appointment of Phil Molefe as Mr Zikalala’s replacement, Judge Claassen’s remarks are yet another reminder of how easily the SABC can be used as a political weapon by the government of the day.

Criticising the Independent Communications Authority’s (Icasa’s) hands-off view of its role as the SABC’s regulator, the judge warned that if it did not do its job properly it meant that "the SABC may with impunity manipulate and distort preparation of its news and current affairs coverage and publicly lie about it when they are caught out having done so".

The judgment relates to Mr Zikalala’s 2006 blacklisting of analysts critical of former president Thabo Mbeki , and the SABC’s coverage of elections in Zimbabwe in 2005.

The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) sought a review from the high court after Icasa ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over how SABC programmes are put together .

Judge Claassen ruled that Icasa must not just examine programmes once they are aired, but also their preproduction, to determine if coverage is free and fair. He found Icasa had misinterpreted section 10(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, and returned the case to its complaints and compliance committee for review.

He also accused the SABC board of dereliction of duty, since it knew from an internal inquiry what Mr Zikalala was doing.

Icasa said yesterday that it had not decided whether it would appeal against the judgment.

Judge Claassen said : "Dr Zikalala’s blacklisting of commentators perceived to be critical of the government of the day was clearly designed to silence their voices by not allowing them on air.

"His purpose was obviously to manipulate SABC’s news and current affairs programmes by excluding these critical voices .… To suggest that his blacklisting might not have had an effect is quite incorrect ... the truth could only have been established had both sides of the story been aired."

Affidavits by former head of radio news Pippa Green and John Perlman, a former presenter on SAfm, documented interference by Mr Zikalala in day-to-day operations at the SABC .

Mr Zikalala went to Zimbabwe for the 2005 elections to negotiate the terms of SABC’s coverage, contrary to normal procedure. He warned reporters at a meeting the day after the elections he would "take action" against Ms Green and any reporter who expressed an "opinion" on Zimbabwe.

Mr Perlman explained how he discovered in March 2006 that a ban had been placed on Business Day’s then political editor, Karima Brown, and later on political commentator Aubrey Matshiqi.

Former FXI director Ayesha Kajee said yesterday: "We felt this was within Icasa’s mandate and if they did not take responsibility as the independent regulator, that no one else would. It was necessary therefore to take both the SABC and Icasa to court."

Steven Friedman, director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy, said for the judgment to have any real effect on Icasa, it would probably need to go to the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Constitutional Court.

"Any ruling that alters the role of Icasa needs to be decided, not by one judgment, but a bench of judges," Prof Friedman said.

Mr Zikalala was suspended in May 2008 by former SABC CEO Dali Mpofu , who was in turn suspended the next day after it was held he did not have the authority to suspend Mr Zikalala.

benjaminc@bdfm.co.za


http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=132437

Big questions still loom on info bill
MPs ask: Why classify?
Jan 26, 2011 7:29 AM
By Brendan Boyle - PoliticsLIVE

The committee negotiating a final text of the Protection of Information Bill has still to tackle the really difficult questions.

THE ANC and opposition parties have yet to lock horns on the most contentious aspects of the Protection of Information Bill currently before parliament and are unlikely to finish their work before the end of February.

The government and opposition parties are still far apart on who should be allowed to declare information secret, why they should be allowed to do so and on the need for a public interest defence against prosecution for publishing state secrets.

The current draft of the bill makes imprisonment mandatory for anyone in the chain of unauthorised disclosure, from an official who leaks state secrets to the person or publication who puts it into the public domain.

With the ANC and most opposition parties still promoting contradictory formulations, MPs agreed they would have to schedule special meetings on the most contentious issues.

Cecil Burgess, chairman of parliament’s ad hoc committee on the bill, told MPs yesterday to disregard the formal Friday deadline for agreement on a final text to send to the National Assembly.

“We’re not likely to finalise the bill in January or in February,” he said, adding that he had written to parliamentary managers requesting an extension of the life of his committee.

“I don’t think there should be any misunderstanding that the committee’s life comes to an end on Friday. I think it is a formality that the House will accept that the life span of the committee should be extended so it can continue with its work,” he said.

Democratic Alliance MPs Dene Smuts and David Maynier argued that the bill should limit and list the organs of state that would have the power to declare secrets and that the overall approach should be to give the power to classify to as few as possible.

Smuts urged the committee to tackle the question so far dodged of why the state would want to be able to declare secrets at all and to shape the legislation around that.

She said national security, intelligence and possibly some international relations considerations should be the only reasons to put information beyond public reach.

ANC MP Luwellyn Landers signalled a coming clash when he responded that all state organs should have the power to classify information and said it could be necessary to ring fence information for reasons other than national security or protecting intelligence.

Smuts and ACDP MP Steve Swart pressed for a discussion on the need for recognition in the bill that people charged with violating its provisions should be able to argue in court that it was in the public interest to make information that has been classified secret known to the public.

The ANC has so far vehemently opposed the concept of a public interest defence. Landers reaffirmed yesterday that the party was unlikely to go beyond the recognition of public interest as a reason to request the declassification of secrets.

IFP MP Mario Ambrosini said the so-called Wikileaks saga in which thousands of secret diplomatic documents from scores of countries are being released around the world had changed the debate.

He said the committee should accept that once a secret was out, it was effectively declassified and no one could be punished for publishing it.

“An open secret is no longer a secret. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can’t jail people for looking at the genie,” he said.


http://www.timeslive.co.za/Politics/article873613.ece/Big-questions-still-loom-on-info-bill