By: Len van Heerden

Len van Heerden — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:23:50 +0000

Professor Anton Harber is on record as saying that the stories that were reported about President Kgalema Motlanthe, which are now proving to be untrue, were correct in being published because it gave us an understanding of how Kgalema Motlanthe conducted himself in public. Indeed, many media houses deemed this the issue of who was the First Lady of South Africa.
I am not an ANC supporter, but the media has once again proved their own inability to determine fact from fiction, as long as they can sell newspapers.
There is no doubt that the concerned papers received lots of publicity which may have translated into more newspaper sales and perhaps more subscriptions and advertising money.
One can understand why a tabloid would find such a story interesting, but the Sunday Independant has different standards and the excuse that they were dubed by an obviously uneducated birth machine does not ring that true. It simply is not possible that this girl can lie through the chain of command of a leading newspaper, unless such a paper knew that the story was hardly true, but an apology the next weekend would not harm their sales anyway.
This is not the first time a Sunday paper has relied on unethical means or even lies to create a story, and only apologise later after the money has been made.
What is sad is that once again Anton Harber, as a Professor of Journalism, gave us the impression that this is the type of journalism being taught at Wits.
Any good journalist when receiving a story of this nature would have done a lot more to verify the story, including talking to people known to the girl and even understanding her mental make up. There are even test questions that can be asked to corroborate her stories even on issues unrelated to the story. However, when a journalist has made up his mind about the story, it seems that reason is substituted for the need to be the first to break a story.
It is sad, especially when it basically bismirch someone’s reputation.
In the case of Carl Niehaus, he once again gave the media what they wanted to hear and many assumptions were created. In the end, Niehaus was found to be an even worse liar. It becomes hard to believe what he may have told the ANC, though the ANC should have known his record when he was fired at GEDA and his many jobs that never lasted.
In the end, it seems the media is more keen to go out first with a story.
The story of the attack on the Sri Lankan team near Gaddafi stadium in Lahore once again had the media claiming different numbers from 8, down to 2, then 5 and eventually 6 people injured all within a very short space. Nobody bothered to verify the facts, because they fear someone will publish first.
Something needs to happen and the media need to be hit hard to learn that every right comes with some responsibilities.
We are still waiting for the Sunday Times to reveal more about their claim that former President Mbeki received R30m and then gave R2m to the ANC and the rest to Jacob Zuma. The story sounded so incredible because it makes no sense why he would be the conduit for a bribe he was not benefitting from, but obviously such issues do not concern journalists and their editors. Publish first and confirm later?

By: Bernard

Bernard — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:52:03 +0000

It was Koni Media, bidding to buy the Sunday Times at R7bn, all of a sudden, Tokyo Sexwale emerged, within seconds, Johnnic Communications changed into Avusa after Mr. Sexwale acquired a stake in the company (between four and five billion). Now the ANC wants to take over the Sowetan. What’s going on exactly? Is Tokyo there by a purpose of turning things around for the ANC? Avusa watch out!

Comments on: ANC’s newspaper plans

By: Len van Heerden

By: Bernard