The role of the press is frequently trumpeted as being that of the watchdogs of society, the last bastion in the defence of individual freedoms. At least that is what the press loudly declaims whenever the slightest danger emerges that the state is tinkering with regulations that may be the first step towards censorship.

But how can the role of watchdog be fulfilled when newspapers allow their journalists to be "embedded"? When a correspondent travelling with US Marines in Fallujah sees fleeing opponents he faithfully reports on them as terrorists. That they might see themselves as "freedom fighters" is a description he would never entertain.

So when black editors of major national newspapers only black editors, mind you were invited to an off-therecord briefing delivered by Bulelani Ngcuka, the now departed director of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), did they allow themselves to be embedded? Not until they bought the line he spun. After that they were bound in "brotherhood" and purpose. At the same briefing Ngcuka asserted Deputy President Jacob Zuma was not fit to govern.

And that has become ever clearer through the manner in which they have caused their publications to report on the court actions in Durban involving Schabir Shaik, who is charged with corruption, fraud and theft, among others.

We all know, however, that it is actually Zuma who is on trial because that has been the whole thrust of nearly every newspaper in the country.

The terrible danger that one-sided reporting invites is the harm it can do to the criminal justice system. As an example, when Wouter Basson, or Dr Death as he was dubbed, was brought to trial the many thousands of words already carried in the press led the public to believe he was guilty as charged and the court appearance was merely a formality. Only the sentencing was an issue.

Not only was Basson found not guilty, but the NPA then made an incredible mess of the application for leave to appeal the finding. Is it surprising then that large segments of the public believe the justice system betrays them?

Another extraordinary aspect of this encouraged and fostered by the press is to bully the public into believing that just because it is the state that is bringing an action, the person charged is axiomatically guilty. This is a country that suffered for decades under a brutal regime that used the full apparatus of the state to bludgeon the majority of its people. Yet we seem to be ready to go along with it even now when we have achieved democracy when it willingly allows its powers to be subverted for political ends.

When I read of the tribulations of The Ranch owner Andrew Phillips at the hands of the Scorpions and the Asset Forfeiture Unit, I know what many people thought. They thought because he ran a brothel, he must be guilty. In one stroke, they removed from their minds any rights he and they might have.

There seems to be some sort of subliminal belief among journalists that Zuma is guilty as (not) charged. A senior journalist covering the trial revealed in conversation with me that since the French were involved and the French, as everyone knows, have bribed their way merrily across Africa it followed that Zuma, connected as he is with Indians, must have taken money in exchange for favours.

I have become involved in the Shaik trial in my capacity as a communication adviser. And what I have seen at first hand of the press coverage leaves me deeply worried.

I have been closely involved with the NPA on a number of matters involving high-profile individuals. I started out in full support of what seemed to me to be a courageous attempt to battle corruption vigorously. I unhappily discovered that the huge powers vested in the authority were being abused on behalf of shadowy groups with political objectives.

The state has built its case against Shaik around a report prepared by the forensic unit of accountant KPMG. *1 The first time this report should have been made public was when it was entered into the court record, but huge chunks of it were leaked into the media months earlier. Its extracts even formed part of Ngcuka's famous off-the-record briefing to those gullible black editors. I have to hand it to NPA spin doctor Sipho Ngwema he made sure the extracts were properly merchandised.

It took almost two weeks for KPMG's Johan van der Walt to give his evidence in-chief. The papers were full of it. Then the cross-examination began. At the end of a day in which he made one concession after another the reports in the newspapers and on SABC television were that he had stood his ground.

When the R2m revolving credit arrangement between Shaik and Zuma was revealed, all the press could do was question whether the agreement was in place at the time or whether, by extension, it was a hurried fabrication.

No journalist has made anything of the meticulous records extracted by the prosecutors that showed when money was paid to Zuma but were silent on the months in which Zuma made repayments. Now why could that be?

The answer is that it is easy to find a sideshow every day in the Durban drama, seized on if the trial is not going quite as the papers might want.

Taking coffee during a court recess in a corner café on one occasion, Renee Horne, a reporter for SABC television, received a text message on her cellphone. It was from her boss, Vuyo Mvoko, and in it he instructed her not to use the title deputy president when referring to Zuma. She called him in my presence. No questions, he told her. These were instructions "from above".

It would appear Zuma has been put on trial and found guilty by the media and now it has deposed him.

What has become quite clear to me from all this is that a definite and serious bias exists. The press has allowed itself to be kidnapped by people who are advancing agendas that are inimical to the public interest and to the proper process of the justice system.

From the very first day news of the arms scandal broke, people have uniformly been prepared, willing, anxious even, to believe the worst. In taking that line they are arriving at guilty verdicts before the truth is visible.

Perhaps they and the journalists who think that prosecutors are knights in shining armor should pause and look a little north to the sad country called Zimbabwe. When any individual's rights are cast aside, the only question that matters is when will it happen to them.

All we ask of the press is that it reports fairly, faithfully, without fear or favour. *2 In the matter of Zuma and Shaik that has been conspicuous by its absence.

Ntsele is a communications strategist. He is MD of Capacity Building Group, a lobbying practice advising clients on government and media-related issues worldwide.

With acknowledgements to Dominic Ntsele and the Business Day.

*1 The state built part of its case against Shaik around a report prepared by the forensic unit of accounting firm KPMG because the Investigation Report prepared by the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO), a unit of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), recommended charging Shaikh's fellow Donateer, Jacob G. Zuma, Deputy President of the African National Congress and of the Republic of South Africa, with corruption.

The State's own Investigation Report also recommended charging Shaikh's fellow Donateer, Alain Thetard, a citizen of the Republic of France and partner with the Republic of South Africa in the government-to-government corvette acquisition deal, with bribery and corruption.

*2 At least the press makes an occasional effort (albeit only collectively) to report fairly, faithfully and without fear or favour - unlike this unashamed King of Spin Doctors.