Publication: Business Day
Issued:
Date: 2006-11-15
Reporter: Robert Brand
Reporter:
In
his long career as a journalist, Business Day editor Peter Bruce may have heard
the term “rowback”.
In journalistic jargon, a “rowback” is a story that
corrects previous coverage without taking responsibility for the error, and
Business Day’s reporting of the misrepresentation of Judge Hilary Squires’
findings in the Schabir Shaik trial is a classic example.
It is true, as
Business Day argues, that the Supreme Court of Appeal’s (SCA’s) perpetuation of
a “general public confusion” raises questions about the SCA’s ability to
guarantee fair trials. Business Day, however, fails to acknowledge that
responsibility for the confusion lies in the first place with itself and other
media, and that surely raises questions about the media’s ability to inform
citizens in our democracy.
The media, as the Constitutional Court
eloquently argued in Khumalo & Others v Holomisa (5) SA 401 (CC), is not
only the bearer of the right to freedom of expression, but has an obligation to
ensure that citizens have access to the information they need to participate in
democratic processes.
If the media does not acquit itself of this
responsibility, the democratic process suffers.
This is especially true
in court reporting, because only a tiny fraction of the population has the
opportunity to observe court proceedings at first hand, and thus the ability to
evaluate the performance of the judiciary. The rest rely on media
reports.
As Business Day rightly observes, the public perception that a
court had found a “generally corrupt relationship” between Jacob Zuma and Shaik
has been damaging to both Zuma and Squires, coloured perceptions of the
judiciary generally, and influenced the presidential succession process.
This perception is entirely due to a basic journalistic error by
Business Day and other media: misquoting a source, or worse, recycling a quote
without checking the primary source.
Robert Brand
School of Journalism and Media Studies, Rhodes
University
With acknowledgements to Robert Brand
and Business Day.
The History
Court Hears Background to Shaik
Trial
Daily News
25 October 2004
Tania
Broughton
http://capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=49&fArticleId=2273889
- "The State wants to prove that, in fact, the pair had a generally corrupt relationship and that Shaik and his
companies paid Zuma in return for business influence."
Zuma Involved in Arms Deal
'Peripheries'
BC-COURT-SHAIK
COURT-SHAIK
Sapa
Durban
5 November 2004
- "The State contends there was a "generally corrupt"
relationship between Zuma and Shaik. It alleges that Shaik and his Nkobi
Holdings had paid at least R1.2 million to or on behalf of
Zuma."
Shaik a Patient Creditor, Zuma a Man with a Plan
Sunday
Times
Paddy Harper
14 November 2004
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=ST6A88983
- "The state argues that Shaik’s collective payment of R1,2-million to Zuma
and on his behalf constituted a “generally corrupt”
relationship between the two former comrades-in-arms."
With acknowledgements to Business Day.