In an article we published a few weeks ago, former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas made the following observation: “The media is generally not trusted as there are variations of truth and reality. People now want news that is packed to confirm their perspectives and interests, not information based on objective reality. Misinformation trends more than truth.”
He was speaking about the general state of our society; not only politicians and the government have lost the trust of the people but everybody — from business and labour to civil society and religious groups — “has lost their place”.
What becomes of society when none of the recognised institutions is trusted?
Although there is plenty of literature questioning the notion of objectivity, as mainstream media practitioners we always strive to bring our readers fair and balanced stories that are as close to the truth as possible.
Having grown up in an era in which propaganda, especially in state media, often trumped balance and fairness, many of us are proud to now work in an environment where the pursuit of truth is encouraged and reporting is generally not prohibited.
The first three decades of South Africa as a democratic state have had many disappointments, but media freedom is not one of them.
However it should be troubling that, despite this freedom, growing numbers of consumers are said to be losing trust in the media — be it television, newspapers, news websites or any of the other platforms.
What Jonas says about people wanting “news that is packed to confirm their perspectives” is increasingly apposite in this time of war in the Middle East.
A journalist friend, who is generally open-minded on most issues, refuses to watch anything on the conflict from CNN, Sky and BBC as he believes they are Israeli propagandists that would never report anything critical about what the Benjamin Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.
He swears by Al Jazeera.
Two other fellow journalists won’t believe a word coming from that Qatari state-owned media house, believing it to be to the Palestinian cause what RT was said to be to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
All of this is sad. News organisations may slant one way or another on an issue, but their consumers should never have reason to believe that they are being unfair to any of the sides covered by their reporting.
Ideally, a media institution should be able to have its own journalists on the ground to establish facts for themselves, and not have to rely on press statements issued by the rival parties.
There was a time when this newspaper would have sent correspondents to the Middle East. They would have covered the general conflict while keeping an eye out for South African and regional angles.
But the economic conditions under which we now operate have pauperised newspapers and other news organisations. A former editor of this newspaper recently reminded me that, two decades ago, he could afford to send two writers to the US to cover a presidential election — one following the Democratic Party candidate, and one the Republican contender.
The two journalists each spent two full weeks in the US — all paid for by the newspaper.
These days we can hardly afford to send a reporter to witness another election being stolen in Zimbabwe. Sending a crew to Gaza is out of the question, no matter how important we consider the story to be.
Unless a relief organisation such as the Gift of the Givers goes to the region, and takes journalists along, it is unlikely that a journalist from South Africa will cover the war.
Hence our coverage is heavily dependent on commentary pieces and columns by various lobbyists, analysts and political players. That comes with its own disadvantages.
Over the past two months, we have sought to bring you various views on the conflict and different perspectives on how South Africa should respond.
We have not always succeeded, but in each edition we have sought to be balanced — making sure that the two sides are represented. At times there have been just too many similar articles and we have had to decline some on the basis that they were making the same points as other contributors.
This week, as the government prepared to ask the International Criminal Court to investigate Israeli leaders for war crimes, we have been inundated with contributions.
We publish them, and those of our regular columnists who have decided to write on the same issue, today.
While we acknowledge that the conflict is still ongoing and that many more voices will want to be heard, we believe that it is time we scaled back on the debate in these pages.
We will be publishing the few remaining articles on the conflict next weekend, after which we will not be accepting anymore.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.