FROM his foundational book Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe’s saying “Until the lion learns to write, every story will glorify the hunter” powerfully emphasises the basic relevance of viewpoint and narrative control in forming public discourse.
Within the framework of media freedom, the proverb functions as a potent emblem for who has the capacity to shape society’s narratives and share stories. Historically, individuals in power—political leaders, businesses, or dominant cultural groups—often control the conditions of information flow, therefore influencing the way events are reported and seen. Often hiding or distorting the reality of underprivileged communities—the “lions”—this dynamic reflects the story of the hunter.
Media becomes a tool for these strong interests to forward their goals when it fails to run free, therefore silencing and voiceless alternative viewpoints. Lack of media freedom guarantees that the experiences of common people, minorities, and dissenters stay hidden.
In Achebe’s story, the “lion” represents those excluded voices, silenced in a scene that benefits the powerful. In settings where a free press flourishes, many stories can surface and enable the oppressed to recover their narratives and speak their truths.
The current dispute between the SA Press Council and the Sunday Independent powerfully shows how media freedom could be compromised when authorities punish voices of dissenters.
The conflict revolves around the Sunday Independent, a publication under Sekunjalo Independent Media. After columnist Edmond Phiri's March 3, 2024 post comparing News24 journalist Karyn Maughan with Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl sparked debate, Maughan and News24 filed complaints against the Sunday Independent following the publication of the article.
Maughan and News24 claimed that the article violated the Press Code in two main respects: first, it lacked care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation (Clause 3.3); second, it failed to sufficiently avoid conflicts of interest or ensure editorial independence (Clause 2.1). When ruling against the Sunday Independent on August 6, 2024, the Press Council said the article represented “a torrent of unsubstantiated abuse”. The Council said that the journalist had let business considerations shape its editorial decisions, therefore compromising ethical norms.
The Sunday Independent responded by characterising the decision as a “serious misstep”, implying Press Council bias endangering South African press independence. Particularly with regard to how the Council applies its criteria across several media outlets, this characterisation begs serious questions regarding the objectivity and fairness of the evaluations.
The Sunday Independent underlined that while other media may evade similar examination for comparable or even more serious transgressions, the Sunday Independent is under target. This seeming discrepancy exposes the precarious condition of journalistic honesty as well as breeding mistrust.
With hopes for an application by August 16, 2024, the Sunday Independent also alluded to the prospect of an appeal in line with the decision. Later on, though, evidence of a greater discontent with the regulatory system surfaced.
The Sunday Independent declared on October 18, 2024, its departure from the South African Press Council, a bold move reflecting larger conflicts between media entities and regulatory authorities on journalistic freedom and responsibility. The withdrawal caused concerns over the Council’s capacity to preserve a fair relationship with the press, therefore aggravating the already turbulent terrain of media control in South Africa.
For the practice of journalism in South Africa, this decision and the following retraction have significant consequences. The case underscores the difficulties reporters have keeping their freedom in face of possible corporate influence and legal demands.
In defending its article, the Sunday Independent claimed that it was a reasonable form of protected commentary and should be protected as long as it expresses an honestly held opinion on a public interest, even if that opinion is extreme or exaggerated. Emphasising the value of editorial freedom, the journalist said the article represented the opinions of its author instead of a business agenda.
This defence fits the larger background of media freedom and the basic importance it performs in democratic countries. The Sunday Independent argued that the piece was a part of a continuous public debate on media bias and responsibility and that the startling analogies were meant to provoke critical thinking on journalistic methods. This point of view is especially important since it emphasises the need for letting writers have the liberty to participate in active discussions on their sector.
Particularly with regard to opinion writing, critics of the Press Council’s decision have expressed grave questions on whether the Council’s actions violate media freedom. The decision could have a chilling effect, deterring writers from covering divisive subjects or voicing critical opinions for concern about reaction. This scenario reflects the ideas of the Sunday Independent, which attacked the decision as an excessive limitation of journalistic freedom lacking recognition of the subtleties in opinion writing.
This conflict also clarifies more general problems of alleged prejudice and unfair treatment under Press Council complaint handling against different media sources. The Sunday Independent has labelled the decision as a sign of systematic prejudice, contending that the criteria used to their publication might not apply to other media outlets, especially those closely associated with political or business interests.
This impression not only calls into doubt the Press Council’s legitimacy but also begs important issues concerning the consistency of its application of ethical criteria.
The historical background of complaints directed against several media outlets shows that what qualifies as appropriate opinion writing could vary. Although the Sunday Independent claims that the piece was meant as a protected remark on a public interest issue, the Press Council judged it to be unduly harsh and devoid of factual support. This difference in view draws attention to a necessary conflict between journalistic freedom and media control.
The effects of limited media freedom are highlighted as this matter develops. Considered as weakening independent journalism, the acts of the Press Council run the danger of creating an environment where dissenting voices are suppressed in favour of preserving a status quo favourable to strong interests.
Beyond the particular situation of the Sunday Independent, the consequences imply a larger trend of intrusion on media independence, which finally reduces the capacity of writers to carry out their important function in society.
Ultimately, media freedom in South Africa finds a pivotal point in the struggle between the Sunday Independent and the Press Council. The decision against the publishing highlights a concerning conflict between editorial freedom and legal authority. It calls for major questions about the fundamental ideas of protected expression and fair comment.
Maintaining a balance between responsibility and liberty is still a difficult chore when the function of a free press becomes crucial. The media’s capability to probe, challenge, and give venues for all voices—not just those of the powerful—will determine the lion’s ability to learn to write its own story.
Without strong media freedom, the stories meant to be told—the stories of the underprivileged—will continue to be eclipsed, while the glorified tales of the hunter dominating public perception will leave society deprived of a really multifarious knowledge of its reality. This will silence the narratives meant to challenge the dominant discourse.