South African journalists under fire for accepting paid trip to Israel

Almost six months after it was discovered and exposed that a number of South African journalists had been on a paid junket to Israel, the office of the Press Ombud has made an important finding against the publications. 

In an interesting turn of events that holds huge lessons for media platforms in relation to Israel's genocide in Gaza and the need to be mindful of not being played by the Zionist regime's lobbyists, the industry owes a debt of gratitude to sharp-eyed consumers.

In this case, as in previous matters related to an abuse of the Press Code, the complainant has been a well-known media analyst and social justice activist, Hassen Lorgat. 

The three publications whose journalists were sponsored by a Zionist-affiliated South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) were the Sunday Times, the Citizen and BizNews.

As BizNews is not a member of the Press Council and not subject to its jurisdiction, it was excluded from the ruling.

The core of the complaint by Lorgat was that neither The Citizen nor Sunday Times disclosed that their journalists were sponsored by the SAJBD.

He argued that by withholding and concealing this crucial fact, both newspapers were not only in breach of the Press Code but also in violation of fundamental media ethics, especially under the prevailing circumstances of SAJBD's ally Israel’s ghastly genocide in Gaza.

My reading of the events as they unfolded is that it was common knowledge that the Zionist regime's abysmal public relations was at an all-time low in need of boosting, yet to fall for a fully paid PR junket was inexcusable. 

Neither of the two newspapers' editors could argue - though they didn't dare to - that they were ignorant or unaware of the enormous negative impact on Israel’s standing in global public opinion. 

In spite of it, to agree to allow senior journalists on the junket, and to add the proverbial "insult to injury", to conspire to conceal that it was a trip sponsored by a known ally of Israel, was both unprofessional and unethical. 

The lessons arise from Section 2 of the Press Code, which reads: 

The media shall:

2.1 not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism;

2.2 not accept any benefit which may influence coverage;

2.3 indicate clearly when an outside organisation has contributed to the cost of newsgathering; and

2.4 Keep editorial material clearly distinct from advertising and sponsored events.

As pointed out by Franz Kruger, the Deputy Press Ombud, of specific relevance is clause 2.3, which requires members to disclose any sponsorship.

The newspapers were in breach of clause 2.3 when the reports were first published. 

"Public trust in journalism is undermined when it is open to manipulation by vested interests or can be seen to be open to manipulation. Reporting simply cannot be for sale and sponsorship is rarely, if ever, disinterested," wrote Kruger. 

He further found the "failure to disclose the SAJBD sponsorship by the respondents was a serious breach with important ramifications for the relationship of trust the media must maintain with audiences."

On the allegation by Lorgat that there was a conspiracy between the two titles, together with BizNews, to hide the financial support by the SAJBD, Kruger found that though "it is surprising that three publishers all failed to mention the sponsorship, it is in my view not enough to prove there was an active conspiracy."

However, he posits whether the combined experience of the editors involved proves that the omission cannot have been an error but must have been deliberate, as Lorgat argued.

He does concede that although both newspapers published corrections and apologies when the matter was brought to their attention, the prominence of the explanation and apology needed consideration. 

And due to the breach being a serious one, "going beyond the minor errors of fact or spelling that fall under Tier 1 in the hierarchy of sanctions", Kruger ruled it to fall under Tier 2. 

In the final analysis of his ruling, Kruger wrote that Lorgat's call for a public seminar and for donations to be ordered falls outside the ambit of the sanctions that can be imposed by his office.

However, in my assessment, I would urge the editors of all three publications to give serious consideration to the need for a public discussion on the effects of propaganda junkets. 

This particular case and its outcome have been embarrassing for the publications, their respective editors and journalists, given that they had to be pushed by a very determined complainant via the Press Ombud to make necessary amendments to sloppy corrections, incomplete clarifications and half-hearted apologies. 

As consumers, we are surely owed a full explanation by the journalists who participated in the junket, S’thembiso Msomi of the Sunday Times and Itumeleng Mafisa of The Citizen, about key questions regarding how they were recruited and under what pretext they were lured to undertake the trip. 

If they believe it to be in the public interest, as I would insist it is to unravel all the details, South Africa looks forward to reading about it. 

Iqbal Jassat is an Executive Member of the Media Review Network