EDITORS' QUESTIONABLE ETHICS

Dear Readers,                                               

       

Mathatha Tsedu

  My campaign to get the Johannesburg based The Citizen newspaper to stop carrying adverts that even its own editor agrees are not believable led me to the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF).

         My posts The Citizen’s Aladdin’s Cave of unbelievable adverts; Ridiculous Advertising Standards Authority; Print & Digital Media’s appalling hypocrisy and Caxton Bosses duck dubious advertising issue didn’t make the owners of the paper blush even slightly.

            So I took the advice of Ingrid Louw the CEO of the Print & Digital Media SA (PDMSA). This has as its members all South Africa’s major newspaper publishers including Caxton, the owners of The Citizen.

        As these decisions on what content to included or not to include is taken by editors, she told me, I suggest that a discussion be held with the South African Editors Forum who could address it as a strategic industry imperative.

         SANEF is a voluntary forum of editors, senior journalists and journalism educators from all areas of the media industry in South Africa.

         Its current director is Mathatha Tsedu a journalist of considerable standing who was SANEF’s Chairman in 2010. He was recently seconded to this position by his employers Media24 which is part of Naspers the country’s biggest media empire. There he headed its Journalism Academy.

        

He has a very impressive CV. Last year he was awarded Media24’s All Time Legend Award. He has won a host of other awards including the Nat Nakasa one for courageous journalism. A Nieman fellow he is a former editor of City Press and the Sunday Times and he was also the deputy editor of both The Star and the Sunday Independent.  

         He was fired as the editor of the Sunday Times after less than a year because Johnnic Communications, the owners at the time, accused him of not sticking to his contract with the result that the paper lost circulation and consequently revenue.                                               

         His version was that the management and staff had not supported his efforts to Africanise the paper, which was denied by the owners.

         So as somebody who was prepared to put his job on the line for the African cause I thought he was the ideal person to back my crusade to get rid of these adverts that are designed to rip off less sophisticated Africans.

         Attached to my email was a letter in which I gave him the history of my campaign with links to all the posts and I said that it was Louw’s idea that I contact SANEF.

         I mentioned that on its website SANEF claimed to have ideals similar to all the organisations that I had so far contacted.

         This is how my email continued:

         It says that ‘SANEF is founded on high ideals in an industry that around the world is often maligned for its lack of integrity.’

         This is understandably when you have papers like The Citizen that is quite happy to publish fiction for profit with nobody in the industry prepared to do a thing about it.

         Your website goes on to tell us under a Vision heading that you aim to ‘promote quality and ethics in journalism’.

        

Some Commitment???

And under your Values heading you claim to stand for ‘integrity, tolerance, accountability and the public interest.’

         Well it certainly can’t be in the public interest for any newspaper to carry advertisements that are clearly not true and are designed to rip off people particularly the less sophisticated and poorer sections of our community.

         It remains to be seen now if SANEF will live up to the ideals it sets and be ACCOUNTABLE.

         What follows is the sad story of my email conversation with this legend of the profession.

          JOURNALISM might not be a crime but what about some of the
ADVERTISING

10 June: This, my first email with my letter attached, was mistakenly addressed to a previous SANEF director but sent to the address director@sanef.org.za  I said: Hopefully your organisation will do what no other one has been prepared to do so far. And that is to take a stand against newspapers that carry extremely dubious ads. When I got no reply I phoned SANEF and the lady who answered alerted me to my mistake and told me that Tsedu was now the director and he would still have got my email.

13 June: In this email which was addressed to Tsedu I referred to my mistake and said that my previous one had probably been given to him, but just in case it hadn’t I was attaching the letter as if it was addressed to him. I ended with, Please let me know what you decide.

17 June: I would be much obliged if you could reply, I asked.

I RECEIVED A ‘READ REPORT’ FOR ALL MY EMAILS.

It was like trying to get a reply from Caxton’s top executives all over again.

         When I still got no reply I phoned Tsedu’s office several times but he was not in. I finally managed to speak to him on 18 June. And this is how the conversation went.

Jon: Are you going to answer my email?

Tsedu: At some point.

Jon: When will that be?

Tsedu: When we are finished with what we are dealing with.

Jon: What are your immediate impressions?

Tsedu: I haven’t looked at the attachment, your link.

        

         I am not holding my breath waiting for a reply as I don’t expect to get one.

         But I do have this observation and you readers may or may not agree with me.

         I am sure you will agree that if you started speaking to me while you were standing in front of me and I completely ignored you I would be regarded as being very rude.

         Well my belief is that not acknowledging an mail when the sender knows you have received it is the technological equivalent of this.

         Regards,

         Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman and Consumer Watchdog, who does his best to right the wrongs that the establish Media is happy to go along with.

P.S. Before posting this I sent it to Tsedu and invited him to correct any factual errors and to make any comments he wished.  I GOT NO REPLY.

PRINT & DIGITAL MEDIA'S APPALLING HYPOCRISY

Dear Consumers,

KARJIEKER

         I promised at the end of my post headed RIDICULOUS ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY (Ridiculous) that I would tell you whether or not the ASA’s close ally the Print & Digital Media SA (PDMSA) is just as ridiculous.

         Well it turns out it is.

         So the ASA is in equally bad company.

         The PDMSA too pretends that it sticks to various impressive principles but when it comes to dealing with one of it own that clearly has a very warped idea of morality, it won’t take any action.

         It claims to represent more than 700 newspaper and magazine titles. Its members groups are Times Media, Caxton & CTP, Independent Newspapers, Media 24, Mail & Guardian – all the big boys in the South African industry – and the Association of Independent Publishers.

         So you would expect it to set a shining example.   

Its website talks about its commitment to promote high standards and integrity, but put to the test this turns out to be hogwash.

After my complaints to the ASA about the unbelievable adverts in The Citizen newspaper (Unbelievable ads) were dismissed out of hand even though the ASA had ruled against similar ads in the past, Leo Grobler, its Manager, Dispute Resolutions, continued the ridiculous trend by suggesting I should contact the PDMSA.

The ASA he said, did not have the power to stop newspapers carrying this sort of ad, but the PDMSA would have some say over the business practices of publications.

The Citizen belongs to the Caxton & CTP Group, so you would think it would abide by what the PDMSA stands for.

In an email to Hoosain Karjieker, the President of the PDMSA I asked if his organisation had the power to take action against its members that do not maintain its standards. I told him I was asking this because a paper that belongs to one of your members carries advertisements offering miraculous remedies and the like that are so outlandish that even the editor of the paper agrees the ads are not believable. But it doesn’t stop the paper carrying lots of them on a daily basis, while on its editorial side under a Code of Conduct heading it tells readers it is ‘committed to report news truthfully in accordance with the highest standards of journalism.’

Karjieker replied that he had given this to the Chief Executive (Ingrid Louw) who has been dealing with a few of these issues of late and would revert back to me. He still passed the buck even further by telling me that there is indeed the Advertising Standards Authority that has a process where complaints of this nature can be laid.

In a subsequent email I told Karjieker I wanted his comments for a post I was writing about my unsuccessful attempt to get the ASA to consider my complaints about The Citizen’s ads. I pointed out that The Citizen was owned by Caxton, which is a member of the PDMSA, and that his association claimed to be committed to promoting highs standards and to internationally recognised good governance practices

I submitted that what The Citizen was doing complied with neither of these ideals.

Ingrid Louw the PDMSA CEO then explained why they would do nothing to stop these ads. She said the PDMSA supported two industry mechanisms to standardise and regulate issues that are editorial in nature. These were the Press Council that has a Press Code that is guided by public interest and deals with reporting, the conduct of journalists and complaints.  The other one was the ASA that dealt with advertising in the print media, amongst others.

The PDMSA and its members subscribe to both codes, she went on.

Then she too joined the ASA’s realm of the ridiculous.

She explained that her organisation had no say over the content of newspapers and magazines as this was covered by the two bodies she had already mentioned.

It is critical, she said, that as media owners we are not seen to be infringing on editorial independence as these decisions on what content to included and or not to include is taken by the editors.

That’s an image that is constantly being perpetuated by newspapers and their owners when there is no question of owners allowing editors a completely free rein. In most cases the owners set the standards by which editors must abide even to the extent of which political party a paper must support.

She wandered further into the ridiculous by telling me, There are also other constitutional considerations that must be taken into account. For example the Constitution provides for freedom of expression which also includes freedom of commercial speech. This could possibly be further explored with the assistance of a constitutional expert.

She added that there were many layers to this discussion and she followed her President in passing the buck once again by suggesting that a discussion be held with the South African Editors Forum who could address it as a strategic industry imperative.

What were clearly unbelievable adverts from people masquerading as doctors, professors and the like had now become a strategic industry matter that nobody in the industry was prepared to make a judgement on.

YOU CAN’T GET MUCH MORE RIDICULOUS THAN THAT.

My email to Louw said, Your reply is the copout that I expected. In my experience most newspaper editors make out that advertising has nothing to do with them. The PDMSA is a joke if it claims to have various high ideals but it won’t get its members to stick to them. What sort of morality is that?

 But that’s what newspapers do. They are a dismal failure at practising what they preach. And when you suggest that carrying dubious ads in a paper should be protected under the Constitution’s provision for freedom of speech you are going into the same dubious area as the ads themselves.

What you have told me is made even more ironic by the fact that your President is also the CEO of the Mail &Guardian, a paper that has made a considerable name for itself for exposing the wrong doings of others.

The PDMSA’s hypocrisy is such that while it refuses to do anything about those ads it continues its proud association with awards that are in keeping with our commitment to promoting high standards and integrity within the print and digital media.

These include the Nat Nakasa Award, presented by the PDMSA, the SA National Editors Forum and the Niemen Society.

The judges look for:

·      Integrity and fearlessness (both characteristics of the Dearjon - letter).

·      Tenaciousness in the face of insurmountable obstacles (another Dearjon - letter attribute).

·      Courage in making information available to the people of South Africa (what the Dearjon - letter is doing when nobody else will).

That’s the Media for you. It has set up these self regulating bodies which it hides behind to give it an air of respectability.

So don’t expect it to do anything about advertisements that con, poor unsophisticated readers, when these are worth a tidy sum to the paper concerned, in this case The Citizen.

Regards,

Jon, The Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman and Consumer Watchdog. 

Buy my book "Where have all the children gone"on Amazon.com