When reporting stories about children who are victims of and/or witnesses to abuse or crime or, they themselves have committed crimes, journalists should take care not only to avoid compromising the children’s safety but to also protect their rights to dignity and privacy. This will ultimately safeguard children’s best interests as enshrined in the constitution in Section 28 (2) of the Bill of Rights as well as emphasised in the Code of ethics and conduct for South African print and online media.

The Citizen and Daily Sun both acted in a manner that was not in the best interest of children when they covered stories where the child victims and/or witnesses involved were identified in the stories indirectly.  It is for this reason that both publications get a MAD[1] from Media Monitoring Africa (MMA).

The Citizen, in an article titled, “’My girl still cries’ after tree terror” (02/08/2018, p.5) reports a story about a girl who was “allegedly tied to a tree and shot at” by two farmers in 2017. According to the child’s father, who is interviewed in the article, the child is still traumatised from the incident. The Citizen indirectly revealed the identity of the child by publishing the name of her father.

“Girls’ prank ends in tears!” (Daily Sun, 11/09/2018, p.7) is about three girls who were allegedly beaten with a sjambok by their neighbour for playing with a doorbell. The article reports that a case of assault was opened. In this instance, Daily Sun named and pictured the parents and a grandmother therefore also indirectly identifying the children who were abused.

Since in both incidents, a legal process had already began, the bare minimum expected from the law is that the media (or anyone for that matter) should not publish any information that could reveal the identities of children involved in criminal proceedings as clearly stated in section 154 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act which was recently ruled by the Supreme Court of Appeal to read as follows;  

“No person shall publish in any manner whatever any information which reveals or may reveal the identity of an accused under the age of 18 years or of a victim or of a witness at criminal proceedings who is under the age of 18 years.”

In addition, the guidelines provided by the Code of ethics and conduct for South African print and online media are also very clear with regards to identifying children such as the ones in the two stories. Clause 8.1.3 of the Code states that “The media shall therefore … not identify children who have been victims of abuse, exploitation, or who have been charged with or convicted of a crime, without the consent of their legal guardians (or a similarly responsible adult) and the child (taking into consideration the evolving capacity of the child), a public interest is evident and it is in the best interests of the child.”[2]

In both cases there was no value or public interest in naming the parents.

Journalists are discouraged from identifying children who are victims of and/or witnesses to crimes and at criminal proceedings as doing so puts the children at risk of being harmed for retribution or to keep them from testifying.

MMA expects higher ethical standards and sensitive reporting that ultimately considers the best interests of the people involved especially when they are children. The Citizen and Daily Sun were careless and in the future, they should apply the law and principles enshrined in the Code in order to minimise harm when reporting on children.

By George Kalu

[1] MADs are given to journalists who have irresponsibly reported on children and compromised their rights and welfare

[2] http://www.presscouncil.org.za/ContentPage?code=PRESSCODE