Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) gives a MAD[1] to Sowetan and Sowetan Live for articles in which the publication identified a child involved in a police investigation.
The article titled “Family demand answers from cops after boy is shot” (Sowetan, 13/09/2016, p.5) which also appears on the publication’s website reports on a 10-year-old child who was allegedly shot with a rubber bullet in the mouth by policemen who were trying to scatter a protesting crowd in Willofontein, Pietermaritzburg. According to the article, the boy was on his way from school when the incident occurred. In the article, his aunt is reported to have laid a complaint against the police for shooting her nephew.
Sowetan interviewed the child who claimed to have not participated in the protest and further identified him (directly and indirectly) by revealing his name and that of his aunt. A photograph showing him visibly in pain and bloody also accompanies the article in the newspaper, and the child is further identified in the caption.
MMA emphasises the ethical responsibility on news media to minimise harm and further advocates for the protection of children’s identities in such articles. Considering that the child in question is a victim and witness to a crime, that a complaint has been laid against the police and an investigation is underway, Sowetan should have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that the identity of the child was sufficiently protected to avoid the child being subjected to further harm or intimidation which may result from being identified in the media. Not doing this led to the violation of the Criminal Procedure Act Section 154 (3) which states, “No person shall publish in any manner whatever information which reveals or may reveal the identity of the accused under the age of 18 or of a witness at criminal proceedings who is under the age of 18 years.”
This is supported by Clause 8 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African Print Media and Online Media and in particular 8.1.1 which clearly states:
8.1. The Bill of Rights (Section 28.2) in the South African Constitution states: “A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.” The media, applying the spirit of this section, shall therefore:
8.1.1. exercise exceptional care and consideration when reporting about children. If there is any chance that coverage might cause harm of any kind to a child, he or she shall not be interviewed, photographed or identified without the consent of a legal guardian or of a similarly responsible adult and the child (taking into consideration the evolving capacity of the child), and a public interest is evident;
Further to being identified, Sowetan should have considered the best interests of the child in deciding to also interview him. Interviewing a child shortly after a traumatic incident subjects him to further trauma as they have to relive the experience through the retelling of the story.
We draw Sowetan’s attention to the fact that even in instances where consent was obtained from the child’s parent/caregiver (which was unclear in this case), we emphasise the need for informed consent where all parties involved including the child, are made fully aware and understand the consequences of being identified in the media. We also urge journalists to exercise extreme caution and ensure that identifying a child in such instances is overridden by a legitimate public interest.
It is clear from the content of the article and the actions taken by the aunt in laying a complaint against the police for unlawful use of force that the coverage could cause harm and identification could lead to intimidation of a material witness to the allegations. This is unethical and contrary to the Spirit of the Code.
Identifying the child in this story also resulted in the publication flouting its own policy which states in part, “We will maintain the highest possible ethical standards in reporting on children. We undertake to consider the consequences of our reporting to children, and to take steps, where appropriate, to minimise the harm.”
We strongly urge Sowetan to withdraw the child’s identity as well as that of his aunt from the publication’s website and sufficiently blur or block his face on accompanying photographs in subsequent reporting. The publication should thereafter provide an explanation that supports this decision that would be in both the public interest and the best interests of the child.
We look forward to reading more articles that support the best interests of children from Sowetan.
By Lister Namumba-Rikhotso
[1] A MAD refers to an article where the rights and welfare of children have been compromised through irresponsible media coverage
*SowetanLive has since withdrawn the article from the website.
The following exchange took place between MMA and Sowetan
Sowetan
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your MAD. Sowetan identified the child and his guardian, and the use of the child’s picture, at the request of the family and after consent was obtained. The family felt that if the matter was reported, and they were identified, they need not fear being intimidated because the story would be out in the public domain. They also felt the picture was important to show the extent of the child’s injury.
To clarify, the child is neither an accused nor has been called as a witness in the case against the protesters. He was, unfortunately, in the wrong place at the wrong time..
Sowetan ran this story because it is important for the public to know the dangers they face when there is protest, and often when police are involved. It is sometimes unavoidable when violence spills overs into communities, and residents, especially children and the elderly, are sometimes at risk despite numerous precautions that are put in place
MMA
Thank you for your response to the commentary. We acknowledge that the article in question has been taken offSowetanLive. We will make a note of this in the commentary uploaded on our website.
We would also like to clarify a few things in response to some of the points you raised in relation to our commentary. You mentioned how Sowetan published the story at the request of the family and how you obtained consent from them to identify the child. Firstly, the fact that the family gave consent is no indication that such consent was in fact informed consent: – that they were advised of the potential reasonable risks of the child’s identity being directly and indirectly revealed. MMA also stresses the need for journalists to also consult children in these processes in accordance with their age and maturity as this is their fundamental right and to make sure this consent is in written form. Even though the caregiver consents to the disclosure of the identity of the child, the journalist must exercise cautious discretion as it may nevertheless be harmful to the child to publish his or her identity.
We also agree that as you stated, the public need to know the dangers they may face when there is a protest, however, we argue that this could have and can be done without identifying the child. Sowetan missed an opportunity to adequately highlight these dangers by going beyond a single news report (which is not in this case sufficient to highlight the issue) and going further to provide greater context which would provide the reader with much more understanding of the dangers they may face when. Further, your reliance on the importance “for the public to know the dangers they face when there is (a) protest” sacrifices the best interests of the child in the article. We would invite you to consider best practice on reporting on children and remind you that you are bound by the provisions of the Code of Ethics and Conduct signed into effect in January 2016 – which includes a reliance on Section 28(2) of the Constitution and which clearly states that in all matters concerning the child, the interests of the child are of paramount importance.
We would also refer you to MMA’s Guidelines and Principles on Reporting on Children in the Media which ask journalists in these circumstances to deeply reflect: “How does naming the child allow the journalist to take the story into a deeper, more contextual level of reporting?” Furthermore, “what would identifying the child allow the journalist to tell the audience that they could not understand otherwise?”
MMA would be more than happy to engage with you on receiving training from our expert on Reporting on Children, a trained and practicing attorney with more than 10 years of experience in the field. We feel this specialised training will help to curb instances of child rights violations in your publication.
Sowetan
Thank you for your response.