License to kill?

2005-04-06 13:31

On Friday Die Son tabloid published a story on NG Kerk dominee Laurie Gaum and his alleged "unethical behaviour". Naked pictures of the dominee and lurid tales dominated the tabloid's front pages. The source of the story was Gaum's ex-lover Douw Wessels. On Tuesday Wessels died after taking an overdose of pills.

Lizette Rabe examines the treatment of this story, and asks whether the tabloids are a law unto themselves, allowed to proceed unchecked?

Responsible journalism is good journalism. Good journalism is responsible journalism.

That you get in a Journ 101 class. Deduced from that, it would mean tabloids - and the increasingly tabloidisation of the media - are the antithesis of good journalism.

In fact, with their complete disregard of responsibility towards society and individuals, some of this media are a law unto themselves.

But a tragedy occurred, and maybe this will aid some proponents of the printed media and their seemingly unchecked "licence" to rethink the concept of publish and be damned.

A talented young man committed suicide after his story broke in a tabloid. A story, that he, admittedly, submitted to the sleaze press himself.

What are the contributing elements in this story? It's about invasion of privacy. Dignity. Humanitarian responsibility. Professional restraint.

Of course the tabloids can say: but the story was given to us on a plate, don't blame us for what went wrong. And it was tabloid fare: a jilted lover, a gay clergyman, alleged promiscuity.

Yes, the paper cannot be blamed for a relationship that could not survive. But: there were several aspects they had to take into account before even considering publishing a "balanced" version of the story. And they surely had to anticipate the consequences.

The media has an obligation to protect people from themselves. That is part of our responsibility - not only towards the subject at hand, but also our audiences, our society.

It seems there are two sets of standards. One the mainstream media should adhere to, one for the tabloids.

Although the tabloids are part of media conglomerates, which pride themselves with elaborate codes of conduct, the tabloids do not comply with the codes of their own groups.

In a time when companies, including media companies, not only have to have fair labour practices according to law, but also have to have policies to show some social responsibility, coupled with various "good deeds" projects, they disregard the consequences of some of their own products.

Tabloids, in fact, can carry on with their destruction of what is socially and morally acceptable within our constitutional democracy.

(Let's leave the gender-and-tabloids debate aside. You know, the one about the influence of the media on society, what the "page three girl" does to perpetuate stereotypes - yes, maybe even to aggravate the already grave situation of so many women without power amongst especially the working class. Racism is unacceptable, unethical, unconstitutional. But tabloids can be defiant about sexism - and are getting away with it.)

The right to privacy is part of the concept of dignitas, a person's dignity, writes one expert on the topic of media ethics.

Invasion of privacy, publishing "private matters", fairness - all these issues should have been raised when the editor decided on the merits of the story.

Was it in the public's interest to publish the story? How important is the topic? How are the individuals in the story protected? How can you make sure you "maximise truth" and "minimise harm"?

One award-winning American journalist has the habit of substituting his name for the subjects of his stories - to see what his reactions would be.

It's time for the media to say, "we need to draw the line". While the tabloids are outperforming their business plans, the humanitarian dignity of those whose money is good enough for them, must be acknowledged. Responsible journalism is good journalism.

And even tabloids should subscribe to certain "tabloid" codes of conduct, although this may sound like an oxymoron.

Otherwise, they might just carry on with a licence to kill.

Send your comments to Lizette or discuss this column now in our debating forum.

Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.

- News24