By Sipho Tshabalala
The Press Council of South Africa (PCSA) has taken a dubious step by "expelling" Independent Media, the nation’s largest media group, despite the fact that the group had already voluntarily withdrawn from the Council. This move isn't just absurd; it reveals a far more sinister agenda at play—one that calls into question the PCSA's true intentions and impartiality.
Independent Media, known for its bold and uncompromising journalism, has exposed corruption and given voice to stories other media houses shy away from. However, this very independence has made it a target. The Press Council's latest actions appear to be part of a broader, coordinated effort to silence dissenting media outlets and punish those who refuse to conform to the mainstream narrative.
The PCSA’s Sinister Contradiction
The decision to expel Independent Media after it had already withdrawn is not just illogical; it is clearly designed to discredit a media group that refuses to bow to external pressures. Rather than acting in good faith, this move appears calculated to harm one of South Africa’s most influential and independent media voices. The PCSA's actions speak to an agenda that goes far beyond ethics or legality, and they raise serious doubts about the Council’s integrity.
Conflicts of Interest and Questionable Alliances
The PCSA's structure and affiliations are deeply troubling. Several key members of the Council have direct ties to major media organizations like SANEF (South African National Editors' Forum) and Media24—both of which are competitors of Independent Media. This includes individuals like Latiefa Mobara, the Council’s Executive Director, and Fanie Groenewald, the Public Advocate, both of whom have long standing connections to Media24. With such clear conflicts of interest, how can the Press Council claim to be neutral?
Further undermining its credibility, the PCSA refuses to disclose its funding sources. This lack of transparency only deepens concerns that the Council is financially compromised, beholden to the same media conglomerates it claims to regulate.
Collusion with News24: A Coordinated Attack
The sinister nature of the PCSA’s actions is further revealed in the events surrounding a complaint involving News24 legal journalist Karyn Maughan. This conflict started with an article by Edmond Phiri titled, “Is Karyn Maughan South Africa’s Leni Riefenstahl – the Nazi Film Propagandist?” The article, which drew a parallel between Maughan and a notorious propagandist, triggered an immediate backlash. News24 and Maughan, supported by Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), filed a complaint with the PCSA.
What followed was a blatant display of bias and overreach by the Council. The PCSA demanded retractions, public apologies, and even insisted that Independent Media replace Phiri’s article with an official PCSA statement. This heavy-handed response went beyond mere regulation—it was an Orwellian attempt to control the narrative and suppress Independent Media’s editorial independence. When Independent Media tried to appeal this unjust directive, the Council dismissed their efforts with disdain.
This episode further highlights the PCSA's alignment with powerful media players like News24, as it selectively enforces rules to protect its favored outlets while targeting those who dare to challenge them. The Council's actions betray its supposed mission of impartiality and reveal its willingness to censor dissenting voices under the guise of accountability.
Censorship Disguised as Ethics
The PCSA’s so-called “expulsion” of Independent Media is not an act of accountability—it is censorship masquerading as ethical oversight. Independent Media has consistently reported on issues others avoid, from corporate misconduct to political corruption. Its relentless pursuit of truth has made it a target, and the Council's actions reveal a clear attempt to silence one of the few media groups willing to challenge the powerful.
The PCSA is not upholding ethical standards in journalism; it is suppressing one of the most critical and independent voices in South Africa. Rather than regulating the media with fairness, it is acting as an enforcer for vested interests, eroding the very press freedoms it is supposed to protect.
Apartheid Tactics Resurface in a New Form
The PCSA's recent actions are not just a threat to Independent Media but to media freedom across South Africa. This sinister agenda becomes even more alarming when viewed in light of the country’s history of media suppression. In October 1977, during the infamous Black Wednesday, the apartheid regime banned black-owned newspapers and arrested journalists to suppress dissenting voices. Today, the PCSA’s actions echo these oppressive tactics by targeting South Africa’s largest black-owned media group in favor of News24, a white-owned rival.
When an institution designed to protect press freedom aligns itself with white interests, democracy itself is endangered. The PCSA’s expulsion of Independent Media is not just an attack on one media house; it is a direct assault on media freedom and the diversity of voices essential to democracy. If we allow this blatant bias to continue unchecked, we risk losing the very freedoms that underpin our society.
The Fight for Media Independence
Independent Media’s withdrawal from the Press Council was a principled stand against a corrupt regulatory body that has lost its way. The subsequent expulsion only further exposes the PCSA's true agenda—controlling the narrative rather than maintaining journalistic standards. Despite these attacks, Independent Media remains resolute in its commitment to fearless journalism and will continue its fight for truth and accountability.
The battle for media independence in South Africa has never been more critical. It is time to demand transparency, impartiality, and accountability from the institutions meant to protect press freedom. The stakes are high, and the future of journalism and democracy hangs in the balance.
* Sipho Tshabalala is an independent writer, analyst and commentator.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.