By Edmond Phiri
THE recent claim by the Press Council of SA (PCSA) of “expelling” Independent Media requires correction and context: The media house withdrew first. After a brute-force attempt to censor and control Independent Media’s editorial content via the backdoor, the media house decided to withdraw from the voluntary body.
On October 22, Independent Media announced its immediate withdrawal from this voluntary body, protesting what it viewed as the suppression of press freedom and censorship through competitor-media-driven agendas.
The PCSA’s response was telling: First, it rejected the withdrawal, then hastily announced the company’s “expulsion” the following day. The PCSA’s bizarre reaction—attempting to reject a withdrawal from a non-statutory voluntary organisation—reveals the Council’s true colours and raises troubling questions about its role in South Africa’s media landscape.
Consider the absurdity: How can a voluntary body, whose members join and leave at will, reject a withdrawal? It’s akin to an employer refusing a volunteer employee’s resignation but opting to fire them instead. The legal effect is almost the same, but the gesture is vindictive and spiteful. The Council was doing nothing but a desperate attempt to maintain the illusion of control and authority and narrative control. The PCSA’s actions suggest an institution more concerned with power politics than principled oversight of media ethics and protecting press freedom.
Since Independent Media rejoined the council, the PCSA has been used as a battering ram to destroy its editorial independence and force it to conform to the mainstream narrative. Their treatment of Independent Media in the News24 case exemplifies this bias.
The catalyst for Independent Media’s withdrawal stems from the Council’s handling of the News24 case, which exemplified their systematic bias. The case began with my March 3 opinion piece “Is Karyn Maughan South Africa’s Leni Riefenstahl—the Nazi Propagandist?” published in the Sunday Independent, which prompted a coordinated media campaign by competitor outlets. What followed was a masterclass in narrative manipulation: false claims about the article’s content, manufactured outrage, and the cynical exploitation of gender abuse issues to create an emotional hook.
The SA National Editors Forum (Sanef), which holds significant influence within the Press Council through its power to nominate some of the adjudication committee members, joined the fray. Their March 8 statement about my article and “calling for an end to cyberbullying of women journalists” appeared strategically timed to influence the case.
False propaganda articles followed, attacking Independent Media chairman Dr Iqbal Survé and falsely accusing him of running a “PR machinery to attack his detractors”. Later in March, a conveniently timed dubious “research” report titled “Sexualised, Silenced and Labelled Satan—Horrific Levels of Online Violence Targeting Women Journalists” was released, further smearing Independent Media. This prompted a response from Independent Media’s women editors, condemning the unethical journalism and research practices. The coordinated smear campaign on overdrive.
South Africans should revisit Independent Media’s withdrawal letter and its scathing reasons for leaving the PCSA. The council’s attempt to overshadow those reasons with the so-called “expulsion” is telling. Independent Media conducted itself in full compliance with the PCSA, following all due processes to the letter. Yet, the council’s actions suggest a predetermined agenda rather than a commitment to fairness.
At the PCSA hearing for the Maughan case, I witnessed firsthand the racism, arrogance and disdain with which Independent Media was treated. The questioning was not aimed at understanding my article or the reasons behind the analogies and hyperbole used; it was an exercise in hostility and prejudgement. A day before the hearing, Anton Harber even wrote an article about the News24 complaint, seemingly setting the stage for the forthcoming judgement.
During the hearing, I was met with disrespect by Pieter du Toit, whom I asked to tone down his condescending and racist attitude—a fact noted in the PCSA’s findings. Independent Media’s formal complaints about the ill-treatment appear to have been ignored or sidelined. The entire process was sham. It lacked the impartiality and fairness that should be the hallmark of such a council.
The council’s biased findings and refusal to allow an appeal were the final straws that prompted Independent Media’s withdrawal. Their theatrical “rejection” of the withdrawal, followed by claims of expulsion, only confirms what some observers have long suspected: the PCSA functions more as a propaganda tool for mainstream media interests than as an impartial arbitrator of complaints.
The Press Council’s attempts to control the narrative of Independent Media’s departure through claims of “expulsion” rather than addressing the substantial criticisms in the withdrawal letter speaks volumes. Their actions reveal an institution more concerned with maintaining power and control than upholding genuine press freedom and ethical journalism. When a voluntary industry body behaves like an enforcer of conformity rather than a fair arbitrator, it undermines the very press freedom it claims to protect.
Independent Media’s decision to leave the Press Council wasn’t just justified—it was necessary for maintaining editorial independence and safeguarding press freedom. South Africa deserves better than a regulatory body that serves as a tool for media competitors to undermine each other and enforce conformity to mainstream narratives.
The outcome of Maughan’s complaint was a foregone conclusion. A white woman portrayed as a victim against a black man who dared to critique her work; a mainstream media house versus an independent one; the establishment against an entity not considered part of it. The scenario reflects deeper societal issues and discrimination that persist in South Africa—a microcosm of broader struggles between entrenched power structures and those who dare challenge them.
* Edmond Phiri is an independent writer, commentator and political analyst. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.