By Hassen Lorgat
“Every time the media lies (call)
Every time the media lies (collective response)
another child in Gaza dies” (call)
another child in Gaza dies” (collective response)
This call-and-response slogan is not innately South African, but I swear, I heard it most often at our weekly protests – the last time, during the 16th Annual Walk for Palestine held in Lenasia recently. It is rooted within international struggles as it tries to explain the link between the role of the media in the genocide. The meaning of the call-and-response is layered. It can mean: saying nothing (complicity in the genocide through silence, evasion and avoidance tactics) or saying something that denies the genocide or seeks to explain it away simply fudging the issues – but deep down they are eloquent genocide enablers.
The blame lies primarily with the mainstream media in the West and those, like SABC who get their feeds. Some of these media houses directly or otherwise become compromised. By suppressing information during the time of a genocide is deadly and these journalists could be accused of complicity in the genocide. This is the view posited by the former senior United Nations human rights official Chris Mokhiber here which he elaborated in his discussion with Ahmed Alnaouq (Deep Dive Palestine) here.
It involves repeating dominant elite voices, in this case, Israeli voices, and U.S. or their supporters, and conveying these viewpoints into media chambers and channels. At the same time as elite voices are amplified, there is a diminution and dehumanisation of Palestinian voices. Palestinians have to prove their humanity and, where they are victims, that they are deserving victims in a genocide whilst those perpetrating the genocide are given a platform to have their say and spin the narrative, often denying that they are involved in crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, starvation of a population or part thereof, or indiscriminate killings of Palestinians – including a large number of infants, children, women and girls.
What is obvious is that this war on Palestinians is fought with bombs, bullets, drones, and AI but also with : headlines, quotes, and soundbites – all of which are contested in the war of bloody narratives where the lives of some are mourned and accounted for, while go the lives of others are and erased through omission
The Right to Communicate
The right to freedom of opinion and expression is a key human right in the South African Constitution as well as international conventions. I prefer to use the concept – the right to communicate – as it unlocks other rights in the Bill of Rights, and for those who have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) addresses the national obligations of states, with respect to the rights of others, to enforce these rights. Fundamentally, the right to communicate speaks to the right to impart and receive information as a fundamental human right. This imperative, contained in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR that was adopted in 1948, is widely considered as the “bedrock of a democratic society”.
It is for this reason that my comrades and I, in the Peoples Media Consortium and other structures have consistently campaigned for greater inclusion of working peoples’ voices as aspirations on our radios and screens. We have consistently told the SABC that getting rid of Workers on Wednesday, a show co-produced with Workers World Media Productions and ran for 14 years, was an abuse of power that undermines nation and community building. Workers and the poor must be revealed in a manner that dignifies them as autonomous beings, agents of their own history and not only victims of capitalism that regularly resort to strikes, occupations and lamentations. This concern is not a contradiction of being in solidarity with the communities fighting rampant extractivism in the Congo and the people being genocided in Palestine.
I cannot emphasize enough that citizens are not mere passive recipients of these rights but critical actors for self-actualisation within society. This is particularly demanding in our times, when there is a mass overflow (not for all) of information and where those with modest digital access are bombarded by misinformation, disinformation and various versions of fake news, censorship, and the failure of social media platform owners to adjudicate these rights – effectively undermining or diluting the right to communicate. If citizens are inactive, it is a serious blow to our democracy, but when organisations that purport to uphold the right to free expression are silent, we are in a crisis.
South African Civil Society
South African civil society organisations have a vibrancy that is well respected internationally. The international solidarity principle, “an injury to one, is an injury to all” – has governed this principle of the community around the values, strategy, and goals of solidarity.
It is for this reason that the silence of CSOs and media houses to speak out against the unethical violations of the freedom of expression by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies is problematic. It is as if the finding of the press ombuds office, challenges the cosy relationship that some CSOs have with power.
The findings of Hassen Lorgat vs Sunday Times and The Citizen (September 2025) came after a long battle to get these newspapers to admit and apologise in line with the press code. The Press Code expressly forbids external funding that distorts journalism, especially when it is not declared. This was confirmed in the case that I lodged against the Sunday Times and The Citizen for their reporting during the period 10 April – 6 May 2025, where the sponsorship was undeclared. In a separate case, I wrote to BizNews complaining about their failure to declare, which they remedied to my satisfaction. Whilst BizNews is not a member of the Press Council of South Africa, it nevertheless tends to adhere to its prescripts, but they were not subject to the inquiry by the Press Ombud.
I first complained in June 2025 to the Press Council where and through various direct and indirect pressures and acknowledgements, the Sunday Times and The Citizen apologized.
The adjudicating Ombud, Deputy Press Ombud, Franz Krüger, in his ruling, traces the long, inadequate attempts by the media houses to apologise for their violations of the Press Code. To paraphrase the Ombud: “although the Press Council’s Public Advocate considered the matter resolved after the apologies were issued, Lorgat was not satisfied and insisted the case proceed to a full formal ruling.”
Ombud Krüger adjudicated these two separate complaints together, which he correctly reasoned since they are essentially identical, while noting any differences if necessary.
It is in the discussion where the meat of the matter is to be found. He argued:
“-First, the importance of the principle of independence should be noted. Public trust in journalism is undermined when it is open to manipulation by vested interests or can be seen to be open to manipulation. Reporting simply cannot be for sale and sponsorship is rarely, if ever, disinterested.
-The Press Code accepts that there are situations where reporting is only possible with some outside support, insisting only that such support be disclosed so that readers can judge what to make of the article for themselves.
-The failure to disclose the SAJBD sponsorship by the respondents was a serious breach with important ramifications for the relationship of trust the media must maintain with audiences. The ombud explained that this breach goes “beyond the minor errors of fact or spelling that fall under Tier 1 in the hierarchy of sanctions. It is a serious breach of the code, falling under Tier 2.” Accordingly, he ruled that the “corrections and apologies in the printed editions and on the homepages online of both newspapers were sufficient.”
He did point out, however, that the execution of the corrections and the apology on the other platforms was inadequate and had to be remedied. The fact that this was the ABC or 101 of journalism had to raise the ire of the wider community and is directly related to my concerns about conspiracy and the need for a redress measure that is educational: a seminar. I respectfully disagree with the Ombud that “the calls for a public seminar and for donations to be ordered fall outside the ambit of the sanctions that can be imposed by this office.” I will now look at the two points (conspiracy and public seminar) hereunder.
Conspiracy?
Whilst I alleged that these editors collectively (all three media houses) had over 90 years of experience in journalism – the error of naming their sponsor could not have been an error or a simple matter of forgetting, as Makudu Sefara (editor of the Sunday Times) stated on PowerFM – in a programme dedicated to uncover the junket by South African journalists.
Throughout I argued that this violation was not simply an administrative error but, as the Ombud ruled, it was a case of gross negligence and a serious error; but unlike the ombud, I argued that there was a conspiracy. The ombud ruled that there was no proof of a deliberate conspiracy.
The reason the ombud did not endorse the more serious accusation of a coordinated plot was due to a lack of conclusive proof. That is, he did not see a smoking gun, but it is clear that the media sector is or was not ready to delve into this aspect of the violation.
The conspiracy is simple to understand: three independent organisations, all of their own volition, agree to work with a powerful Zionist lobby group, and do not divulge the funding provided to them to go on a media junket to Israel. All this happening during a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
It could not just happen on its own; it had to be coordinated, or unless it was the invisible hand of the market that somehow effused through the ether and that foul smell affected them all, not to report their sponsorship.
All in the party?
Around the same time, delegations from several South African political parties—the Democratic Alliance (DA), the Patriotic Alliance (PA), and the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP)—visited Israel and met with President Isaac Herzog. This is the same Isaac Herzog who, just days after the October 7th attacks, proclaimed that an “entire nation” was responsible for the actions of Hamas, claiming civilians in Gaza “could have risen up” against the “evil regime.”
Unsurprisingly, upon their return, these delegations parroted the talking points of their hosts. They told the public that there was no apartheid in Israel and denied that Israel was perpetrating a genocide. A feeble parliament and a compromised media, failed to force these parties to account to their complicity in a genocide and siding with racism.
Returning to South African reporting on the media junket, the one quoted above by the SABC on this is one more than what it has done on the journalist’s junket. Their silence in this matter has been a cause of tension and dispute which may result in a sitting of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). (Others like eNCA, Primedia, have equally stayed away from this case, unlike PowerFM and Newzroom Africa).
Whilst our media has been afraid to cover the financial or economic crisis upon Israeli business, companies, and society, Israeli media has been way ahead. This criticism BDS highlights in their statement issued in October 2023; BDS, in a section of their report entitled Part 3: Economic crisis admitted by Israeli leaders, ignored by Western media, reported on statements from Israeli politicians, economists, and business leaders admitting that they are in a severe economic crisis.
Key indicators show a dramatic decline in high-tech investments and startups relocating abroad, which they blame on the current government’s policies, creating a climate of instability that is causing capital to flee the country. This aspect of the anti-apartheid disinvestment was critical in forcing the regime to change, and not reporting these aspects as they relate to the Israeli regime implies support for it.
Campaigns to isolate genocide-participating corporations or others colluding / or enabling genocide has increased during the last two years, and matters are not looking bright for the regime. This economy of the genocide and its impacts have, on the other hand, been touched on, but not the economic confidence of the Israeli state to continue as is.
Let me try to explain through a few simple points, and you judge whether these crime novels and series have taught us anything about detective work:The three media houses failed to disclose the sponsorship of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) for a trip to Israel during a genocide (this cannot be a coincidence).
It cannot be a coincidence, as the Ombud recognises. When he found that their non declaration of sponsorship by Zionism was not a simple error. This is what some may call the Implausibility of Coincidence, but I would say that it appears too strange to be random, and it is here that I say that collectively the journalists’/ editors’ experience being over 90 years could have forgotten to declare that they have been funded by an external party becomes germane to the argument. “This is too strange to be random. There must be something else going on.” It is this that was not fully explored, as the questions have to be asked why *sommer so, nje*…this happened.
Gross negligence, perhaps? However, this does not explain how these experienced journalists from different media houses could commit the same serious error, and “gross negligence” of omitting to name their funder is statistically and logically improbable. It leaves the door open to the only conclusion or explanation that this was a coordinated plot, either directly at the behest of or the explicit agreement with the SAJBD as part of the “Ts and Cs” of the sponsorship.
Or it took place indirectly through a shared understanding of the expectations of the powerful Zionist sponsor committed to protecting Israel’s image
that was obliged to downplay accusations that they are an apartheid state and now engineering and perpetrating a genocide.
There was MOTIVE, and we have the context of the GENOCIDE. Not one of the journalists was unaware that they were going to Palestine-Israel during a genocide, as they were fully aware that the funder was part of the Zionist lobby groups. This provides a clear motive for the conspiracy argument, which was to manipulate public perception by presenting a sponsored trip as independent journalism. The closest the Ombud comes to this argument is when he finds that these actions “must have been deliberate” – which is damning, and I believe in spirit supports the assertion that this was a “conspiracy.” My reading is that the Ombud does not rule it out… but he wanted a direct smoking gun… but he adds: “Reporting simply cannot be for sale and sponsorship is rarely, if ever, disinterested.”
Finally, I turn to the redress measures I sought. The key “asks” was the call for the convening of a public seminar to be held, as well as for the respondents to make a donation to a suitable Palestinian cause. This the Ombud, like the Public Advocate, rejected on similar grounds. Krüger noted that these calls “fall outside the ambit of the sanctions that can be imposed by this office.” I want to explore this further starting with the obligations of the Press Council’s constitution which asserts that educating the public is a key way to maintain good journalistic practices. The preamble is clear: the press must serve society and that for the Council, partnership with or between the public and the press or media through co-regulation serves it best. Through this partnership, journalistic standards are improved. My only crime is to call for a public seminar.
In addition, I drew reference to the South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) inspired Satchwell report, which investigated the ethical breaches and obstacles to credible media practice in South Africa. In that matter, there were redress measures directed to various media houses, including some that are once again violating the press code. It is for this reason that I think we must explore ways of realising this goal.
Public Seminar Revisited
As I veer towards closure, I go back to the top, where I praised the activism of individuals in speaking out and organising around justice and liberation for Palestinians, as this Press Ombud case essentially is about.
The Press Ombuds are Clear
Whilst many active citizens have called into radio shows and written articles on this press junket, specialist CSOs that purport to defend free speech have been silent about this violation – that the press ombud regarded as gross/serious.
Indeed, the former ombud and author of *Decoding the Code*, Johan Retief, who wrote:
“ I must agree with Hassen Lorgat that this admission was not a mere mistake. It must have been deliberate – seasoned journalists would surely have known that they should not hide that their trip was sponsored.
This is, in fact, a scandal that has eroded the credibility of those newspapers, as well as that of the South African media in general. As the former Press Ombudsman, I would not even allow a journalist to buy me a cup of coffee, for fear that the perception could be created that I was ‘bought’. Once, on a farm near Alexandra, the owner – who was also a complainant – offered me a jar of jam during my visit to the site. I refused the gift, for the same reason.”
In a poster campaign series, Media Justice Africa lists these assertions by them all, and I recall the talk given by Press Ombud Joe Thloloe at the 30th anniversary of 19 October 1977 Black Wednesday, in 2007, where he famously called on journalists to live the code and commit to honest practice. “The constitution plus the honest practice of our press code are the ones that are going to protect us in these very wild days that we are going through…” he concluded.
Furthermore, the Press Ombud Pippa Green (21.11.2019) was blatant about why media houses must not take external funds and maintain the integrity of the profession: “I believe that, notwithstanding the challenges we face, the best way to not only survive but thrive, is for the media to continue to expose the threats to our democracy, and the injustices that are still rife in the country but to do this is by adhering to the ethics that make people trust us. Trust is our most important currency.”
Finally, the theme of trust is reiterated in the recent ruling by Franz Krüger, who wrote:
‘First, the importance of the principle of independence should be noted. Public trust in journalism is undermined when it is open to manipulation by vested interests or can be seen to be open to manipulation. Reporting simply cannot be for sale and sponsorship is rarely, if ever, disinterested.
CSO Inaction?
Whilst all this is out there, powerful media houses remain silent on this issue. Their views in the public are very weak and one can argue that by omission or commission, they undermine ethical journalism. It is equally damning if and when the specialist freedom of expression, media rights organisations like the Peoples Media Consortium and Media Review Network remain agnostic on the genocide. This cannot be with overwhelming number of human rights organisations and academic bodies and institutions as well as governments have recognised what is happening in Gaza as a genocide.
I will highlight these groups and add a brief bio of them, and conclude on these thereafter.
South African National Editors Forum
Sanef has done sterling work around media ethics and integrity. Its constitution has noble goals and objectives such as “To defend media freedom through all available institutions, including the Constitutional Court” to promote and protect freedom of speech. Amongst its management committee, we have the Chairperson Makhudu Sefara, who also happens to be the editor of the Sunday Times in the dispute under discussion. General Secretary Dr Glenda Daniels and the Treasurer General Sbu Ngalwa, the Media Freedom Chairperson Slindile Khanyile.
At the time of writing, I have been unable to find their comment on this, and they may be compromised because of one of their leaders having to defend the newspaper. I will now turn to the Campaign for Free Expression.
The Freedom of Expression Institute
https://freeexpression.org.za/media-releases/
The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) was established in 1994, as it says, to protect and foster the right to freedom of expression and to oppose censorship. In addition, they committed themselves to “monitor the free flow of ideas and information and report on relevant events and developments” as well as encouraging awareness across all society “in particular ensuring it is not just a media concern but one for all citizens and civil society.”
At the time of writing, I could not find any statement from the organisation or its
Executive Director Samkelo Mokhine, commenting on this SAJBD junket that limits the free flow of expression that amounts to a distortion of media integrity.
Campaign for Free Expression
https://freeexpression.org.za/about
The CFE has a dynamic leadership including the likes of the Editor at News24,
Adrian Basson, Nicole Fritz, Anton Harber, Prof Sizwe Mabizela, Dr Ismail Mahomed
and Advocate Carol Steinberg. They boldly affirm they respect all views, legal and “if anyone or any circumstance is blocking your free expression, we will do what we can to expose and unblock it. It might be in the streets, in your workplace, at public meetings, on your campus, in any public space…”
It is for this reason that their silence on this lobby group’s sponsorship of junkets that support genocide demands that they speak out.
SOS
https://soscoalition.org.za/policies/
SOS is a non-profit organisation that campaigns around public service media in South Africa. We are committed to and continue to work tirelessly to lobby government and other stakeholders to ensure a strengthened and efficient public broadcaster and public broadcasting services.
Their leaders represent the most powerful groups and campaigns in the country, and this may be a strength as well as a weakness, as if these people do not speak out in their own organisations, as I have shown, they will remain silent in this broad front.
The most recently elected leaders include the following: Bongani ka Mthembu of R2K, Nicky Mokoena (MMA) (Treasurer), Pearl Munonde (SASFED) (Deputy Chairperson), Samkelo Mokhine (FXI), Anton Harber (CFE), Ayanda Sibisi (IPO), Thandi Smith (MMA), Uyanda Siyotula (National Coordinator), Unathi Malunga (Individual member).
*MEDIA MONITORING AFRICA
https://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/
Media Monitoring Africa works closely with the SOS Coalition, but I will start to discuss each of them initially separately. The hugely credible Media Monitoring Africa (https://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/), led by its director William Bird, seems to have muted their outspokenness on this matter. The MMA says that it “acts as a watchdog, taking on a role to promote ethical and fair journalism which supports human rights. We promote democracy and a culture where the media and the powerful respect human rights to encourage a just and fair society.”
Their support and collaboration with the SOS Coalition has achieved much for a fair and accountable public broadcaster. The two organisations have been bold and have submitted a joint statement to the Zondo Commission that was investigating state capture. They argued that the inquiry looked into the extent of state capture in the broadcasting sector by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). They asserted that the “SABC …crippled by the results of financial mismanagement, abuse of corporate governance, corruption, editorial interference, sexual harassment and threats to journalists.
Why are they silent? I do not know, but it is not a secret that this story has been all over social media. What is clear is that if the media is compromised, they cannot monitor power, including the junkets of political parties that went on junkets to Israel.
But if the media freedom campaign bodies fail to speak and organise to protect the rights of the marginalised Palestinians and those who advocate in solidarity with them. To speak on everything else, but in this time exclude Palestine and the genocide undermines the public discourse. They must speak out against corporate, for profit lobby groups including those guided by the South African Zionist Federation which has immense sway in society. However I believe, as the press ombud found, the public has the right to know who funds their journalism and their absent voice hurts us all.
These organisations are mandated to speak truth to all power – private and public – and I believe that they can help us in co- convening a public education programme that the press ombud failed to rule on. This workshop or conference will help us to understand the role of media in these complex times as well as how to limit the power of lobbies for profit and against the public interests. This is the immediate task of our struggle. The media is a public good and too powerful