The Oscar storm rages in Gauteng, bucketing banalities. Platitudes about open justice rained down as the media successfully gained almost unfettered access to the Pistorius trial.
The Oscar storm rages in Gauteng, bucketing banalities. Platitudes about open justice rained down as the media successfully gained almost unfettered access to the Pistorius trial.
In truth, open justice is already the accepted norm in South Africa. Anyone can attend court proceedings, including the media, with certain legislated exceptions like cases involving minors.
The decision to allow a live televised feed definitively extends the bounds of court reporting; but it wasn’t the titanic struggle it was professed to be for open justice to hold sway.
Even the sub judice rule doesn’t really apply in our country, except in extreme instances of misconduct. This normally limits what can be reported about an ongoing court case, lest it interfere with the course of justice.
Our judges however, decide both on matters of fact and issues of law, so there are no impressionable jurors that can be swayed by what appears in the media.
Finally, qualified privilege protects the press from suits of defamation and invasion of privacy, if they are merely reporting what happened in court.
All these factors assure that the media rumpus, including a pay TV channel dedicated to the trial, seamlessly explodes.
“It’s in the public interest,” the media retort.
Public interest is the reason for our existence. We provide facts and insight that facilitate mindful decision-making by informed citizens.
But who are the citizens we purport to serve?
The Spear for example, was not simply about freedom of expression versus presidential belligerence. It included issues of cultural acceptability. People in favour of freedom of expression still took great offence at the open portrayal of a leader’s genitalia.
Today, many find public spectacle of private tragedy, ultimately distasteful.
The problem I have with the Pistorius feeding frenzy is more focused on the concept of ‘interest’.
How does it genuinely serve the public interest to dissect this trial in microscopic detail? What does it contribute to citizens’ deeper understanding? How does it empower them?
Do we need Oscar Pistorius to analyse South African gun culture, abhorrent violence against women, fallen idols, or the workings of our criminal justice system? No!
This is news dumbed down to entertainment; transforming ‘public interest’ into a tabloidised mutation of what is ‘interesting to the public’ to push up the ratings.
Limitations of word-count, airtime and ‘churnalism’ already make it almost impossible to deeply delve into news-piece nuance.
It makes for fast-food reportage. Bite-sized chunks of disparate data, with no in-depth analysis of bigger pictures.
So when nothing more than a symptom of celebrity culture postures as groundbreaking court reporting and serious news – getting all the resources, access and airtime it needs – public interest is essentially the last thing being served; while sensationalism’s served up.
Strato Copteros is a freelance communications consultant, who lectured Media Law and Ethics at the Rhodes University School of Journalism & Media Studies.
