Chequebook journalism is nothing new. It’s usually opaque, shrouded in suspicion and accompanied by assumptions. “Oh, they must have paid to get that interview,” kind of assumptions.
It’s not one thing that usually happens in native information media. More so on this planet of tabloids and magazines searching for big-splash exclusives.
However worldwide media usually are not shy to throw across the previous chequebook and wad of money. During the peak of the Oscar Pistorius trial, it might not be unusual to listen to a fixer for a international documentary staff or information channel talking about how they wouldn’t pay for interviews or pictures however a intermediary would conveniently be accountable for the transaction so they may deny culpability.
It comes as no shock then that Bafana Bafana goalkeeper Senzo Meyiwa’s finest buddy Tumelo Madlala has admitted that he was paid for pictures and knowledge by the corporate that produced a Netflix documentary, Ten10 Films in regards to the homicide of Meyiwa.
This grew to become a helpful nugget of knowledge for defence Advocate Zandile Mshololo when she was cross-examining Madlala on the witness stand this week throughout the homicide trial.
Mshololo positioned stress on Madlala, quizzing him about whether or not he shared the proceeds he obtained with Meyiwa’s household, his widow Mandisa or Meyiwa’s baby.
Madlala informed the court docket he demanded cost from Netflix for the images he provided of his buddy Meyiwa. However he couldn’t recall how a lot he was paid, however he obtained a money cost in 2021. He added that representatives from the docuseries manufacturing staff approached him with Meyiwa’s brother Sifiso and his cousin Siya and that’s why he was comfy giving them photos of Meyiwa. Madlala mentioned he didn’t assume it essential to share the proceeds with the Meyiwa household as they had been additionally paid by the manufacturing staff.
Adv Mshololo described this behaviour as ‘very shocking’. She painted him as a money-grubbing man who was keen to promote out his buddy for monetary acquire.
This raised livid debate on radio this week – if you happen to had been in Tumelo Madlala’s place would you promote the photographs of your lifeless buddy? Would you share the cash together with his household? Many consider there was nothing flawed with what he did.
Opinions differ significantly.
Some argue that he wanted the cash as he had no earnings. It’s tough to argue ethics and values when somebody has to place meals on the desk.
Those who usually are not privileged and are in determined want of cash may be exploited.
Others recommend that it was morally bankrupt.
However, my argument is from a journalistic perspective. Should the producers of the docuseries have provided cash as cost within the first place?
I’ve been requested to pay for interviews prior to now – big cash for large juicy exclusives – and have flat refused. Not least as a result of I didn’t have the cash! But additionally as a result of it’s my private opinion that journalists shouldn’t pay for interviews.
In my view, chequebook journalism erodes the credibility of the top product. It dilutes the viewer’s or reader’s belief that the interview is trustworthy and genuine. It might create an incentive and encourage the fabrication of knowledge for cost. This might end in defamation to which the reporter turns into a celebration. It additionally distorts the ability steadiness between the topic and the journalist.
However, there are cases the place journalists could present cash for the interviewee to journey to a location to be interviewed, or present a meal or refreshments throughout a recording. There are invariably gray areas. Should an knowledgeable be remunerated for their time and insights, for example?
Witnesses in court docket instances usually are not professionals and don’t must subscribe to laws or a code of ethics. But, public interviews with witnesses in ongoing trials additionally create a parallel model of occasions. These may very well be utilized by attorneys to discredit and undercut a witness in the event that they current contradictory variations in a court docket of regulation and within the media.
The Press Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African Print and Online Media covers cost for info. It says:
“The media shall avoid shady journalism in which informants are paid to induce them to give the information, particularly when they are criminals – except where the material concerned ought to be published in the public interest and the payment is necessary for this to be done.”
So there’s a public curiosity argument.
It additionally stipulates that the media shall “obtain news legally, honestly and fairly, unless public interest dictates otherwise” and “indicate clearly when an outside organization has contributed to the cost of newsgathering”.
The Netflix documentary might argue that it’s leisure and never journalism. It wouldn’t technically fall beneath the Press Code. Legally, Madlala did nothing flawed or illegal by accepting cost.
But what Adv Mshololo has finished is use the transaction to forged doubt on the credibility of his character within the eyes of the court docket and within the opinion of the general public. She has pronounced him to be a horrible buddy and his conduct to be stunning.
We can even anticipate the feedback he made within the Netflix collection to be dragged into court docket. That model will probably be in contrast with the model given in his affidavit and the model given in his proof to the court docket. The choose has additionally dominated that his face can’t be proven throughout his testimony for safety causes, although he’s recognized extensively within the docuseries.
Tumelo Madlala could properly remorse ever having agreed to be a part of the manufacturing.
This is a prime example of why journalists shouldn’t be paying for content or entry.
Journalist and creator Mandy Wiener is the presenter of The Midday Report on 702 and CapeTalk.
