FAR RIGHT ALLEGATIONS vs REPORTAGE (see hints for details)
The South African Media Council found in favour of AfriForum. The key take-away is that even though AfriForum is a far-right group whose politics most sensible people would find repulsive, they are entitled to have those views represented fairly. Note that despite the apology, the article still links to other pieces on White Genocide, allowing readers, to some extent to make up their own minds. Also, the judgement refers to the specific parts of the Code of Ethics that was infringed by the Mail & Guardian. Read the full judgement here and the original article, with apology here
SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES UNFAIRLY REPORTED. (see hints for details)
The South African Press Council found generally in favour of the organisation, but also upheld the right of the paper to print opinions. Thus, the paper had to publish corrections for factual errors, including the actions taken by the organisation, but its right to publish the article was upheld. This story covered a sensitive issue, and the gender justice organisation could have gone to the courts and sued for defamation. The Council ruling provided a low-cost solution for everyone. See the ruling here .
MOTHER ASKED TO NOT PUBLISH HER DETAILS FOR CHILDREN'S SAKE. (see hints for details)
The judgement of the Irish Press Council found in favour of the paper, arguing that the privacy of the woman’s children had not been affected and that the newspaper had a duty to print the story. Further, discretion had been used in that the story was given little space and the newspaper had omitted some details of the case. In this case, the public right to know was considered to be more important than what appeared to be a relatively minor invasion of children’s right to privacy. See here for the full judgement.
MISTAKEN SUICIDE OBITUARY (see hints for details)
The paper was found by the UK Independent Press Standards Organisation to have breached the code of ethics. The paper, however, had already taken the remedial action necessary, so no further action was needed.
MISREPRESENTED MINORITY (see hints for details)
The UK Independent Press Standards Organisation found against the Muslim Association, and said no action was needed by the newspaper. Read the full judgement here .
Share your Results: