In the interview, the robbers stated the blatantly obvious in that they fully intended to rob tourists during the 2010 FIFA World Cup. They followed through by stating that they would retaliate by using force, were the police to try and apprehend them.
The interview was done shortly after the national police commissioner ordered police officers to use lethal force when confronted with armed criminals. e.tv hid the identities of the interviewees - obviously a pre-condition for them to appear on the news insert.
At the time, the insert released a barrage of abuse from the police commissioner, who argued that the insert sanctions, promotes or glamorises violence. Police minister Nathi Mthethwa accused the station of sensationalism and "harbouring" criminals while police commissioner Bheki Cele told a National Press Club briefing: "A friend of a criminal is a criminal. e.tv clearly is a crime kisser. They've exposed themselves as such."
After the story broke, the source for the story committed suicide. One of the suspects was later apprehended.
Adv D Berger SC and Adv P Khoza, instructed by the State Attorney, appeared on behalf of the national police commissioner. e.tv was represented by Adv GJ Marcus SC and Adv S Budlender, instructed by Dan Rosengarten of Rosin, Wright and Rosengarten.
The BCCSA held that "the conduct of the interviewer during the interview in no way indicated that he (and thus e.tv) associated himself with the views of the interviewees. The opposite is true."
The BCCSA was surprisingly harsh in its commentary related to the criminals themselves, stating that "the interviewees were shown to be the scum of the earth and were in no way glamorised by granting them an opportunity to air their plans."
It goes on to say that "the interviews, in fact, gave credence to the words of the National Commissioner that such criminals were inhuman."
Criminals are very human, even if not humane. Can the same now be said of the commission?
The BCCSA held that the insert was well-balanced but that since the insert was "by implication seriously critical of the National Commissioner he had had a right to reply". It noted that neither the commissioner nor his ministerial liaison officer was available on the evening of 15 January 2010 to respond to the story.
The commission writes that "the core of the right to freedom of expression is not the right of the media to publish, but the right of the public to be informed." It was satisfied that e.tv acted responsibly and within this framework in its airing of the interview and that the alleged lack of patriotism did not make the information any less permissible.
The decision is a win for freedom of speech and the right of the public to receive information.
Update 31 May 2010 at 10.25am: Patrick Conroy, group head, eNews, says the station welcomes the BCCSA ruling in its favour.
"As horrifying and distasteful as it is to hear a criminal's point of view, or their intentions, it is critical that journalists are able to report on these views without fear or favour," says Conroy. "This is not to protect criminals or promote their crimes, but to help South Africans understand the true reality of what is happening in our country.
"If we only ever quoted politicians or high ranking government officials on matters of crime we would be unable to determine what is propaganda or political spin from the true facts we face as a nation."
For more, go to www.bccsa.co.za.
