An episode on a television program called Checkpoint, “Cut & Run” (eNCA, 16/07/2019) has been selected as a MAD[1] by Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) as it indirectly identifies child victims.
eNCA, through the Checkpoint program, reports a story about a group of boys from the Vaal, south of Johannesburg who allegedly went through what looks like a “botched circumcision” procedure which left them in pain, wounded and hospitalised.
MMA notes that the program makes efforts to protect the children’s identities, by changing their names and letting viewers know that the names used are not real and, silhouetting their faces. However, these efforts fall short when the episode goes ahead and identifies the parents of the child victims.
The program shows full names and faces of the parents of the boys in question, thus identifying the boys indirectly. Further, other than being identified through their parents, the children can also be identified through their voices, which eNCA did not distort.
Such identification can lead to unwarranted implications such as isolation or victimisation by community members, what with the nature of the topic.
[A paragraph here has been edited out after discussions with eNCA and confirmation from MMA that this point was not relevant to the engagement between the parties].
By failing to sufficiently withhold the children’s identities, eNCA failed to act in the best interests of the children as supported by the South African Constitution (Section 28.2)[2] which clearly states, “The child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.”
MMA is also concerned that one of the children is interviewed about the traumatic ordeal. The interviewed child can be heard saying, “I felt like taking it [the wounded private part] off and throwing it away because of the pain I was going through.” The recounting of what the boy went through has a potential to cause secondary trauma which lengthens the healing process among other things. His interview might also be used against him in legal proceedings should the case reach that far.
While MMA acknowledges that eNCA intended to withhold the identities of the child victims as proven by the use of pseudonyms and silhouetting of their faces, it is still concerning that this protection of the children’s identities was not sufficiently done so as to avoid the identification of their parents as well.
We request that eNCA withdraws the identities of the parents from the online clips of the program even the ones appearing on YouTube dubbed “Checkpoint | Cut & Run | 16 July 2019 | Part 1” and “Checkpoint | Cut & Run | 16 July 2019 | Part 2”. We also request that an explanation be made to the television station’s audience as to why the decision to withdraw the identities was taken.
MMA is confident that eNCA will take into consideration the concerns raised and do better in future reporting as children’s protection and right to dignity and privacy should always be the highest priority in such stories.
By Ntsako Manganyi
[1] A MAD is given to the media for irresponsibly reporting on a child
[2] See: https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights#28
The following is the engagement between eNCA and MMA
eNCA
- We refer to your email of 31 July 2019 and the report entitled, “eNCA’s Checkpoint fails to cut enough to protect children’s identities” written by Ntsako Manganyi.
2. At the outset we would like to highlight that we were never provided with any notification that MADOAT or MMA were looking into the Checkpoint episode “Cut and Run”. We believe that given the findings in the report, which will be shared publically, we should have been afforded more than 24 hours to comment on the report.
3. We note your allegation that Checkpoint and eNCA failed to act in the best interests of children in the episode in question. We wish to emphasize, that the rights and welfare of children is always of paramount important to eNCA and Checkpoint. When investigating any story which involves children, we have always erred on the side of caution and would never deliberately compromise the rights of a child through media coverage.
4. We do not believe that the episode in question has compromised the welfare of the children in question through irresponsible journalism, and would like to highlight a number of inaccuracies in the report.
5. Firstly, we note that the report suggests that the identity of the children occurs indirectly through the identification of their parents. Revealing the details of a child’s home is not necessarily unlawful, but rather should be determined on an ethical and human rights basis.1 It is important to emphasise that when determining whether to reveal the identity of the children’s parents, the following factors were taken into consideration by Checkpoint:
a. That there was no criminal investigation or charges which had been laid.
b. As the legal guardian of the children, each parent was aware of the potential risks of having their identity revealed on television and provided their informed consent.
c. There was no reason to believe that an average viewer of the episode, who has no prior or special knowledge of any of the incidents, would be able to identify the children through their parents.
6. [Paragraph 6 edited out after discussions with eNCA and confirmation from MMA that this point was not relevant to the engagement between the parties].
7. The report also suggests that the interview has the potential to cause “secondary trauma which lengthens the healing process among other things.” We note that the report provides no basis for the assertion. It is vague and suggests that all children who speak about traumatic events would prolong the healing process. We do not believe this is true and there is countless evidence to suggest that sharing feelings verbally is an important part of the healing process.
8. We note the request that eNCA withdraws the identity of the parents from the online clips of the episode which appear on YouTube and that an explanation is made as to why their identities were withdrawn.
9. We stand committed to responsible journalism and the protection of the rights and welfare of children. If we had any reason to believe that the continued publication of the episode online is damaging to the rights of the children in question, we would not hesitate to withdraw the episode. In the circumstances, we have had no negative feedback regarding the episode and none of the parents have approached us seeking to withdraw their identities after the broadcast. In light of the report, we will make contact with the parents to ascertain whether they deem it necessary that their identities are withdrawn.
10. We request that you take time to reconsider your report and to engage with eNCA and Checkpoint when conducting any future reports.
1 https://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/images/uploads/childrenmentoring.pdf
MMA
Thank you for responding to our commentary to the Checkpoint episode dubbed “Cut & Run” (16/07/2019). Please find below Media Monitoring Africa (MMA)’s response to your letter.
1. MMA through Make Abuse Disappear Online Accountability Tool (MADOAT) has been monitoring the mainstream media on how they report on children and issues facing them for over 10 years. Checkpoint and eNCA are among the programmes/media that we have consistently monitored. The purpose of this monitoring is to highlight the best and worst examples of media reporting on children to push for increased accountability among editors and journalists when it comes to reporting on children’s issues. The reason you might not have heard about this monitoring could be that MMA, prior to this, had not identified any issues in
the programme’s coverage of children, which in itself is good news. However, as stated, we don’t just monitor for the purposes of pointing out the worst coverage but also the best coverage the purpose of this letter is to assist you in being awarded a “GLAD” for best coverage. This means that you adhered to best ethical practice not just enough ethics to skirt through unnoticed.
2. Please note that before a commentary is made public, we share it with the media to engage and open a platform where MMA and that media can find a way to discuss the issues raised and work together to ensure the reporting is legal but most importantly, ethical. Please also note that as engagement on the Cut & Run episode is on-going, MMA has not published the commentary and will only do so when this engagement is concluded.
3. While we acknowledge that you “would never deliberately compromise the rights of a child through media coverage”, we still firmly believe that you erred when you revealed the identities of the children’s parents and interviewed the children. This is because;
a) When we talk about the withholding of children’s identities, directly or otherwise, we do this to protect the children not only from “an average viewer” but also from people in their community. We believe such children are at potential risk of victimisation which can occur even from people within their communities who are likely to be able to identify them through their parents in this case. MMA appreciates the efforts taken to withhold the children’s identities by using pseudonyms and silhouetting their faces, we just wish these efforts had been extended to their parents to ensure sufficient protection and prevent indirect identification.
b) That the parents gave consent to have their identities revealed does not excuse
Checkpoint from gauging whether doing so would pose any harm, even potential harm to the children involved. We routinely assist media houses and journalists to understand that when you are reporting on children, you need to apply a higher ethical standard and that includes protecting children from their sometimes un-educated parents who may not fully understand the ramifications of identification on the everyday lives of their children and themselves. You are the gate keeper and given that we all agree that Section 28(2) of the Constitution requires us to act in the best interests of children in all matters that involve children, it is clear that as the gate keepers, this includes protecting children from consent where parents do not fully understand the ramifications and are just so excited and relieved to have their matter aired on television in the hope that finally something will be done, they are willing to sacrifice their children on the alter of the perceived greater outcome (good).
c) While it is not unlawful, in this case as this is indeed a “civil matter”, to indirectly identify the children, MMA believes it certainly is unethical and doing so flouted the Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African Print and Online Media,1 especially that the episode was uploaded on online platforms. Section 8.1.1 of the Code urges the media to exercise exceptional care and consideration when reporting on children saying that “if there is any chance that coverage might cause harm of any kind to a child, he or she shall not be interviewed, photographed or identified….”
d) With regards to interviewing the children and their potential exposure to secondary
trauma, MMA strongly believes that this has the potential to cause secondary trauma and potentially lengthen the healing process especially if the children have not undergone counselling from a trained professional. The episode does not indicate whether the children underwent counselling before being interviewed or if a counsellor was present during the interview to ascertain whether the children were fit enough to speak about their trauma or, to put a stop to the interview upon determining that a child was getting traumatised. While “sharing feelings verbally is an important part of the healing process”, we believe if the children have not undergone counselling, this might end up re- traumatising them as they have to relive their traumatic ordeal. We would invite you to contact the Centre for Child Law or ChildLine should you need further convincing in this regard.
4. We still request that you withdraw the identities of the parents from the online clips as we still believe having them published poses harm to the children. While we appreciate that Checkpoint sought consent from the parents to have their identities revealed, we hold the opinion shared with Child’s Rights Activists, and as stated above, sometimes, parents will give this consent because they are desperate for their stories to be told without fully understanding the consequences of having their or their children’s identities revealed. This is why MMA implores journalists to exercise their ethical duty and protect the children even when their parents give this consent as this constitutes acting in the best interests of the children in all matters involving the children.
5. While we appreciate that Checkpoint kept to the letter of the law in the coverage, you failed to adhere to best ethical practice. We would also like to confirm that the law constitutes the minimum standard of adherence whilst ethics is concerned with the maximum standard – we strive for best ethical practice not mediocre or “just ok” ethical practice when reporting on children. Furthermore, in additional to the usual ethical practice for the media, there is a higher ethical standard required from journalists when reporting on children. The following additional ethical principles are here to guide you (more guidelines and principles can be found in the Editorial Guidelines and Principles for Reporting on Children in the Media);2
a) The Best Interests of the Child principle which should override any other interest include public interest especially when there is harm or potential harm to the child as a result of being identified in the media, directly or otherwise. Section 28.2 of the Bill of Rights supports this.
b) Minimise Harm – that includes foreseeable potential harm. Here the media has a greater onus to ensure that their coverage does not subject children to any harm. Subjecting the children to very real potential secondary trauma by having them recount their traumatic ordeals and, subjecting them to potential victimisation put them at potential risk of harm.
c) The value of information disclosed in the story. Here the media should ask themselves what value certain pieces of information disclosed add to the story. In this instance, what value was added to the story by disclosing the identity of the parents? We believe firmly that the story would still have had the impact it did on Checkpoint’s audience even without the identities of the involved children’s parents.
6. We appreciate the work of Checkpoint and especially appreciate the fact that the programme highlights issues facing South Africans and people living in South Africa, including children. We would love to have a meeting with the production team and discuss this particular episode (Cut& Run) and also how we can work together to safeguard children’s interests in future reporting.
1 https://www.presscouncil.org.za/sa-press-code/
2 http://54.217.43.239/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/mma_editorial_guideline.pdf
A successful meeting was held between eNCA and MMA on 12th September, 2019 where all aspects of the commentary and responses where discussed and the parties engaged meaningfully on the way forward.