Children deserve reporting that protects their dignity, centres their well-being, and recognises their right to be heard at the right time. When stories involve recent distress or potential trauma, the best interests of the child must guide every editorial choice from when and where interviews happen to how quotes are used. Ethical reporting means avoiding situations that can re-traumatise children or pressure them to perform their pain in public. It also means creating conditions where their participation is informed, voluntary, and supported by trusted adults.
Eyewitness News published an article titled, “Teen duo relieved to be back home in CT after football tour group left stranded in Portugal” (23/07/2025), which raises concerns over the timing and manner of interviewing two 17-year-old girls shortly after their return from a distressing ordeal abroad. For that reason, Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) gives the publication a MAD.[1]
A group of 34 young footballers found themselves stuck in Portugal after the BT Football Academy failed to arrange their return flights, even though each of them had paid R50 000 for the trip. When they finally arrived back in Cape Town, their families were there to welcome them. But just moments after reuniting, the teenagers were asked to share their experience in front of cameras, right there in the arrivals hall.
While the children’s voices are central to the story and their inclusion is important, the decision to interview them immediately after a traumatic incident risks emotional harm and undermines their right to recover in a safe, private environment. Section 28(2)[2] of the South African Constitution states that, “A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”. In this case, their best interests would arguably have been served by allowing them time to process events and reunite with their families before speaking to the media.
Similarly, Article 39 of the UNCRC[3] emphasises that children who have undergone trauma should receive support for recovery and reintegration in settings that protect their dignity and well-being. Immediate public interviews, particularly before they’ve had a chance to process their experience, may conflict with this right. By interviewing the teens right at the airport, EWN failed to respect their emotional state and potentially violated their right to a safe, private space to process the experience. While children’s voices are vital, the media must balance public interest with sensitivity to children’s emotional readiness and privacy.
MMA urges EWN to adopt more child-sensitive practices such as delaying interviews until the child is calm and supported, involving a trusted adult during any media engagement, and prioritize recovery over expediency. This is not about censorship but it’s about reporting about children with care.
Written By Keamogetswe Sere
Edited By Ntombifuthi Kubeka
[1] MADs are given to media for irresponsibly reporting on children and compromising their safety.
[2]Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 28(2). Available at: https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights#28
[3] United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), Article 39. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child