A story on corporal punishment in a primary school in Sebokeng was covered by several newspapers. Sowetan (“Pupils not safe at school”, 29/07/08, p. 1 & 4) and Daily Sun (“Teacher’s cruel punishment”, 29/07/08, p. 4)1 both accompanied the article with a picture. In Sowetan’sphotograph, the identity of the child is protected by the placement of black strips over his eyes and mouth and the journalist refrains from giving the child’s name or age in the accompanying text. This is something to be glad about. However, in the Daily Sun’s photographs, the children are clearly identifiable, and the accompanying text mentions their names and ages. This is in violation of both ethical and legal journalistic principles and therefore something to get very mad about.
Although it can be argued that Sowetan’s picture is not very creative, and the use of black strips to conceal characteristic features is not always sufficient to protect someones identity, efforts have been made to protect the child’s identity by the use of two black strips which cover distinctive facial features. In carefully protecting the identity of the young victims, the Sowetan article is in line with the journalist principle of minimising harm. It protects children from further harm that can come out of their being recognised by peers and acquaintances or seeing themselves wounded in the newspaper.
It is especially commendable because this is an improvement from past occasions in whichSowetan has failed to sufficiently protect a child’s identity. (See previous MAD OAT commentary, “Black strips over eyes are not enough to protect identities” on why the use of a small black strip over a child’s eyes can be insufficient).
In contrast to Sowetan’s coverage, in revealing the children’s identities, Daily Sun not only flouts ethical principles, but is also in violation of the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 154(3), which states: “No person shall publish in any manner whatever information which reveals or may reveal the identity of the accused under the age of 18 years or of a witness at criminal proceedings who is under the age of 18 years.”
It is not the first time a newspaper has neglected to protect a child’s identity. MAD OAT has highlighted several cases in the recent past (For example, “Media needs to stop identifying child witnesses” or “Front-page article violates Criminal Procedure Act and flouts ethics”).
The best interest of the child should be a primary consideration for any journalist reporting on children2 . It is worrying that this does not always seem to be the case.
Instead, while pictures of children are often used to illustrate news items, it is more seldom that their dignity and identity are sufficiently protected.
Examples in the recent past demonstrate that it is not necessary, in order to illustrate a story, to use pictures that reveal children’s identities. Creative ways of photography can tell a story without putting them at risk of being further harmed. (See for example “Quality photography in Beeld shows respect for those involved” and “Creative photography which protects children”).
MMP hopes that Sowetan will keep up and further improve its efforts to protect children’s identities and that Daily Sun and other newspapers will follow this trend soon.
1. To see full PDF versions of the articles and photographs discussed, please click here. Faces and names have been covered or removed by MMP to protect the identity and privacy of the children concerned.
2. Constitution of South Africa, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1999),UNICEF Guidelines, ECM Resource Guide for Journalists (2005).