Three orphans – twin boys and their older sister – living in a scrapped car were directly identified and interviewed when it was clearly not in their best interests, in reports by the SABC, The Timesand The New Age.
As part of its community upliftment initiative “Touching Lives”, SABC was the first to break the story in its primetime Afrikaans, Zulu, Setswana and English news bulletins on Sunday, 05 June 2011. The three bulletins reported that the three children, whose parents passed away in the past three years, lived in their home in Inanda, Durban until it was damaged by floods. As a result, they sought shelter in a dilapidated car.
The children were interviewed in the reports with one child quoted as saying: “We’ve got no clothing. We dropped out of school because we had no school uniforms. We’ve got no food as well.”
To its credit, the SABC’s website states that: “Social grants will…be put in place and the twin boys will finally head back to school,” and quotes KZN MEC for social development Meshack Hadebe saying: “I’ve got two businessmen who have committed themselves to building a house, so in five weeks time the children will be here,” which suggests something more than a quick fix solution to the boys lives.
Children in such a position require ongoing intervention and support from the department of Social Welfare and Development and other support services. They need guidance and protection to promote optimal child-development and integration into society. Whether this kind of support would be provided was however not made clear by the SABC.
The issue of immediate concern however is the personal impact that being identified in the media as needy and vulnerable may have on the children. The consequences of such identification can range from teasing and humiliation by other children, to the children being exploited after the resources arrive by less scrupulous members of the community. Although the children seemingly allowed themselves to be interviewed, they may not have been aware of these potential consequences.
Accordingly, while well-intentioned, highlighting their impoverished status, as well as a lack of clarity on the long term plans for the boys makes it difficult to see how it is in the children’s best interests.
“Boys’ home a scrap Toyota,” (The Times, 07/06/2011, p.7) brought a new dimension to the story by referring to the children in its sub-heading as “Aids Orphans”. Although the article used this as an opportunity to highlight the AIDS pandemic and the effect it has had on the rise in the number of orphans in KwaZulu-Natal, MMA notes with concern that by naming them, the article subjected the children to the stigma attached to AIDS.
Avusa’s Editorial Guidelines on reporting on children clearly state that: “We undertake to consider the consequences of our reporting to children, and to take steps, where appropriate, to minimise the harm. We undertake not to stigmatise children, to stereotype them, or to sensationalise stories about them.”
MMA’s “All Sides of the Story”, a journalist’s handbook on reporting on children also cautions that using the label “Aids orphans” brings “attention to the illness and stigmatise(s) the child or children who themselves may not be infected.”
The New Age in its article “Three orphans to move from car to house,” (07/06/2011, p.6) also reported that the children “lost both their parents to Aids-related illnesses.” The children were also named and interviewed in the article.
While these reports should be commended for highlighting these children’s regrettable living conditions, it must be stressed that they failed to act in their best interests.