News headlines are crucial and should be ethical. Apart from grabbing attention, it should announce the content of the article. Headlines grab our attention, and we trust what we read. But should we?
Editors should steer clear of meaningless puns, clever wordplay, and emotive words. Most importantly, they should avoid sensationalism. Sensational news headlines can make or break a business or, worse, ruin the reputation of innocent people. This should evoke empathy in the audience for those who are unfairly affected by such practices.
The Bill of Rights, as contained in the Constitution, protects, among others, human dignity and religion. Defamation violates a person’s dignity and religion. In South African law, defamation is committed whenever a person publishes a defamatory statement about a living person, and it refers to any statement that tends to lower the standing of another person in the eyes of ‘right-thinking’ people. It is not only the person who originated the defamation that could be in trouble but also anyone who subsequently repeats it or shares it – especially on social media platforms.
Naming and shaming is one tactic that is popular among activists, lobby groups and the mainstream secular media to defame Christian organisations and Christian leaders. Stereotyping or looking into a particular group and portraying them as if they are alike and share certain qualities does not have a place in ethical journalism. A good example is to frame a religious organisation as a ‘cult’. It is a highly emotive word that mainly implies acts of wickedness, brainwashing, mind control, captivity, abuse, and a wide range of other atrocities.
This word is, in general, used to defame people or Christian organisations – mostly without good reason. For instance, a news report might label a peaceful religious group as a ‘cult’ simply because their beliefs are different. The word is laden with prejudice, which may negatively affect the group or individual belonging to the group.
Dressing or behaving differently, wearing no makeup or jewellery, or practising a religion different from what you are used to is not evidence that a group is cultic. Labelling an entire community based on such meaningless qualities is irresponsible and dehumanises all the people associated with the community. This word should not be used loosely because of its derogatory connotation and the potential harm it can cause to the reputation and well-being of individuals and communities.
THE CASE OF KWASIZABANTU MISSION – THE NEWS24 COVERAGE
The KwaSizabantu Mission was labelled by News24 as a cult, even though there is not any sign of deviant or exclusive teachings in their confessions of faith. Furthermore, the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Commission) has found no grounds for the allegations that KwaSizabantu is a cult and claimed that the media abuse the term ‘cult’. Promoted by the media onslaught on them, and after an almost three-year investigation into the Mission’s practices, the CRL found the teachings, practices, principles, rules and doctrine of the Mission are within the scope of freedom of religion as per Section 15 and Section 31 of the Constitution.
READ THE COLUMN ON MEDIA ETHICS IN DEVOTED, FROM ISSUE 38, ONWARDS
