The great sex debate: Public Editor rules

19 Aug 2011 | Public Editor - Joe Latakgomo, Sowetan

Display could have been done differently

OFFENSIVE: A photo that angered readers.

Sex cop photos were in bad taste

 

THE debate over whether or not Sowetan should have published a photograph of a couple engaging in sexual activity - and particularly whether such a photograph should have been published on the front page of the newspaper - has raged on.

The headline above the photograph, SIES!, clearly indicates that the editor must have found the action of the couple morally repugnant.

So did thousands of readers, many of whom complained to the public editor by phone or e-mail. Others simply recorded their disgust in comments on SowetanLive.

Publication of a photograph of this nature is generally not in itself unacceptable.

It is purely a matter of the propriety of publishing in Sowetan. This is what readers are complaining about.

The fundamental objective of journalism, and newspapers in particular, is to serve people with news, views and comments on matters of public interest.

This should be done in a manner that is fair, unbiased, and presented in a decent manner, and to publish information and illustrations which are not objectionable to readers.

As one reader said: I want a newspaper that I would be comfortable sitting on the table, there for my children to read.

There are obviously norms and standards that are expected of newspapers by society.

Observing these standards has set them apart from publications the purpose of which is to peddle sex and pornographic material.

That is what readers have come to expect, and readers' sensibilities have to be taken into account when publishing material.

Many readers were not outraged at Sowetan - they were outraged at the couple - both of them uniformed public servants. They saw Sowetan as only having been the messenger.

There are several common ways of mitigating negative reaction from readers when shocking material is published, the most common being advance warning.

This was clearly not possible for Sowetan. Offensive photographs could also be blurred, or cropped to minimise exposure of offensive positions. The positioning of the offensive photograph could quite easily have been published, along with the other thumbnails of the incident, on Page 2 - and achieving the same objective as set out by the editor Mpumelelo Mkhabela.

He argues that the couple were a disgrace to the country.

"These people wore OUR badge (as citizens and taxpayers of the country); they were wearing OUR uniform - symbol of law and order and criminal rehabilitation; they conducted their act in OUR facility (a public hospital). And they did this during OUR time (his emphasis)."

For him this was a significant story that required the treatment Sowetan gave the story and the photograph.

But as indicated above, I believe the effect Sowetan sought could have been achieved by handling the story and photographs differently.

Avusa newspapers subscribe to the principles of conduct which guide our behaviour, which provide the foundation for the best way to act in different situations.

Selection of material for publication is still the prerogative of the editors of Avusa publications, and it was within Mkhabela's discretion to publish the photograph in the manner he did.

But it is also his duty to see that on a controversial issue of public interest, sensitivities are considered.

He must have had doubts, hence writing the disclaimer or explanation he provided on page one. Was the decision made on reflex or reflection?

Again, Mkhabela says he thought long and hard about it.

But that does not deal with reader concerns. The bottom line is that newspapers, and our newspapers in particular, should not publish matter that is obscene, or offensive to public good taste.

Curiously, Sowetan sold out on that day, but Mkhabela assures me that this was not an objective when they decided to publish the photograph.

But the photograph also provoked much lecherous attention - many male readers writing in wanting to know how they could source the video clip.

Audiences react differently to such photographs, and many readers expressed concern over how publication affected the children of the couple, and women in particular complained that there was no balance in the photograph used - the woman was shown with her pants down, while the man was shown fully dressed, suggesting that women are simply objects of enjoyment by men.

Was the photograph vulgar, indecent or in poor taste? I think so. Was it pornographic? Again, I believe so.

Was it intended to serve an overriding social and public purpose? Maybe, but I stress, display could have been done differently with the same effect.