The Press Council has become an instrument for protecting the dominance of a select few, leaving Independent Media with no choice but to step away from this compromised system, says writer Gillian Schutte.
Image: File
By Gillian Schutte
The global media landscape increasingly reflects Foucault’s Panopticon, a metaphor for how power can be exercised through constant surveillance and control. Today, this surveillance is not just literal but ideological—an all-seeing force exerted by corporate liberal media organisations and their allies.
What Foucault theorised as a tool of discipline has evolved into a system of punishment, where those who refuse to align with liberal authoritarianism are demonised, marginalised, and subjected to public censure. In this modern Panopticon, dissenting voices—whether individuals, organisations, or publications—are harshly penalised and isolated, ensuring that conformity is maintained. This is the context in which Independent Media finds itself: punished not for serious ethical breaches but for daring to present an alternative narrative outside the liberal hegemony.
This punitive response from corporate media is part of a broader global trend, where any organisation or publication that challenges the dominant liberal discourse is swiftly censured. We are witnessing not the protection of press freedom or ethical standards but the enforcement of a singular narrative, where dissent is not tolerated and where the mechanisms of power, disguised as regulatory bodies, work to reinforce a tightly controlled discourse. Independent Media’s decision to withdraw from the Press Council of South Africa (PCSA) must be viewed through this lens. It was not a retreat but a principled stand against a system that has long abandoned fairness and impartiality, becoming instead a tool for disciplining any entity that does not conform to its ideological demands.
Further, Independent Media’s decision to withdraw was not made in haste. It was a deliberate and principled stand against a regulatory body that had long proven incapable of applying its ethical standards evenly. This withdrawal came after years of observing the Council’s inconsistent handling of cases and apparent alignment with corporate media interests. Instead of being a body that upholds fairness and journalistic integrity, the Press Council has become an instrument for protecting the dominance of a select few, leaving Independent Media with no choice but to step away from this compromised system.
The decision to leave followed several unresolved issues that Independent Media had brought before the Press Council, including demands for fair treatment and accountability in how media ethics are enforced. They had approached the Council repeatedly, questioning its handling of various complaints, particularly the Council's inconsistent rulings that disproportionately affected Independent Media while giving leniency to media giants like Media24 and Daily Maverick. Independent Media had urged the Press Council to uphold its standards across the board, applying the same scrutiny to all publications, regardless of their ownership or political affiliations.
Instead of addressing these legitimate concerns, the Press Council seemed intent on singling Independent Media out for punishment. One notable instance was the Council's harsh treatment of it over comparing Karyn Maughan to Leni Riefenstahl—a common rhetorical device in satire and critique. The comparison was intended to critique how journalists, knowingly or not, can become instruments of propaganda for powerful interests. Leni Riefenstahl, the filmmaker for Nazi Germany, symbolises the dangers of media being co-opted to serve political agendas. In comparing Maughan to Riefenstahl, the article highlighted concerns about Maughan’s reporting promoting certain legal or political interests. This was not an accusation of ideological alignment with Nazi propaganda but a provocative comparison meant to critique the influence of power on journalism.
While this satirical critique is common in political commentary, the Press Council swiftly punished Independent Media, even though similar critiques are often allowed from other media houses. This swift punishment contrasts the Council’s passive response to the inflammatory content published by Daily Maverick, News24, and Media24, exposing a blatant double standard in how ethical guidelines are enforced.
Faced with a regulatory body that refused to apply its code impartially, Independent Media had no choice but to withdraw and establish its mechanisms for accountability. The Press Council, far from being a neutral arbiter of ethical journalism, had shown itself to be a biased entity, more interested in reinforcing the dominance of South Africa’s corporate media than ensuring fairness in reporting.
Yet, despite this voluntary and clear departure, the Press Council and Daily Maverick, News24, and other complicit media outlets have spun the situation into an "expulsion." This misrepresentation was not an innocent error but a deliberate attempt to malign Independent Media and its leadership, particularly Dr Iqbal Survé, whose media group has long stood as an alternative voice against the corporate monopoly of South Africa’s press. Their calculated framing of Independent Media’s principled departure as an expulsion is part of a larger, coordinated campaign to discredit one of the country's few truly diverse media houses.
What seems to be missing from this narrative is that the attacks on Dr Survé himself have been relentless and deeply personal over the years. This is exemplified by Chris Roper’s article in Daily Maverick, where he churlishly refers to Survé as "the Penguin," a villain from DC Comics and one of Batman’s most iconic enemies—a derogatory nickname meant to trivialise, denigrate and mock him rather than evoke critical thinking. In his piece, titled ‘Sad world when media moguls like Iqbal Survé become profound enemies of press freedom’, Roper goes even further, flippantly dismissing Dr Survé’s concerns with references to his "insane gibberings"—a remark that not only undermines Dr Survé’s leadership but belittles all those who struggle with mental health challenges. His weak attempt at satire results in him weaponising mental health language in a careless and insensitive manner. Roper does not just attack Dr Survé; he wilfully generates harmful stereotypes that trivialise the very real issue of mental health, turning it into a rhetorical tool to undermine those he disagrees with.
This kind of personal attack is not just clunky, obtuse, and unprofessional—it is a reflection of the broader media culture in South Africa, where dissenting voices are ridiculed rather than debated and character assassination is used to distract from substantive issues. Instead of engaging with Independent Media’s critiques of the corporate media monopoly, Roper and others rely on insults and caricatures, reducing complex figures like Dr Survé to comic book villains to delegitimise their perspectives.
Zapiro’s cartoons, frequently published by Daily Maverick and News24, have also long crossed the line into dehumanisation, such as the infamous depiction of Jacob Zuma preparing to rape Lady Justice—trivialising sexual violence while reducing Zuma to a colonial caricature. The persistent portrayal of Zuma with a showerhead, a reference to his rape trial, further highlights the reliance on ridicule over reasoned critique. Similarly, Daily Maverick’s repeated comparisons of Julius Malema to Adolf Hitler make a mockery of the Holocaust while unfairly painting Malema as a genocidal extremist, yet such inflammatory portrayals have faced no serious repercussions from the Press Council. This only reinforces the perception that it operates with a bias favouring South Africa’s corporate media giants.
In the face of this, Independent Media implemented its accountability mechanisms, reintroducing its internal press ombudsman office to ensure its publications remain responsible and transparent. This move is not a rejection of accountability, as framed by its adversaries in the media landscape. Instead, it is a step toward self-regulation, a practice followed by many major media outlets worldwide. Yet, rather than being seen as a responsible course of action, Independent Media’s decision has been twisted by the Press Council and its allies into yet another attack on its credibility.
The false narrative of expulsion, combined with the ongoing personal attacks on Dr Survé, is part of a broader effort to eliminate Independent Media as a significant player in South Africa’s press landscape. The Press Council, Daily Maverick, News24, and Media24 are not interested in journalistic integrity—they are interested in maintaining their stranglehold over the media narrative, ensuring that dissenting voices like Independent Media are silenced or discredited.
Ultimately, Independent Media’s fight is more than a fight for its survival. It is a fight for the future of independent journalism in South Africa and the right to present alternative perspectives in an increasingly monopolised media environment. The ongoing attacks on them, framed as concerns over ethics, are a coordinated campaign to silence one of the country's last truly diverse and independent media platforms.
Like Foucault’s Panopticon, where surveillance controls behaviour, the monopolisation of media silences dissenting voices through constant scrutiny, reputational damage, and censure. The public deserves better, and Independent Media will continue to stand for the truth, regardless of the continued efforts to malign and discredit it.
* Schutte is a film-maker, and a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.