The trial of Paralympian Oscar Pistorius has placed both the country’s justice system and media in the international spotlight like never before, writes Gill Moodie in Backstory.
In the latest instalment of her “Backstory” series, Gill Moodie writes exclusively for journalism.co.za:
It’s been called the story of decade. The trial of the century. A media circus.
Ever since the news broke last year that South Africa’s Paralympic hero Oscar Pistorius shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day in his home, this story has broken the mould for media coverage. And now, as his trial started in Pretoria last week, it is redefining the relationship between the media and the country’s justice system.
With Judge Dunstan Mlambo’s ruling last month that the trial could be broadcast live, the country’s courts have been put on display like never before – as has the media’s conduct.
On only the second day of the trial the media was smacked down by the trial judge, Thokozile Masipa, after Beeld newspaper (on an inside page) and eNCA TV news channel showed pictures of witness Michelle Burger, who had asked – as is her right, according to Judge Mlambo’s rules – not to have her testimony broadcast visually on television. (Only the audio was broadcast.)
Judge Masipa ruled that no images of witnesses can used regardless of the source if the witness elects not to be televised.
Beeld editor Adriaan Basson told Journalism.co.za that it was important to distinguish between the rules that were laid down by Judge Mlambo for the broadcasters and those for stills photographs. The issue around not showing the faces of witnesses related to the live TV broadcasting of proceedings, he said, and was not about protecting their identity but minimising their discomfort while testifying.
All witnesses have always risked exposure in the media, he says, because they can be filmed or photographed on the street coming and going from court.
The picture of Burger, which was also carried in Beeld’s sister paper, The Witness, was in the public domain: from the website of the university at which she works.
“We are speaking to the judge and the NPA about the implications of the ruling,” Basson says. “She essentially changed the Mlambo judgement and we will consider our options.”
(Click here to read this leader by The Times newspaper in response to Judge Masipa’s ruling.)
Because Beeld’s circulation heartland is Pretoria (although it also sells in Johannesburg), this story has been incredibly important to the paper.
With its excellent contacts in the courts and the police force, the paper dominated the breaking news in the first round of the story – the arrest and bail application.
In fact, Beeld was the very first to break the news of Pistorius’s arrest – and it did so on Twitter.
But in this round – the trial – things are much trickier because the court proceedings are going out live on TV and radio. Like other papers in the country, Basson must decide how much court details his readers are picking up via television, radio and social media – and if they will tire of the media saturation.
Doubtless the interest in Pretoria, Pistorius’s home town, is intense but how much is too much coverage and how do you distinguish yourself in the market with such a massive media event?
Basson says: “I think the story has really changed the way we do journalism at Beeld… The type of court reporting that would normally be in the next day’s paper is now online: at tea-time (for court), at lunch-time and after court. You need something powerful for the next day so that’s why one of our reporters is in court specifically to look for that extra-special story, the narrative story.
“So, for instance, our lead (on Wednesday last week) about Carl Pistorius (Oscar’s brother) and June Steenkamp (Reeva’s mother, whom he comforted) was something exclusive and new.”
Beeld’s website – some of which is behind a paywall – already draws 80 000 unique users a day. With the addition a live blog manned by a senior Beeld reporter and a video channel – called Beeld TV – to cover the trial, Basson says that traffic has risen in the first week.
On Day One of the trial, the live blog netted 20 000 hits, he says.
Beeld’s blog was inspired by a blog done by The Guardian of the UK when Pistorius was first arrested. “We realised that people at work don’t have time to follow this thing on TV so they want to be able to dip in and out of a document on their screen.”
The short videos from court have been popular too but Basson believes that people are coming to Beeld chiefly for summary and interpretation.
For media lawyers, the granting of live broadcasting of the Pistorius trial is a remarkable achievement – and unthinkable in this country only a decade ago when a stills photographer or cameraman would have been extremely lucky to get a judge’s permission to do a quick shoot inside a courtroom in a couple of minutes before the judge entered court.
Media lawyer Dario Milo – a partner at Webber Wentzel and who acted for MultiChoice, which has a pop-up TV channel dedicated to the trial, and Primedia, which owns Eyewitness News that serves a number of radio stations, in the application to get broadcast access to the trial – told Journalism.co.za: “The bottom line for me is that if you wanted to follow this trial you would be following it on Twitter and by listening to the news on the radio or TV with journalists updating you every half an hour. You would be reading about it in the newspaper in the afternoon editions or the early morning edition. You would be accessing the information but it would all be second-hand because you’re not in court.
“What (live) audio and TV allows – which is really a powerful argument in my view and the judge even mentioned this – is for you to have a first-hand account of what was said in court, how it was said, when it was said with the judge intervening and objections raised by counsel. It allows for less, in my view, scope for inaccuracies or misrepresentations of what was said in court. I think it’s great to have this official record of what was said in court.
“It raises also the whole debate of sub judice (to prevent prejudicing or interfering with the proper administration of justice) and what you can and can’t say (about a court case) – and trial by media. These are all fascinating questions that we’ve really only started to grapple with in our democracy.”
The possibility of media coverage affecting the outcome of the Pistorius trial has been a big issue since he was arrested last year because of the many leaks about evidence and the police investigation.
One of the most interesting leaks came early on in the Pistorius saga – during the bail application hearing – when there were stories about a baseball bat apparently used by Pistorius to bash down his bathroom door. This, however, never came up in the bail application nor was it mentioned by the magistrate.
In last week’s proceedings, we saw that a cricket bat – allegedly used by Pistorius on the bathroom door – is shaping up to be a key part of his defence.
Milo has been struck by the foreign journalists with whom he has been in contact who are puzzled about the amount of information about the case that has been leaked, discussed and analysed in the media.
“One of the reasons they are puzzled is that they have juries that decide criminal cases and there are very strict rules about what juries can hear – and, therefore, be published. In South Africa it’s far more flexible because a judge ultimately decides.
“There’s the trial itself and then there’s what going on in the media,” Milo says. “I think that the beautiful thing about this being such an open trial is that it allows for a more informed analysis.
“I would hope that we would have a more informed analysis because we have an official record of what going on – and, therefore, less irresponsible reporting. All the tools are there for this to be reported very responsibly and in a very interesting manner – in a journalistically sound manner.”
For more:
Read Judge Dunstan Mlambo’s rules for court coverage for yourself [Pistorius trial], Grubstreet, March 2014
Pistorius’s live trial sets excellent precedent, Journalism.co.za, March 2014
Oscar Pistorius: why media reporting is not infringing on sub judice rule, Constitutionally Speaking, Feb 2013
Pistorius sensation sees avalanche of traffic to SA news sites, Grubstreet, Feb 2013
Inside Beeld’s decision to break Pistorius story on Twitter, Grubstreet, Feb 2013