CASE NUMBER: 28/2017 – 702 VS STEWARD AND MIHAL – Appeal against a Tribunal finding that Clause 13(1) &(2) were infringed

A talk show programme on 702 entertained a discussion on the moral accountability of leaders. This debate was prompted by an earlier interview during which Mr De Klerk’s participation in a discourse about the future of South Africa was questioned. The first Tribunal held that Clause 13 was contravened as the presenter demonstrated intolerance towards [...]

By | 2018-02-06T16:41:03+00:00 February 6th, 2018|702|Comments Off on CASE NUMBER: 28/2017 – 702 VS STEWARD AND MIHAL – Appeal against a Tribunal finding that Clause 13(1) &(2) were infringed

CASE NUMBER: 25/2017 – CASSIM VS 702 – NEWS

Complaint against 702 regarding alleged tardy, inaccurate news reports concerning mass shooting in Las Vegas in Oct 2017, which allegedly perpetuated existing stereotype of link between Islam and terrorism. Balance in interview with expert was questioned, as well as interviewee’s credentials.  Tribunal held that 702 relied on information from international news agencies and in terms [...]

By | 2017-12-14T08:41:51+00:00 December 14th, 2017|702|Comments Off on CASE NUMBER: 25/2017 – CASSIM VS 702 – NEWS

CASE NUMBER: 18/2017 – MOSANA VS 702 – DIGNITY

A complaint was received that the dignity of the Public Protector was impaired during an interview with her spokesperson on the Eusebius McKaiser show when the host exclaimed (about the PP) “ … or is she just useless?”  The complaint was also that the interview was conducted unfairly and that clause 12(1) of the Code, [...]

By | 2017-10-03T11:06:47+00:00 October 3rd, 2017|702|Comments Off on CASE NUMBER: 18/2017 – MOSANA VS 702 – DIGNITY

CASE NUMBER: 13/2017 – STEWARD AND MIHAL VS 702 – RIGHT TO REPLY

A programme was advertised on 702 to discuss the controversial issue of the role of ex president FW de Klerk in the political discourse on the future of this country which is a matter of public importance. The presenter created a hostile environment on the programme by broadcasting a clip of a speech by De [...]

By | 2017-07-16T10:58:35+00:00 July 16th, 2017|702|Comments Off on CASE NUMBER: 13/2017 – STEWARD AND MIHAL VS 702 – RIGHT TO REPLY

CASE NUMBER: 08/2016 – DE KLERK AND ANOTHER VS 702 – HATE SPEECH

The complaint is about a guest presenter on a talk show who made derogatory remarks about White people in such provoking way that it is alleged it amounted to hate speech.  The context of the "diatribe" as one of the complainants described it, is that the presenter had his boyhood dream of becoming a train [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:29+00:00 June 13th, 2016|702|Comments Off on CASE NUMBER: 08/2016 – DE KLERK AND ANOTHER VS 702 – HATE SPEECH

CASE NUMBER: 07/2016 – HASANE VS 702 – COMMENT

Complaint that comment by Redi Tlhabi in Talk Show implied that the dumber people in leadership in government were, the better.  This comment followed upon a public statement by president Zuma, after his dismissal of the Minister of Finance, that people should not pay attention to people who talked too much on television because they [...]

By | 2017-07-28T09:25:03+00:00 June 8th, 2016|702|Comments Off on CASE NUMBER: 07/2016 – HASANE VS 702 – COMMENT

CASE NO: 22/2014 – RODIONOV VS 702 – COMMENTARY ON ELECTIONS

Complainant argued that a short commentary by a visiting researcher from the Ukraine on the elections in Crimea was one-sided and ill-informed. The Tribunal held that the Complainant’s assertion regarding the researcher’s claim that the European Union’s electoral commission had not been allowed to monitor the elections, was incorrect. It was, however, as stated by [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:33+00:00 December 20th, 2015|702|Comments Off on CASE NO: 22/2014 – RODIONOV VS 702 – COMMENTARY ON ELECTIONS

CASE NO: 36/2014 – WHITTAKER AND VREY VS 702 – PROFANITY IN NEWS REPORT

In a news item reporting on a road rage incident, a profanity was uttered. The issue was whether the exclusion of other words which were probably indecent amounted to a distortion of the news.  Held That the profanity, within the context, amounted to meaningless abuse in a report on road rage, and that it did [...]

By | 2017-01-27T11:46:35+00:00 December 18th, 2015|702|Comments Off on CASE NO: 36/2014 – WHITTAKER AND VREY VS 702 – PROFANITY IN NEWS REPORT