Phindile Xaba
Editor, Sowetan
Johannesburg, South Africa

It is sometimes a great concern for those who believe in ethical journalism to learn that the media can report based on rumors such as an Internet version of an affair between movie star Kevin Costner and Kelly Ripken, wife of Baltimore Orioles third baseman Cal Ripken. A report in The Washington Post mentions that Fox Sports Radio duo Kevin Kiley and Chuck Booms based their report on rumors, which apparently infuriated Costner to a point of making comments about the use of the First Amendment.

"I would die defending the Constitution, but, goddammit, sometimes I feel like we've got a suicide pact with this First Amendment," Costner said. Perhaps Costner's comments call for a review of the First Amendment and the media's treatment of news.

The clause below is the First Amendment in relation to press. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The above gives the press the right to publish news, information and opinions without government interference. On the surface it seems like the terms are practical, however the question is, is it possible that this kind of freedom may result in manipulation, abuse and misinterpretation?

What is clear is that the public's perceptions of the First Amendment and the media's do not seem to be the same. A study referred to in The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center survey of 1999 posed a crucial question to interviewees.

"Do you think the press in America has too much freedom to do what it wants?" Pew Research Center for the People and Press gives the public's opinion, "Media is intrusive, less moral, less helpful to democracy and more self-interested than mindful of the public service."

From the media's point of view some quarters will argue that Costner's rage was warranted since the journalists only rehashed what was reported on the Internet, without getting Costner or Ripken's side of the story, thus affecting the principle of balancing the report. If it turns out there was never any truth to the rumor that could be embarrassing to the profession, the journalists and the news organization concerned.

On the other hand it can be argued that celebrities' lives are of interest to the public and the media has a responsibility to report on their "private" lives.

My observation is that news has become entertainment to boost ratings, more than it is about credible news gathering.

Reporters are being turned into celebrities by different news organizations. Tom Rosenstiel, director of Excellence in Journalism hit the nail on the head when he said: "The press has objectively changed, covers more serious matters less, and less serious matters more." And of course based on Costner's experience it does seem like the American press is too free for its own good.

Bruce W. Sandford who wrote an analytical piece on The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center's survey of 1999, says by asking this question, "Do you think the press in America has too much freedom to do what it wants?" is like asking if spinach is bitter or Hollywood too immoral.

While it is necessary to protect the press, the above has demonstrated how the law can be used to serve a certain purpose, other than ethical newsgathering.

My country's press has its freedom protected as in the United States, as a matter of fact there have been incidents similar to Costner's, which had the public outraged.

A journalist from a liberal publication in South Africa wrote a lengthy article about President Thabo Mbeki, alleging that Mbeki has many extra-marital affairs according to a source, who has heard rumors in the corridors at the Union Building (governmental offices similar to the White House).

No substantial evidence or facts, only a rumor. But the Freedom of Expression clause in our constitution protected the news organization as well as the journalist in question. However, a credible journalist would have considered issues of libelous consequences because the court has the power of subpoenaing the reporter to point at their sources and if not, then that has potential of qualifying as a libelous act and a long law suit. The media need to review what it means to have freedom of expression by self- censoring.