An investigation into whether the weekly national newspapers reported unethically on South Africa's 2014 general elections: a critical discourse analysis of the City Press, Sunday Times and The Mail and Guardian

Abstract

This thesis investigates whether or not the press reported unethically on South Africa’s 2014 General Elections in the weekly national newspapers the City Press, Sunday Times and the Mail & Guardian. This study was undertaken on the basis of the ongoing contention between the press and the state which has resulted in polarised positions between both institutions amid accusations of press bias. It has given voice to measures to regulate the press through a Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) and proposed state regulation. This could negatively impact free speech, public interest and ultimately democracy. This researcher contends that this will not be in the best interest of South Africa. Through this study, it is argued that an ethical press that executes a libertarian duty to society, integrating a watchdog role over the state, while simultaneously overseeing its social responsibility to society, upholds the welfare of society and democracy and should therefore not be regulated by the state. The elections thus forms an important platform for the press to demonstrate unbiased ethical reportage to the state in the wake of being regulated and prove its fundamental role in society’s interest and democracy. Therefore, to determine whether the election coverage was ethical or unethical, the problem investigated whether the press, that is, the print medium in the form of the newspaper, reported truthfully, in a balanced manner and independently for South Africa’s 2014 General Elections, upholding its watchdog and social responsibility roles. This was done through a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of the front-page news reports of the aforementioned national newspapers for the cross sectional time-frame of 13 April to 11 May, 2014. This study argues that language is the most important channel of communication for the exchange of ideas and can be used as an instrument to calculatedly manipulate message and reinforce a particular viewpoint. Hence, it contends that CDA can effectively be utilised as a conceptual framework for language analysis to determine unethical press coverage by journalists. The study identifies and applies two significant theoretical models that is, the Libertarian and Social Responsibility models for the elections which further serves as a form of triangulation to verify the results of the CDA. The study challenges the conventions of a distinct libertarian or a social responsibility model for the press, arguing that both models are not mutually exclusive for the elections. The analysis shows that the press apply both social responsibility and libertarian roles simultaneously in election reporting. It further maps out the incorporation of the developmental journalism model where the press upholds the best interests of both the electorate and the state ethically, without the requirement of a state-regulated media.