Hypocrisy Behind Caroline James and amaBhungane’s Paternalistic International Press Freedom Day Posturing

By Edmond Phiri

On International Press Freedom Day, Caroline James published an article about how investigative journalism platform amaBhungane joined Independent Media to challenge a Durban High Court judgment. However, rather than focusing solely on press freedom issues, James opened her piece with a pointed attack against Independent Media’s Chairperson, Dr Iqbal Survé. The article’s arrogant, racist and paternalistic undertone was impossible to ignore.

James begins by deliberately insulting Dr Survé, stripping him of his title and referring to him by his first name — something the media never does with figures like Koos Bekker or Johan Rupert. “There are few people who hate us more than Iqbal Survé, the chairperson of Independent Media,” James opens her cynical piece, continuing with: “So why would we spend the limited resources we have fighting to defend Independent Media in court?” In framing her piece this way, amaBhungane attempts to claim moral superiority and congratulate themselves for their supposed magnanimity.

Though presented as a defence of press freedom, the article was less about press freedom and more about amaBhungane’s self-congratulation. It also revealed their paternalistic attitude in portraying themselves as a white saviour rescuing a black media house that “couldn’t afford legal fees”. There was little genuine concern for the principle of free expression beyond the PR value of the courtroom contest.

AmaBhungane’s true motivation becomes clear when James mentions how the Durban judgment contradicted a previous but different court ruling involving businessman Zunaid Moti. “In 2023, businessman Zunaid Moti sought to gag amaBhungane from reporting on his business and to obtain details of the documents we received from a source,” she writes. When James praises the Johannesburg High Court’s “stirring endorsement of the importance of a free and independent media” in the Moti case, her agenda becomes clear.

The “regressive judgment that threatens media freedom” wasn’t just endangering media freedom; it was threatening AmaBhungane’s specific victory against Moti. Independent Media was merely a strategic convenience for their purposes.

Meanwhile, amaBhungane has remained conspicuously silent when their own journalists have launched scathing attacks against Dr Survé, his publications, and editors. Their sister publication, Daily Maverick, has published vicious propaganda against Independent Media, with cartoonists and columnists hurling countless insults at Survé and his media house. AmaBhungane and Caroline James have remained silent throughout this campaign, apparently seeing no violation of press freedom when media rivals are targeted.

Where was James and AmaBhungane’s gallant fight for media freedom when banks shut down Independent Media’s accounts, hampering their ability to operate and effectively pushing them toward closure? With no allegation of misconduct and no due process observed, this action represented a far graver menace to media freedom. Currently, Independent Media and its holding company continue fighting to keep their bank accounts open, without which they cannot operate or pay their staff and journalists. The arbitrary closure of bank accounts without due process represents a far greater threat to media freedom than the court case amaBhungane has chosen to highlight.

When Independent Media’s bank accounts were arbitrarily closed, amaBhungane and colleagues seemed to cheer on the development. AmaBhungane’s journalist, Dewald van Rensburg, led the charge through sensational headlines like “Strike three: Is Iqbal Survé finally unbankable?” Where was their commitment to media freedom when an organisation that committed no wrongdoing had its ability to operate shut down without due process?

The worst violations of press freedom have actually been perpetrated by amaBhungane itself and its allies in white-owned media. They have invested significant resources in undermining Independent Media’s credibility so that it isn’t viewed as a legitimate alternative voice. Writers like myself who hold positions contrary to AmaBhungane’s face relentless attacks and false accusations of being part of “Survé’s glitchy propaganda machine.” These accusations themselves constitute the real propaganda, designed to delegitimise voices that don’t align with theirs.

Press freedom demands more than courtroom rhetoric. It’s about allowing diverse voices, including those you disagree with. The white mainstream media’s dedicated campaign against Independent Media represents one of the most egregious violations of media freedom. AmaBhungane’s platitudes ring hollow when they continue to undermine another media house’s voice, credibility, and audience reach.

When Independent Media writers labelled amaBhungane “Stratcom,” it wasn’t out of hatred but to expose the propaganda campaign James and colleagues waged against Independent Media, which undermines press freedom. AmaBhungane could have better used its “limited resources” to defend genuine press freedom, rather than exploiting a court case for public relations and propaganda purposes.

Caroline James’ AmaBhungane article reveals its own hypocrisy. When it truly mattered for them to defend press freedom, they remained silent because it didn’t serve their agenda. Their court “defence of Independent Media” was nothing but cynical self-interest. True press freedom begins with how you treat your fellow media industry outlets, not with self-aggrandising platitudes.

* Edmond Phiri is an independent writer, commentator and analyst. 

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.