By Gillian Schutte
No sooner had the ink dried on the Press Council’s ruling against Independent Media in the case concerning journalist Karyn Maughan, than Ferial Haffajee of the Daily Maverick published an article brimming with glee over the decision against Iqbal Survé.
With unrestrained triumphalism, Haffajee wasted no time in celebrating what she clearly perceives as a victory for the liberal media establishment over one of its most persistent adversaries.
Unlike Haffajee, I regard the decision by the Press Council to sanction Independent Media for an article comparing Karyn Maughan to Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl as having exposed the glaring double standards and blatant hypocrisy that pervade South Africa’s liberal media landscape. While Independent Media was swiftly censured and ultimately forced to retract the article across all its platforms, Daily Maverick’s far more dangerous and defamatory comparison of Julius Malema to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini has been allowed to stand without consequence.
This disparity is not merely an oversight by Media Monitoring Africa (MMA)—an organisation that claims to act as a watchdog promoting ethical and fair journalism that supports human rights—but rather, a deliberate act of protecting the interests of the liberal elite who wield the media as a tool to maintain their dominance over the national discourse, selectively applying standards to silence critics while shielding their own.
Let’s get one thing straight: comparing Julius Malema, a Black political leader fighting for economic justice, to two of the most infamous fascist dictators in history is a gross exaggeration and an outright lie. Hitler and Mussolini were responsible for the deaths of millions, orchestrating genocides and wars that reshaped the world in blood. Malema, on the other hand, is a democratically elected leader whose rhetoric, while provocative, has never crossed the line into advocating for violence or authoritarianism on the scale of these tyrants.
Daily Maverick’s decision to make this comparison is a calculated move to delegitimise Malema’s political platform and to stoke fear among the South African populace. The portrayal of him as a modern-day dictator by columnist Ismail Lagardien aims to distract from the real issues Malema raises: the continued economic dispossession of the majority of South Africans and the stranglehold that white capital still has over the country’s resources. It’s a well-worn tactic of the powerful—discredit the messenger to avoid confronting the uncomfortable truths they bring to light.
Now, let’s turn to Karyn Maughan. Perhaps comparing her to Leni Riefenstahl is a tad colourful—but certainly, it is not excessive. Let’s not pretend that she is some innocent bystander in the world of South African media. Maughan’s reporting most often aligns with the pro-free market, anti-left narrative that benefits the liberal elite and ensures the perpetuation of the status quo. She has consistently used her platform to belittle and dismiss leftist movements, particularly those advocating for radical economic transformation, and to prop up the neoliberal agenda that keeps the majority of South Africans in poverty.
The comparison to Riefenstahl, while biting, is an acceptable critique of Maughan’s role in shaping public perception in a way that favours the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Riefenstahl used her films to bolster Hitler’s regime, to paint it in a favourable light and to suppress dissent. Similarly, Maughan’s journalism serves to defend the neoliberal order and to attack those who challenge it. The analogy may be colourful, but it’s a far cry from the hideous smear campaign that Daily Maverick has launched against Malema.
Media Monitoring Africa’s Role: A Tale of Complicity and Double Standards
Here’s where the hypocrisy becomes glaringly evident. The Press Council, with the added influence of Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), wasted no time in slapping down Independent Media for their article, demanding an apology and the removal of the piece from all platforms. Yet, when Daily Maverick published its inflammatory comparison of Malema to Hitler and Mussolini, MMA was conspicuously silent. Why is it that when a Black leader is vilified in the most extreme terms, there is no outcry from these supposed watchdogs of media integrity? Why does the liberal media get a free pass to engage in the very behaviour they condemn in others, with the tacit approval of organisations like MMA? This selective application of media ethics raises serious questions about whose interests are truly being served.
MMA has positioned itself as a guardian of ethical journalism, yet its actions in this case suggest a duplicitous agenda. By choosing to intervene in the complaint against Independent Media while remaining silent on the far more incendiary comparisons made by Daily Maverick, MMA reveals that it is less concerned with genuine media integrity and more interested in maintaining the existing power dynamics that benefit a select few. It’s worth asking: whose interests are they really serving?
MMA’s focus on Independent Media’s article as an example of “misinformation and disinformation” conveniently overlooks the numerous inflammatory articles produced by BizNews, News24, and Daily Maverick—outlets that have consistently attacked Independent Media and its parent company, Sekunjalo, with impunity. Where was MMA’s outcry when these outlets engaged in far worse rhetoric? Why is there a selective application of concern when it comes to who is held accountable?
The Culture of Arrogance and Impunity in the Liberal Media
The culture of arrogance displayed by Daily Maverick, News24, and BizNews et al is certainly not only an incidental by-product of their editorial decisions—it is a strategic component of their role within the neoliberal hegemonic structure. These outlets are secure in their positions as gatekeepers of ‘acceptable discourse,’ emboldened to engage in scandalous rhetoric without fear of reprisal. This arrogance is further compounded by their ability to call out and condemn others, particularly Independent Media, for engaging in what they perceive as unethical behaviour, all while remaining blind to their own complicity in the very practices they decry.
This culture of arrogance is both dangerous and calculated. It allows the liberal media to set the terms of debate, marginalising and discrediting those who present different ideological arguments. This is precisely how the neoliberal hegemony stifles dissent and maintains its grip on power, all under the guise of “defending democracy and journalistic integrity.” It is a disingenuous and blatant trajectory that reveals the true function of these media outlets: to protect and perpetuate the dominance of the neoliberal order in South Africa. The liberal media cabal, led by Daily Maverick, News24, and others such as BizNews, are well-resourced and rewarded for their role in controlling the narrative and ensuring that any challenges to the elite order—whether from Malema or the broader leftist movement—are swiftly discredited and dismissed.
Their repetitive trend of comparing political adversaries to Hitler and Mussolini suggests that they are part of a coordinated strategy, likely birthed in a CIA-esque global talk-and-fund shop, aimed at discrediting and delegitimising figures who challenge the prevailing global neoliberal order.
This tactic has become evident across the global liberal press, from Daily Maverick’s comparison of Julius Malema to these infamous dictators to the Washington Post drawing similar parallels with Donald Trump. Such comparisons, need I repeat, are not only intellectually dishonest but also grossly disproportionate, as neither Malema nor Trump—despite their controversial rhetoric and ideological positions—have any record of orchestrating genocide or any actions that remotely approach the horrors perpetrated by Hitler or Mussolini.
Though a feeble and transparent intelligence strategy, it is startlingly successful in its mission—to stoke fear, marginalise dissent, and maintain the status quo by framing any challenge to the established order as a dangerous return to fascism, thereby silencing legitimate political discourse and debate. It works because it deliberately obfuscates issues to render people clueless. As Noam Chomsky identified: “The general population doesn’t know what is happening, and it doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know.”
Media as the Instrument of Hegemony
The complicity of MMA and other press organisations in fostering this culture of arrogance and impunity cannot be understated. These organisations, by shielding the liberal media from any critique, effectively endorse and perpetuate the neoliberal hegemony. They fail in their duty to hold all media outlets to the same ethical standards, instead allowing the powerful to operate without consequence while coming down hard on those who dare to challenge the status quo.
We can blame this culture of arrogance in the liberal media on the double standards displayed by MMA and other press organisations that clearly shield them from any critique. These media outlets’ central role is, after all, to maintain the dominance of the neoliberal order in South Africa. It is classic hegemony at work, as Antonio Gramsci would describe it: the ruling class maintains its power not just through economic control, but through the control of ideas, culture, and the very terms of debate.
Malema, for all his flaws, is targeted precisely because he represents a real threat to this hegemony. His calls for land reform, for the redistribution of wealth, for the dismantling of white capital’s grip on the economy, strike at the heart of the liberal establishment’s interests. That’s why they are so desperate to paint him as a dictator-in-waiting, to scare the public into rejecting his message before it can gain traction. As much as they assert that they are all about protecting democracy—what they are actually doing is protecting the privileged position of the few at the expense of the many.
Similarly, News 24 and Daily Maverick’s relentless campaign to disparage and defame Independent Media is clearly an issue of competing journalistic standards— a targeted assault driven by deeper ideological and economic motives. Independent Media, under the ownership of Iqbal Survé, represents one of the few significant media platforms in South Africa that dares to challenge the liberal hegemony that Daily Maverick so zealously guards. It has evidently become a thorn in the side of the liberal establishment by offering alternative perspectives that diverge from the pro-free market, neoliberal narrative championed by the mainstream press.
Notably, Daily Maverick’s concerted efforts to discredit and delegitimise Independent Media are about protecting their own ideological turf. They are part of a broader strategy to eliminate any media voices that threaten the dominance of the liberal elite. In the eyes of Daily Maverick, it appears, Independent Media’s very existence as a platform for dissenting views is a danger to the carefully constructed façade of impartiality and progressiveness that they project, making its destruction a priority in their mission to maintain control over South Africa’s media landscape.
The culture of arrogance that permeates Daily Maverick, News24, and other mainstream outlets is truly staggering. Here we have publications that see themselves as the vanguards of South African journalism, quick to call out others for their perceived immoralities while remaining utterly blind to their own. These are the same outlets that decry Independent Media for its comparison of Maughan to Riefenstahl, yet feel no shame in comparing Malema to two of the most reviled figures in world history. Worse they do it in such an insidious manner that the general public are hoodwinked into normalising their propaganda.
Through this duplicitous game, these outlets are literally saying: “We can do what we want, say what we want, because we are the guardians of the truth.” But whose truth are they really guarding? Certainly not the truth of the millions of South Africans who continue to live in poverty, whose calls for justice are drowned out by the constant refrain that any real change is too dangerous, too radical.
The Call for Accountability and Media Ethics
The MMA’s double standards and the Press Council’s selective application of justice expose the deep-rooted power dynamics that continue to shape South Africa’s media landscape. By allowing Daily Maverick, News24, and other neoliberal news outlets to operate without consequence while coming down hard on Independent Media, these organisations are effectively endorsing a media monopoly that stifles diversity of thought and reinforces the neoliberal status quo. In giving Daily Maverick a pass on its outrageous comparisons, MMA is failing in its duty to watchdog and uphold media ethics and is actively participating in the preservation of a deeply unequal and unjust system.
It is high time that we collectively demand accountability from all media outlets, regardless of their ideological alignment. The true essence of a free press lies in its ability to challenge power, to hold the powerful accountable, and to provide a platform for diverse voices. When media organisations fail to uphold these principles, they become complicit in the very injustices they claim to oppose.
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, and a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Sunday Independent