TOWARDS A DOCTRINE OF RESPONSIBLE WAR JOURNALISM IN A DEMOCRATIC DISPENSATION: “SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE “

By Eric Gaborone

• South African journalists who cover armed conflicts involving the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) must straddle two opposing forces – truth and security, writes Eric Gaborone.
• At the heart of this debate lies a constitutional paradox, the right to freedom of expression and the restraint required by national security concerns.
• Journalists must ask the tough question: where does responsible journalism end and reckless disclosure begin?

Introduction: The battlefield of truth and national security

War journalism has always been a dangerous tightrope walk. When South African journalists cover armed conflicts involving the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), they must straddle two opposing forces – truth and security. The fundamental question arises: How does a free press, tasked with informing citizens, operate responsibly in wartime without inadvertently aiding enemy forces?

Recent reports suggest that the SANDF is underfunded and ill-equipped to deal with the M23 rebels in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a situation exacerbated by budget cuts from the National Treasury. Such revelations, though vital for public debate, also serve as intelligence gold for adversaries. The implications are stark: irresponsible reporting could embolden the enemy, demoralise troops, and undermine South Africa’s strategic position.

Freedom of information vs national security: A dialectical tension

At the heart of this debate lies a constitutional paradox. Section 16 of the South African Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press. However, national security concerns—often couched in vague, classified government directives—demand restraint. This dialectical tension forces journalists to ask: Where does responsible journalism end and reckless disclosure begin?

On one hand, journalists expose corruption, incompetence, and strategic failures—vital for public accountability. On the other, certain disclosures, such as troop movements, logistical weaknesses, or intelligence assessments, could jeopardise national security. The M23 crisis highlights this dilemma. If the media reports that SANDF troops are under-equipped due to financial constraints, does this transparency empower public debate, or does it serve as a tactical advantage for armed militias backed by foreign states?

The global precedent: What other democracies do

Example, some countries have mechanisms to balance press freedom with national security. Journalists covering military operations in conflict zones often work within embedded journalism frameworks, where they gain access to the frontlines while respecting military-imposed constraints on real-time reporting. These countries also enforce national security laws that prevent the media from publishing classified military vulnerabilities in active conflict situations.

South Africa, however, has no clear war-time media policy. The Protection of State Information Bill (commonly referred to as the “Secrecy Bill”) attempted to impose restrictions on classified information but was widely criticised for its potential to be abused. Thus, South African journalists operate in a legal vacuum where ethical judgment becomes their only safeguard against reckless reporting.

The dangers of sensationalism in conflict reporting

One of the greatest threats to responsible war journalism is sensationalism—the prioritisation of dramatic headlines over thoughtful analysis. A report that screams, “SANDF UNPREPARED FOR WAR AGAINST M23” may attract clicks, but it can also serve as a propaganda tool for enemy forces.

Furthermore, unverified claims, speculative reporting, or oversimplified narratives can distort public perception. The involvement of Rwanda in backing M23, for example, is a complex geopolitical issue. Media narratives that frame it in black-and-white terms – without nuance or context – can inflame diplomatic tensions, making it harder for South Africa to negotiate peace in the region.

Towards a doctrine of responsible war journalism in South Africa

Given South Africa’s growing involvement in peacekeeping missions and regional conflicts, there is an urgent need for a clear, ethical framework for war reporting. This should include:

1. Strategic self-regulation – Journalists should collaborate with military experts to ensure reporting does not endanger national security while maintaining editorial independence.
2. Delayed disclosure of sensitive military information – Real-time details on troop weaknesses, movements, and strategies should be withheld until the conflict subsides.
3. Government-media dialogue – Instead of imposing blanket censorship, the government should engage in open but off-the-record briefings with media outlets to provide necessary context on conflict-related matters.
4. Fact-based reporting over speculation – The media must avoid alarmist rhetoric that could incite public panic or embolden hostile forces.

Conclusion: Journalism’s role in nation-building during conflict

South African journalists have a duty to inform the public. However, in war reporting, freedom of speech cannot be an unfettered right – it must be tempered by responsibility. The current state of SANDF’s operations in the DRC presents a perfect case study for why war journalism must be nuanced, strategic, and ethical. A misstep can cost lives, compromise missions, and endanger the very democracy that journalists seek to protect.

The time has come for South Africa to rethink its war journalism protocols, ensuring that the delicate balance between public knowledge and national security is not left to chance.

“Let one hundred flowers bloom; let one hundred schools of thought contend.”