A complaint was received that 3rd Degree, the e-tv news commentary programme, dealt unfairly 
with white attitudes to the tragic death of a black person. The Tribunal held as follows:
We do not believe that reasonable viewers would regard the contrasts portrayed as anything more than aspects of a continuing debate. Hate is not advocated and imbalance and bias are not glamorized. The persons portrayed are not attacked personally, but are portrayed within the larger drama of racial debate and attitude in South Africa. It might be possible to conclude that the programme was indeed biased, as argued by the complainant, and many viewers might be inclined to concur. Yet it has constantly been our approach to clause 35 (clause 3 in the previous Code) that only where it is unequivocally clear that there was an unfair comment on a matter of public importance, would we find against a broadcaster under this clause. Balance and fairness are difficult aims to meet, and so, where doubt exists, and in order not to stifle freedom of expression, we would rather find that a programme has not contravened this clause of the Code than curtail the freedom to voice an opinion, even though such opinion might not have been wholly sensitive or balanced. Freedom of expression is too precious an asset in our new democracy to chip away at it without very good reason for doing so. Usually, the reasoning for imposing a limitation would be based on harm and misinformation or on clear invasion of privacy without there being a compelling reason to do so.
The Complaint was not upheld.
CLICK TO VIEW FULL JUDGMENT Case-No-29-2004