Complainant argued that the programme Apartheid Did Not Die produced by John Pilger and 
broadcast on SABC TV3 as from 21:30 on the 21st of April and followed by a panel discussion of the documentary, was not balanced in terms of the Code of the BCCSA.
The theme of the programme was that the Apartheid between the White rich and the Black poor has remained in South Africa Society, in spite of our new democracy. Complainant argued that although much of this was true, the programme did not include the financial successes and moves to opulent living areas which have been made by many Blacks. Increasing poverty amongst Whites should also have been included. The views which were canvassed from white women were also not representative and the scenes concerning hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation only showed Blacks who had suffered, whilst there were also some whites who had suffered.
The Commission held that the freedom of speech fundamental rights in the Constitution of the Republic has a direct bearing on its Code and that inroads into the freedom should not be made to readily, especially not in the field of political debate, the category within which this programme falls. In the light of this approach it was found that the views expressed in the programme formed part of the free market-place of ideas which is extremely valuable in a democracy based on freedom. Within an open democracy one person’s perception of bias is another person’s perception of truth or fair comment. Both these views should be allowed to be ventilated freely.
In the light of this approach the Commission found that within the framework of what has been said above, it would not be justified in finding the programme to be in conflict with the Code. The programme amounts to a contribution to the free market-place of ideas. The panel discussion afterwards already illustrated the workings of that free market-place. Some may regard the programme as biased whilst others would regard it as a substantial contribution to the debate on the lasting effects of Apartheid. Lively and thought-provoking difference of opinion and debate lies at the heart of our new and open democracy and should not be stifled, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
The complaints was not upheld.