CASE NUMBER: 07/2003 – BEESKRAAL VS SABC RADIO – 5FM – UNFAIR INTERVIEW

Beeskraal, a song group, was invited for an interview on the Mark Gillman show. His members forewarned the leader that they might not get a fair interview and that the presenter, who is known to make severely critical or sarcastic remarks about his interviewees and put them on the defence, could exploit the Group. This is a well-known approach of the presenter and the likely listeners of the radio station are well aware of this style. When the Group arrived they were introduced as a “far right-wing punk band” and they were asked about the nature of their clothing, which emerged to be khaki. They were also asked as to why they call themselves “beeskraal” (“cattle corral”) and whether they were, accordingly, farmers. To this the leader answered that they were “Boere”, which is generally regarded as signifying a more conservative segment of the South African populace, but not necessarily so. The complainant also complained that it was insinuated that they had connections with White fundamentalists who had allegedly caused bombs to explode in Soweto. 

The BCCSA held that since the Complainants were well aware of the style of the presenter and nevertheless accepted the offer to be interviewed, they voluntarily took the risk of being subjected to his style. They should have reacted on air to what was said by the presenter, which they did not do and, accordingly, they have themselves to blame for any negative impressions with which the listeners were left. In any case, the likely audience would have understood the interview within the parameters of the kind of “interviews” usually conducted by the presenter. He makes wild allegations and expects his interviewees to react and hit back. This did not happen and the Complainants left the interview feeling disappointed at what had happened. 

The BCCSA, however, also stated that this judgment did not mean that the station had a free hand in what it did. Any interview on a matter of public importance would have to be balanced and fair in terms of clauses 3 and 7.2. The present interview was, however, not on a matter of public importance or controversy and the Complainant has only itself to blame for having entered the legendary lion’s den. 

The Complaint is dismissed.