CASE NO: 40/2012 – MARAIS VS SABC2 AND SABC3 – NEWS- ERROR OF FACT

Agreement reached between South African Society of Anaesthesiologists and the SABC that an opportunity would be granted to the Society to address an error made by the SABC in calling Anaesthetists the “culprits” as to overcharging, whilst this term was not supported by the facts. CLICK TO VIEW FULL JUDGMENT     [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:16+02:00April 1st, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 40/2012 – MARAIS VS SABC2 AND SABC3 – NEWS- ERROR OF FACT

CASE NO: 58/2012 – HARTZENBERG & OTHERS VS SABC3 – RELIGION

Broadcast which included a fundamental error as to Christian religion found to have contravened clause 12(2) of the Broadcasting Code. The Tribunal stated the following:In the normal course, this clause has not been applied to errors in so far as religion is concerned. However, there is no reason why certain matters pertaining to religion cannot [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:20+02:00April 1st, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 58/2012 – HARTZENBERG & OTHERS VS SABC3 – RELIGION

CASE NO: 05/2011 – MAIL AND GUARDIAN MEDIA LIMITED AND SOLE VS SABC3 AND SAFM – NEWS

The complainants complained that SABC3 and SAfm had not granted them a proper opportunity to reply to allegations of bribery that had been made against Mr Sam Sole, and of racial bias against the Mail & Guardian newspaper. These allegations were made by businessman Mr Robert Gumede in a news insert.  The Tribunal held as [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:24+02:00March 13th, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 05/2011 – MAIL AND GUARDIAN MEDIA LIMITED AND SOLE VS SABC3 AND SAFM – NEWS

CASE NO: 06/2011 – STERENBORG VS SABC3 – RIGHT TO REPLY PARAPHRASED

Complaint about an inaccurate and unfair broadcast that distorts an interviewee’s response, thus skewing the right to reply. The broadcaster paraphrased an interview in which the complainant rebutted allegations of bribery. In doing so, the broadcaster used language that did not entirely accurately reflect the meaning of the original, and it is likely that this [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:24+02:00March 13th, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 06/2011 – STERENBORG VS SABC3 – RIGHT TO REPLY PARAPHRASED

CASE NO: 14/2011 – SABC 3 VS MAIL AND GUARDIAN LTD AND SOLE – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

The BCCSA Tribunal held that SABC3 contravened the Broadcasting Code during a news programme that it broadcast at 19:00 on 3 November 2010. The judgment is available on the BCCSA website: bccsa.co.za. During the news broadcast, businessman Mr. Robert Gumede was granted air time. He made certain accusations of bribery against journalist Mr. Sam Sole [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:28+02:00March 13th, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 14/2011 – SABC 3 VS MAIL AND GUARDIAN LTD AND SOLE – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

CASE NO: 17/2011 – SABC3 VS MAIL AND GUARDIAN AND SOLE – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

Application for leave to appeal – matters to be considered in such application – present dispute is not a constitutional matter as required by the Constitutional Court for applications to itself – no particular “interest of justice” issue present that requires leave to appeal – as for administration of justice, there seems to be no [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:29+02:00March 13th, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 17/2011 – SABC3 VS MAIL AND GUARDIAN AND SOLE – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

CASE NO: 25/2011 – SABC 3 VS MAIL & GUARDIAN LIMITED AND SOLE – JUDGMENT TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS ON WHICH THE SABC INTENDED APPROACHING THE COMPLAINTS AND COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE OF ICASA

  Background The Broadcasting Complaints Commission directed the SABC to broadcast a summary of its judgment, as drafted by the Tribunal, within seven days.  The BCCSA held that the SABC had contravened the Broadcasting Code. When an application for leave to appeal was lodged, the Tribunal extended the period to seven days after the appeal [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:30+02:00March 12th, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 25/2011 – SABC 3 VS MAIL & GUARDIAN LIMITED AND SOLE – JUDGMENT TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS ON WHICH THE SABC INTENDED APPROACHING THE COMPLAINTS AND COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE OF ICASA

CASE NO: 37/2011 – JOHNSON VS SABC3 – NEWS

Complaint regarding an alleged headline in a SABC3 news bulletin at 8 pm, which referred to the news story in the upcoming bulletin regarding the re-opening of the inquiry into Samora Machel’s “murder”, which was incorrect according to the complainant. The complainant argued that it was not a case of murder, but of pilot error, [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:33+02:00March 12th, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 37/2011 – JOHNSON VS SABC3 – NEWS

CASE NO: 28/2010 – NAIDOO AND EIGHT OTHERS VS SABC3 – DIGNITY AND PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Nine viewers complained that in a “Special Assignment” programme on the effect of pornography on children the so-called liberal viewpoint on pornography and its effect on children was emphasized while the conservative or Christian viewpoint was underplayed, resulting in the programme being reduced to propaganda.  The viewers also complained that the programme started half an [...]

By |2017-01-27T11:47:36+02:00March 12th, 2015|SABC 3|Comments Off on CASE NO: 28/2010 – NAIDOO AND EIGHT OTHERS VS SABC3 – DIGNITY AND PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Go to Top