---
title: "SABC apologised — the digital platforms never have to"
description: "A ruling last week shows what voluntary media accountability looks like. No such thing exists for large digital platforms."
type: "NewsArticle"
publisher: "Daily Maverick"
site: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za"
section: "MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY"
author: "Michael Markovitz"
author_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/author/michael-markovitz/"
canonical_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-09-07-sabc-apologised-the-digital-platforms-never-have-to/"
published: "2026-09-07T18:15:03"
lang: "en-ZA"
word_count: 978
---

# SABC apologised — the digital platforms never have to

> A ruling last week shows what voluntary media accountability looks like. No such thing exists for large digital platforms.

By Michael Markovitz · Published 7 September 2026, 20:15 SAST

## Key points
- The BCCSA ruled that SABC’s SAfm must apologise on air after airing unchallenged, false claims by Jacinta Ngobese‑Zuma about foreign nationals — the broadcaster failed its duty to test veracity.
- The adjudicator stressed broadcasters must distinguish opinion from fact and challenge dangerous misinformation — vital in a country scarred by xenophobic violence and ahead of local elections.
- The case highlights how South Africa’s independent but chronically underfunded watchdogs (BCCSA, Press Council) carry accountability burdens while big digital platforms amplify falsehoods with no equivalent oversight.
- Author argues platforms should help fund media self‑regulation and ensure online corrections (podcasts/archives) — GroundUp’s reporting that debunked the claims is credited as the catalyst.

## Content

A South African national radio station has been [ordered to apologise on air](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-09-04-safm-apologises-for-jacinta-ngobese-zuma-interview/) for broadcasting a string of false claims about foreign nationals that it never bothered to challenge. That happened because one person complained to a body most of us have heard announced on air without ever knowing what it does, and it cost him almost nothing.

![Image](https://cdn.dailymaverick.co.za/i/aj0qIxdjCovB-iTZnauEyBi7Dw0=/200x100/smart/filters:strip_exif\(\)/file/attachments/2997/image1_450850.jpg)

South Africa’s media self-regulatory bodies – the [Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa](https://www.bccsa.co.za/) (BCCSA) and the [Press Council](https://presscouncilsa.org.za/) – are independent, chronically underfunded, and more important than most people realise.

Last week, BCCSA commissioner, advocate Ben Winks, [upheld a complaint](https://www.bccsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/25-Rutledge-v-SABC-SAFM-Adjudication.pdf) against the [SABC](https://www.sabc.co.za/sabc/)’s SAfm over a 3 June episode of The National Pulse. The complaint was lodged by [Christopher Rutledge](https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-rutledge-14115614/), a social justice activist who works with mining-affected communities.

Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, head of the anti-immigrant organisation March and March, was given a right of reply by SAfm minutes after GroundUp’s Daniel Steyn had [disputed her claims](https://groundup.org.za/article/debunking-five-misleading-claims-by-march-march/) about foreign nationals. Ngobese-Zuma then made several unsubstantiated claims on air: that foreign nationals were behind 60% of serious crime in Gauteng, that they were setting up military bases in the country, smuggling in explosives and paying off police officers to escape prosecution. She also claimed that South African NPOs and NGOs were using foreign funding to buy weapons.

SAfm presenter Ashraf Garda did not challenge any of these claims. The SABC argued that airing Steyn’s contrary views beforehand was enough. Winks disagreed, finding that each unchallenged false statement could expose foreign nationals to contempt, discrimination and even displacement. In a country with our record of xenophobic violence, looted shops and people driven from their homes, the stakes are very high.

The BCCSA imposed no fine, despite the seriousness, because the complainant argued that a purely punitive sanction would miss the point: the apology should also reach listeners exposed to the misinformation in the first place. Winks agreed and rejected the SABC’s plea for only a reprimand. The broadcaster owed it to listeners, and to people vilified on air, to set the record right. SAfm was ordered to broadcast a summary of the findings in the same timeslot and apologise on air.

![Extract from ruling: Rutledge vs SABC SAfm](https://cdn.dailymaverick.co.za/i/URcvZ-cq39uFWtYbJnrY1UNnm4w=/200x100/smart/filters:strip_exif\(\)/file/attachments/2997/image_300442.jpg)

*An extract from ruling: Rutledge vs SABC SAfm.*

Before faux free speech proponents freak out, this is not a ruling about who may be interviewed. Media can interview anyone they like, with the ruling affirming that media have the right to host people with very controversial opinions.

However, the BCCSA ruling makes it crystal clear that attributing a factual claim to a guest on air does not absolve a broadcaster of its core duty to test the source and veracity of those claims. Winks found that where a participant presents an opinion as fact, the broadcaster has to ask whether it is opinion or fact, and if opinion, what facts it rests on. Winks also placed this in a wider context, warning that the world faces “a pandemic of disinformation” and that broadcast media must be alert to its dangers, especially with local government elections around the corner.

One wrinkle is that the ruling does not test the programme against the BCCSA’s separate online code after promising to do so. The complainant had asked for the archived podcast to carry corrective context too, since the broadcast lasted an hour but the podcast lives online forever. Some immediate questions are: Has the podcast been taken down? If not, will the correction and apology be reflected online forever as well?

Leaving the ruling aside, the large digital platforms have no equivalent accountability system, despite their algorithms rewarding exactly the sort of claims Ngobese-Zuma made. Research by the Institute for Security Studies, submitted to the BCCSA by the complainant, [identified coordinated amplification](https://issafrica.org/iss-today/lucrative-online-influence-detected-during-south-africa-s-30-june-protests) of anti-immigrant narratives on social media, with Ngobese-Zuma’s own account benefiting from the increased engagement.

So the SABC apologises while amplification by digital platforms continues untouched.

There is a strong case for treating the BCCSA and the Press Council as part of our democratic infrastructure, but the burden they carry is not equitably shared. It is not sustainable that the parts of our media sector with the least money and facing the most disruption are the ones who have volunteered to be bound to a code of conduct, and to apologise on air when they get it wrong. The platforms most responsible for that disruption are, by contrast, among the richest companies in the world, and are not in the business of volunteering for accountability.

The case for supporting the BCCSA and Press Council got stronger last year when the Competition Commission’s Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry tied eligibility for several of its biggest financial remedies to membership of either organisation. [I welcomed this](https://michaelmarkovitz.substack.com/p/media-and-digital-platforms-inquiry) at the time as a win for the South African National Editors’ Forum-led alliance that had argued for exactly that. But the commission directed no platform funding to either body, so if they weaken, the remedies weaken with them.

For the BCCSA and Press Council to be properly funded, beyond the members who already submit to them voluntarily, the digital platforms must also contribute financially.

To its credit, the SABC unconditionally accepted the finding, and promised to make it the teachable moment it should be. However, none of this will slow down the anti-immigrant organisations who continue to “flood the zone” with false statistics. The ruling now obliges whoever is running the interview to ask where the figure or statistic came from. That has to be standard operating procedure, not just for the public broadcaster, but for all media. The stakes are way too high to let unsourced statistics run unchallenged, whether in broadcasting, in print or online.

One last thing. The journalism that exposed Ngobese-Zuma’s false claims came from GroundUp, a Press Council member. They have published an [excellent article](https://groundup.org.za/article/sabc-ordered-to-apologise-for-unchecked-march-and-march-claims-on-air/) on the BCCSA ruling.

*To read more of Michael’s writing,*[*subscribe to his Substack*](https://michaelmarkovitz.substack.com/p/did-the-competition-commission-let)*.*