What did Chriselda Lewis do wrong by conducting an interview with the mother of the Dros rapist, Nicholas Ninow, to deserve such outrage? The naivety and ignorance of Ninow’s mother to claim her son made a mistake when he raped a young girl is beyond belief.

Unbelievably, so is the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), that placed itself in an untenable position by running an interview designed to garner public sympathy for a rapist, and in the same breath perpetrated further humiliation and gave a public platform to Ninow, effectively raping the little girl again.

It was an insensitive and imbecilic action by the South African Badcasting Corporation — which is what I would prefer to call the SABC. It is like the SABC endorsing the views of many rapists that “a girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy”, as was said by a member of a group of Indian men convicted of an infamous Delhi gang rape in 2012. Or endorsing the view that “she was found in the wrong place at the wrong time by a penis-wielding man”.

We are coming full circle on the issue of the treatment of perpetrators of gender-based violence (GBV). We are back to where we started when the government, politicians, civil society and anti-GBV groups of men vowed that never again would GBV, or any conduct that seemed to promote it, be allowed. The interview and its broadcast raise issues in relation to the media coverage of rape and other forms of GBV.

The journalist at the centre of the interview, Chriselda Lewis, has been accused of unethical journalism. It would seem she displayed a wilful blindness to the existence of rape culture in South Africa, which is now being normalised by Ninow’s mother as “a mistake”.

One response read:

“Journalism owes its being to the people it serves. Without the people, there is no journalism. If people don’t want you to give airtime to a rapist, morality and journalism ethics dictate such. You cannot put the needs of a rapist above the needs of a rape survivor!”

From many responses that immediately caught my eye is one that read:

“A mistake is buying white bread when you were told to buy brown bread. Rape is not a mistake. #NicholasNinow”.

The outrage against this interview and the “mistake argument” must be understood broadly, including the fact that rape originated as a property offence during ancient societies, which viewed women as chattel. A rapist would thus be treated for unlawfully taking another man’s property, and not for the crime committed against a woman.

We can equate the interview with treating the little girl’s violation as some property that was mistakenly damaged/broken by Nicholas Ninow, considering his mother’s crocodile tears plea. Also, the interview in the context of the angle it took, amounted to the “Third Rape” of the little girl, beyond the completed trial process, following the initial rape (First Rape) at Dros and the “Second Rape” in the courtroom.

The journalist should have considered the fact that the emotional scars of the little girl who suffered at the hands of Ninow will stay with her, probably for the rest of her life. That there was the risk of the little girl watching TV and being told her rape was not rape, but a grave mistake committed by “poor” Nicholas Ninow.

In fact, it would be like subjecting her to the “Fourth Rape” in the comfort and security of her home TV room. With combating GBV at the top of the list and a national imperative, journalists can do better by spending more time deciphering the magnitude of sexual violence in South Africa and how victims such as the little girl in the “Monster of Dros” rape will recover and heal from the violence perpetrated against them.

The interview put focus and shone the undeserved limelight on the plight of the rapist, his mother, child and girlfriend. This makes me wonder: are our journalists properly trained to cover rape issues? From an ethical point of view, our journalists must have the presence of mind that such and similar stories or interviews trample on public sensitivity. The pain the little girl suffered at the hands of Nicholas Ninow should have guided the journalist to draw a difficult, yet important, balance between her professional obligation to inform and sensitivity.

The truth is that there was nothing informative about this interview. To put it in journalistic terms, this interview was not newsworthy because it presented nothing new from what had been heard in court in mitigation on behalf of Nicholas Ninow. If anything, it was a dichotomous emotional appeal by a mother who does not want to appreciate the pain and suffering of the little girl and her mother. A mother whose interest is only in protecting her rapist son.

Admittedly, the obligation to inform or to disseminate information often places journalists at a fork on the road, in some sort of a double bind. Perhaps the SABC and the SA National Editors’ Forum need to come into the picture to put into context this sad interview with reference to the journalistic Code of Conduct. Surely journalists have a responsibility to protect victims of rape? For me this it is not about censorship; it is about sensitivity. DM