The Department of Communications says it is “flabbergasted”\u00a0by Sunday Times editor\u2019s confession that the newspaper collaborated with the Democratic Alliance against minister Dina Pule.<\/p>\n
The DoC said that Sunday Times editor Phylicia Oppelt confirmed in the City Press newspaper that the Sunday Times collaborated with the Democratic Alliance in an attempt to influence the outcome of the Parliament\u2019s Ethics and Members\u2019 Interests Committee in the matter involving minister Pule.<\/p>\n
In an article headlined \u201cMore twists in the Pule inquiry\u201d, the City Press said it is in possession of a document submitted to the Parliament\u2019s committee. City Press further stated that the DA MP Dianne Kohler Barnard handed the document, which contains information provided to her by the Sunday Times.<\/p>\n
“The department strongly condemns the unethical conduct of the Sunday Times and its editors. We call on the South African National Editor\u2019s Forum (Sanef) to take note of this shameful behaviour by the Sunday Times editor, who is supposed to exercise due care when dealing with matters of this nature,” The DoC said in a statement.<\/p>\n
It stated that Kohler Barnard had initially sought to hide the source of the information by claiming that it was from an \u201canonymous source\u201d.<\/p>\n
“However, she was caught out and exposed that the information was from the Sunday Times because she had foolishly forgotten to delete references to the Sunday Times in the document, which then gave away the source as being the Sunday Times. This is desperation of the highest order characterized by witch-hunt, misinformation, and manipulation of facts to satisfy the undying desire on the part of the Sunday Times and its handlers to ensure Minister Pule\u2019s downfall by hook or crook,” the DoC said.<\/p>\n
According\u00a0to the government department, the latest revelation raises serious questions about the Sunday Times\u2019 independence and its adherence to the press code. “The Sunday Times is no longer just the messenger. It has become part of the story. Oppelt\u2019s confession raises the spectre of the dark days of apartheid when the nexus between politics and journalism was often murky and shameful,” it said.<\/p>\n
The DoC argued that in trying to justify the Sunday Times newspaper\u2019s unethical conduct, Oppelt told the City Press she had decided to provide information to the DA as she was \u201cconcerned that the committee might reach finding based on partial or incomplete evidence\u201d.<\/p>\n
It stated that the MP claimed the Sunday Times had released the information to the DA in the public interest.<\/p>\n
In its statement, the DoC pointed to a number of questions:<\/p>\n
Is it in the public interest when the Sunday Times collaborate with a member of the committee, which is supposed to be neutral, against Minister Pule? The Ethics Committee is supposed to be just, fair and objective to make a determination based on the information before them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
How did the Sunday Times, on the first day of the hearing, become aware that there was \u201cpartial or incomplete evidence\u201d being considered by the Ethics Committee?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
What does Sunday Times stand to gain from assisting the committee to address \u201cpartial or incomplete evidence\u201d on the first day of the hearing? Was it perhaps Kohler Barnard herself who informed the Sunday Times of the \u201cpartial or incomplete evidence\u201d?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Why did the Sunday Times submit this information to the DA on the first day of the hearing when they had this information long before this?;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Why did the Sunday Times submit the information \u201canonymously\u201d through a member of the DA instead of following normal Parliamentary processes which allows for anyone to submit a complaint against a Member of Parliament?;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Why did the Sunday Times submit to the DA instead of submitting to the secretary of the committee or the leadership of Parliament?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Why did the Sunday Times attempt to hide their identity if, as Oppelt claims, that their intention was to assist the committee and act in the public interest?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
The parties in this matter is the Minister on the one hand and the committee on the other. Can the Sunday Times explain the role of the DA in this matter and their inordinate interest to package a case against the Minister?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The government department accused the The Sunday Times of disgracing South African journalism.<\/p>\n
“The Press Ombudsman must investigate what is clearly a serious breach of the South African Press Code,” it said.<\/p>\n
More on the DoC<\/h3>\n
Pule allegations will not stick: DoC<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n
Dina Pule\u2019s romance and lies: Sunday Times<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n
Pule takes Sunday Times to Ombudsman over \u201cdefamatory articles\u201d<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n
No apology to Sunday Times, says minister Pule<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n
Pule caught lying: report<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n
Phosane Mngqibisa is not my boyfriend: Dina Pule<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n