Category: Freedom of Expression

Trial by Media: Freedom Of Expression In Modern Technological Era

In the modern technological era, the influence of the media is ubiquitous. Smart phones permit instant and continuous access to the latest news, including – even especially – stories relating to crime. The question of how the legal system might adapt to the role of the media demands a consideration of several factors. Firstly, discussion of two fundamental rights which conflict in this context – freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial – will show that the latter right must prevail, and the impact of the media minimised. Secondly, an examination of ways in which a legal system might lessen the media’s impact will allow the conclusion to be reached that juror selection should be considered in Scotland.

Freedom of expression and a fair trial are rights enshrined in Scots Law and are recognised as fundamental in international legal instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . On one hand, freedom of expression and unrestrained media is vital to safeguarding the rule of law as it ensures public scrutiny and that the judiciary can be held to account by publicising failures to adhere to due process. Conversely, it presents a danger to the right to a fair trial. The media’s dissemination of details of a crime, often inadmissible as evidence and exaggerated, can lead to jury bias and impede proper solemn process. Therefore, the rationale behind freedom of expression and the role of the media (ensuring judicial accountability and justice) requires media restriction. It is therefore submitted that the right to a fair trial must prevail over the right to freedom of expression and unrestrained media. This too is the position in Scots Law. Paragraph 2 to Article 10 of the ECHR qualifies the right to freedom of expression as permitting restriction where necessary for the protection of the rights of others, while Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial by permitting restraint of the media where it would prejudice the interest of justice. The legal system must not, therefore, adapt to and embrace ‘trial by media’, but must rather obstruct it. The ways in which it might do so will now be considered.

The role of the media in criminal trials can be restrained through the imposition of liability for impeding the course of justice. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 (hereinafter ‘the 1981 Act’) ss. 1 and 2 do so by making the publication of material which creates “a substantial risk that the course of justice […] will be seriously impeded or prejudiced” an offence, regardless of intent. It is argued that the high threshold – requiring a substantial and serious threat – aims to provide an appropriate balance between the conflicting rights to freedom of expression and to a fair trial. The media may not be unduly restrained so that it can continue to publicise information for public benefit without harming the individual accused. However, there are doubts as to the efficacy of the 1981 Act in practice. In Attorney General v MGN an application brought against five newspapers whose media coverage forced the trial judge to stay proceedings was dismissed. It was held that each publication had to be considered independently. In this sense, the 1981 Act has been criticised for failing to account for the cumulative effect of media coverage. With the press now able to reach potential jurors through social media and smart phones, and the widespread dissemination of information facilitated by technology, the collective impact of the media should not be ignored.

Given the difficulty in controlling media coverage in the modern world, perhaps more attention should be given to the possibility of jury instructions and selection in obstructing ‘trial by media’. Jurors in Scotland are given directions, including to disregard inadmissible evidence, such as that which may already have been publicised in media coverage. However, psychological studies suggest that such instructions are ineffective . Jurors cannot unhear what is already heard, so to speak, and bias persists to the detriment of a fair trial. A further measure to eliminate juror bias which can be created by pre-trial publicity is therefore required. Juror selection is a possibility. In Scotland, jurors are chosen at random from the electoral register. In other jurisdictions, notably in US federal juries , potential jurors are questioned by voir dire and excused before trial on suspicion of bias. Judges examine potential members, and both prosecution and defence can strike members to ensure a balance of mentality for the jury.

The individual accused’s right to a fair trial prevails in Scots Law over the right to freedom of expression. With rapid advancements in technology, it is increasingly difficult to restrain media coverage. The 1981 Act does not go far enough in holding the press in contempt of court as it fails to consider the cumulative impact of publications and the omnipresence of the media in modern times. Measures which can limit the impact of media coverage on jurors, to eliminate bias and ensure a fair trial, are therefore essential. Juror directions to disregard inadmissible evidence which may already have been presented by the press are arguably ineffective. It is concluded, therefore, that juror selection in Scotland by voir dire should be seriously considered by policy makers as reducing bias and minimising the effects of pre-trial publicity – thereby preventing adaptation to ‘trial by media’.

Freedom Of Expression: Law And Regulation Of The Media

“Freedom of expression as guaranteed by international law and The Constitution of Kenya 2010 is difficult to realize because of the claw-back provisions in the relevant statutes.” Anon. Using case law, interrogate the validity of the above statement.

Article 2 of the Constitution of Kenya states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic and binds all persons and all State organs at both levels of government[footnoteRef:1], it goes further on at Article 260 to define ‘persons’ as both the natural and juridical person[footnoteRef:2]. [1: Constitution of Kenya, 2010 Article 2(1)] [2: Ibid Article 260]

Article 2(4) of the same Constitution provides that, “any law, including customary law, that is inconsistent with this Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and any act or omission in contravention of this Constitution is invalid.”

The Constitution of Kenya further provides for freedom of expression at Article 33 guaranteeing every person the right to freedom of expression, which includes—

• freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas;
• freedom of artistic creativity; and
• academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

Article 2(5) and (6) go even further by providing that any International Law shall form part of our laws as it provides that generals rules of international law as well as treaties or conventions which Kenya has ratified.

In spite of these provisions, however, certain claw-back provisions do exist. The phrase “claw-back” clause has often been used to refer to those provisions touching on human rights that seek to minimize or limit some of the rights guaranteed under such law.

The first claw-back provision towards the achievement of the freedom of expression espoused in Article 33 of the Constitution lies in Article 24(1) of the same Constitution which provides that;

“A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors”[footnoteRef:3] [3: Ibid Article 24(1)]

Further the African Charter, forming part of the laws of Kenya vide Article 2(6) of the Constitution also guarantees freedom of expression at Article 9 which provides that Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.[footnoteRef:4] [4: ‘African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Legalinstruments’ accessed 24 March 2020.]

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees the freedom of Expression however Article 19(3) of the same ICCPR introduces the provisions that, “The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”[footnoteRef:5] [5: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19]

From both the Constitution, the Charter as well as the ICCPR the claw-back provisions run thus, “except by law”, “subject to certain restrictions” as well as “within the law.” The introduction of such provisions provides States, in this case Kenya with an opportunity or rather an avenue to use their municipal laws to circumvent the enjoyment of such freedom.

For quite some time after the promulgation of the new constitution in 2010 which has been hailed by some as being one of the most progressive Constitution s in Africa boasting of a robust Bill of Rights, criminal defamation still existed under Section 197 of the Penal Code which provided that “Any person who, by print, writing, painting or effigy, or by any means otherwise than solely by gestures, spoken words or other sounds, unlawfully publishes any defamatory matter concerning another person, with intent to defame that other person, is guilty of the misdemeanour termed libel.”[footnoteRef:6] This provisions of Section 194 of the Penal Code was used by the Government to silence critics at times of those in power as was the case in Republic v Jackson Kituu Kiilu & Francis Nderitu Muchiri[footnoteRef:7] where the two accused were charged with intent to defame Reuben Chesire, they published defamatory matters concerning the said Rebuen Chesire namely, he is corrupt, immoral and looted Kshs.18 million from Kenya Grain Growers Cooperative union. The two were however acquitted with the State going further to appeal the said acquittal in which the appeals Court dismissed the appeal and agreed with the trial Court. [6: Penal Code, Cap 63, Laws of Kenya Section 194(now repealed) ] [7: Criminal Case No.11010 of 2003]

This provision however, has been ruled to offend the constitution in Petition 397 of 2016 in which the Learned Judge stated that, “ The freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and circulate one’s ideas, opinions and views with complete freedom and by resorting to any available means of publication; subject again to such restrictions as could be legitimately imposed under article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010…The reasonable restrictions are those which are meant to prevent the expression of thought which is intrinsically dangerous to public interest and would not include anything else. The enabling power in article 24 of the Constitution to impose reasonable restrictions on the right conferred by article 33 of the Constitution was intended to safeguard the interests of the state and the general public and not of any individual, and therefore article 24 of the Constitution could not be regarded as the source of authority for section 194 of the Penal Code which made defamation of any person an offence…”[footnoteRef:8] with the Court going ahead to state that such provision sought to protect individual interest and not public interest as envisaged by the Framers of the Supreme Law in Article 24 of the Constitution. [8: Jackueline Okuta & another vs. Attorney General & 2 others (2017) eKLR]

Further, the Security Law (Amendment) Act, 2014 also introduced some claw-back provisions cutting into Article 33 of the Constitution. Section 12 of this Act sought to amend the Penal Code by inserting Section 66A to the said Penal Code which had provided that;

1. A person who publishes, broadcasts or causes to be published or distributed, through print, digital or electronic means, insulting, threatening, or inciting material or images of dead or injured persons which are likely to cause fear and alarm to the general public or disturb public peace commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both.
2. A person who publishes or broadcasts any information which undermines investigations or security operations by the National Police Service or the Kenya Defence Forces commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or an imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.
3. The freedom of expression and the freedom of the media under Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution shall be limited as specified under this section for the purposes of limiting the publication or distribution of material likely to cause public alarm, incitement to violence or disturb public peace.”

The Act went further to provide for Section 64 which had an effect of introducing Section 30A to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) which provided that “A person who publishes or utters a statement that is likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging or inducing another person to commit or prepare to commit an act of terrorism commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years” as well as Section 30F to the POTA Act to provide that, “(1) Any person who, without authorisation from the National Police Service, broadcasts any information which undermines investigations or security operations relating to terrorism commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding five million shillings, or both. (2) A person who publishes or broadcasts photographs of victims of a terrorist attack without the consent of the National Police Service and of the victim commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment for a period not exceed three years or to a fine of five million shillings, or both. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) any person may publish or broadcast factual information of a general nature to the public.” Such provisions as held by the Court in Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD) & 2 others v Republic of Kenya &10 others [2015] eKLR

Were declared unconstitutional for violating the freedom of expression and the media guaranteed under Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution. The need to seek ‘authorization’ and ‘consent’ from the National Police Service to broadcast security operations was a claw-back provision which gave the state a sort of censorship power over information which the state did not want to be broadcasted.

The Kenya Information and Communications Act (KICA) has also had a controversial provision which stated that, “A person who by means of a licensed telecommunication system-(a)sends a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b)sends a message that he knows to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.” This provision was challenged at the High Court as offending Article 33 of the Constitution and the Court agreed with the petitioner in Geoffrey Andare v Attorney General & 2 others [2016] eKLR subsequently.

The Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Act has also brought with it certain provisions that may be argued to be claw-back provisions when it comes to the full realization of the freedom of expressions envisaged in the constitution. The Act gives the State a wide range of power including the power to prosecute those who publish false or misleading posts which have been popularly referred to as ‘fake news’.Critics of the Kenyan Cybercrimes law such as Demas Kiprono argue that the law goes above and beyond to deal with free speech matters, as opposed to crimes that are peculiar to cyberspace with regard to ICT systems, transactions, and communication.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Demas Kiprono, ‘Cybercrime Laws Blow to Freedom of Expression’ (The Standard) accessed 25 March 2020.]

The Act was challenged in Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) v Attorney General & 3 others; Article 19 East Africa & another (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR at the High Court over its constitutionality with the petitioners contending that section 23 of the Act is similar to section 29 of the Kenya Information and Communication Act which was declared unconstitutional in Geoffrey Andere vs. Attorney General & 2 others (2016) eKLR as well as section 23 which reintroduces criminal defamation, formerly based on section 194 of the Penal Code; which section was declared unconstitutional in Jackueline Okuta & another vs. Attorney General & 2 others (2017) eKLR. The Court however found that no section of the Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Act offended any provision of the Supreme Law and thus declared the Act Constitutional in its entirety. This decision thus means that the provisions found in Sections 22 and 23 of the Act on criminalizing false publications fall well within the claw-back provisions that allow limiting of such freedom freedom of expression ‘within the law’ and as such poses a danger to the full realization of such provision.

From my above illustration of certain provisions of our laws that have sought to hinder the full realization of the Freedom of Expression as well as certain instances in which the Courts have pronounced itself on such provisions, I am persuaded to agree with the statement that Freedom of expression as guaranteed by international law and The Constitution of Kenya 2010 is difficult to realize because of the claw-back provisions in the relevant statute. Such provisions at times are used to abuse the freedom of expression by the state which hides behind “public interest” as well as the fact that the Constitution at Article 24 as well as certain International Law Instruments falling under Article 2(5) & (6) provide a grey area as long as the state is acting ‘within the law’.

It is important to note that in enjoyment of a right such as freedom of expression, the state equally has a positive duty to protect its citizens against attacks by others. In the European Court of Human Rights in Özgür Gündem vs. Turkey, 16 March 2000, Application No. 23144/93 observed that the genuine, effective exercise of this freedom does not depend merely on the State’s duty not to interfere, but may require positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals. From such foregoing it is clear that states must not legislate on legislation that has an effect of hampering the realization and protection of the Freedom of Expression as a matter of General international law principles.

This thus begs the question, who gets to determine what public good is and is it not counterproductive to allow a state curtail freedom of expression as long as it is “within the law?”

While the State has long been held and is still held as the custodian of public interest, at times this is not the case. As I have illustrated above, these provisions have at times been used or rather introduced with the intent of being used to serve individual interest at times to the detriment of the public good. Whereas States remain sovereign with the power to formulate their own sovereign municipal laws such laws in my view must conform to provisions of Freedom of Expression. While I am of the thought that Freedom of Expression should not be absolute, I am of the view that limitations to such freedom must only be of a civil nature so as to prevent the state from using the law to curtail such freedom. Issues such as false publications as set out in the Computer misuse and Cybercrimes Act should be dealt with as a tort by the aggrieved persons since Article 33 as well as other International Law instruments binding Kenya under Article 2 of the the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 do not make the truth a necessary condition to the right to freedom of expression.

The role our Courts have played in ensuring that the Freedom of Expression set out in Article 33 of the Constitution as well as other Instruments such as the ICCPR as well as the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights is protected should never be gainsaid. While others may argue that the State should limit such freedom on grounds of public interest, public good, national security or even public order, I form the view that we must learn from our past as were the ‘dark days’ of the KANU regimes which used the law to crack down on any dissidents by stifling all forms of expressions that angered the State under the guise of national security or public order as well as the NARC regime that still used legal provisions such as public order and national security during the 2006 Raid on the Standard Media Group.[footnoteRef:10] [10: Protus Onyango, ‘“Standard Group” Attack 12 Years On’ (The Standard) accessed 25 March 2020.]

In conclusion, the Constitution of Kenya promulgated in 2010 has provided for a robust protection of this freedom though efforts are still being made by some State actors to undermine the same through introduction of statutory provisions that offend such freedom. These efforts are enabled by the claw-back clauses as shown above which provide the leeway to circumvent the protection of the freedom of expression.

The Bill of Rights, and more so the Freedom of Expression must never be sacrificed at any altar, more so the altar of convenience.

• List of Statutes
• The Constitution of Kenya, 2010
• The Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Act
• The Kenya Information and Communication Act
• The Penal Code
• The Prevention of Terrorism Act
• The Security Laws (Amendments) Act
• List of Treaties and Conventions
• The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• List of Case Laws
• Özgür Gündem vs. Turkey, 16 March 2000, Application No. 23144/93
• Republic v Jackson Kituu Kiilu & another [2005] eKLR
• Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD) & 2 others v Republic of Kenya &10 others [2015] eKLR
• Geoffrey Andare v Attorney General & 2 others [2016] eKLR
• Jackueline Okuta & another vs. Attorney General & 2 others (2017) eKLR
• Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) v Attorney General & 3 others; Article 19 East Africa & another (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR
• Works Cited
• ‘African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Legalinstruments’ accessed 24 March 2020
• Kiprono D, ‘Cybercrime Laws Blow to Freedom of Expression’ (The Standard) accessed 25 March 2020
• Onyango P, ‘“Standard Group” Attack 12 Years On’ (The Standard) accessed 25 March 2020

Role of Self-regulation for Freedom of Expression, Free Media and Freedom of Speech

Introduction

The media in South Africa works in a domain liberated from oppression, persecution and the harsh enactment which, looked to limit and control it. The constitution of South Africa dug in free media, freedom of articulation, and speech.Puddephatt(2011:11) states that ‘ the media can work as a guard dog, advancing government straightforwardness and open examination of those with power through uncovering corruption. This suggests that the media go about as the fourth estate. The section will characterize the term ‘ Self-regulation’. The motivation behind the passage is to contend the significance of self-guideline and features set of accepted rules that improve and ensure the impact of self-regulation in South Africa. The passage argues why media self-regulation is much better than statutory law in a democratic republic. It will further discuss the pros and cons of media self-regulation in South Africa, in light of the ANC government’s proposal to introduce a media Appeals Tribunal. In context, Self-regulation is best because it promotes and enhances the freedom of expression, free media and freedom of speech. The state is compelled by a sense of honor to respect, protect, advance, and satisfy these opportunities. These are additionally different organizations that help media assorted variety and access to media by all. Media self-regulation is much more favorable in a democratic society because it enables journalists to work freely. The purpose of this paragraph is to discuss the internal & external regulations. They’re namely: code of conduct, accountability, transparency etc. It will further discuss that media self-regulation enhances freedom of speech & expression; Act as a public watchdog; act as a cornerstone of democracy because the state is coherent. Media self-regulation is more vital in promoting freedom of speech & expression. Media self-regulation can likewise act as a watchdog ( Fourth estate) and it exercises the right of journalists. Journalists act freely because of the act accordingly to the code of conduct or the South African Bill of rights. Media self-regulation promotes transparency & accountability.

2. Definition of Media self-regulation

Media self-regulations alludes to the mix of principles setting out the proper codes of conduct for the media that are important to help freedom of speech and procedures in a manner will these practices will be observed or held into account( Puddephatt,2011: 12). This essentially implies that the media association set conventions for themselves and cling to those principles as a rule of how to play out their work. Haraszti (2008:9) define media self-regulation as “a joint endeavor by media professionals to set voluntarily editorials guidelines and abide by them.” Self-regulation jam freedom of media and shields it from fanatic government impedance.

3. The importance of media self-regulation

This passage will harp much on the significance of self-regulation as it assumes an urgent job in numerous perspectives. The significance of media self-regulation is that it causes media to disperse stories, thoughts, and data and go about as a remedial to the ‘regular asymmetry of data’ among governors and administered (Islam,2002,{ no page numbers}). The media organizations likewise get acknowledgment of not being promulgation machines for people with great influence, but rather as a solid wellspring of information. The media organizations are essential to the activity of opportunity of articulation since they give the open stage through which this privilege is adequately worked out.

For example, a couple of years back, the EFF ludgeoned the ANN7 and The new age, as purposeful publicity machines for the ANC( African National Congress) on the grounds that the Gupta family is affirmed to have close ties with the previous ANC president, Jacob Zuma. The EFF prohibited these two media associations from going to its question and answer sessions later on and individuals began being questionable about news inclusion. The New age is liable for the dispersal of information during the stay capture and it acts for the ANC paying little mind to claims made. This just shows how significant self-regulation for media associations in light of the fact that once the crowd is questionable of it’s validity the outcome will be that media associations will end up losing clients.

Media self-regulation is more fundamental than government guidelines since it gives more noteworthy activities to compliance (Campbell,1999:716). Media self-regulation can likewise work as a Watchdog, advancing government straightforwardness and open examination of those with power through uncovering corruption, maladministration and corporate bad behaviour.

Media self-regulation is progressively adaptable in light of the fact that it is simpler to alter controls in light of the evolving conditions. Media self-regulation serve to strengthen the intensity of personal stakes and fuel social imbalances by barring the underestimated voice.

Media self-regulation protects the independence of media. Media assume a hugely significant job in the insurance of human rights. They uncover human rights infringement and offer a field for various voices to be heard out in the open talk. In any case, media self-regulation can likewise be abused to the degree that the working of vote based system is compromised in light of the fact that it is increasingly appropriate to a majority rule government with freedom of speech & expression.

3.1.1. Media self-regulation is beneficial in promoting media freedom and freedom of expression

Media self-regulation is superior to legal for center reasons, notwithstanding, Media self-guideline is increasingly good since it advances opportunity of articulation for a writer. Media self-regulation is advantageous or unfavorable for media opportunity since it advocates media opportunity on the internet; it elevates access to government-held data; it ensures columnists in instances of detainment and physical assaults etc. Media associations are relied upon to go about as watchdog/ fourth domain for the benefit of the populace on the loose. Media self-regulation is the best weapon in advancing free media and freedom of expression. Freedom of expression/articulation and media is a significant part of our individual advancement as people and as ‘ political creatures’ and to improve and radicalize democracies. Zlavet(2011:12) states that freedom of speech empowers writers to work uninhibitedly and not be threatened by people with significant influence.

Fourie(2008:37) contends that without a free media and a media uncontrolled to illuminate, observe, and look at the work and conduct of legislators, associations, and people with significant influence of whatever sort in the public eye, the force could undoubtedly be mishandled in impediment of the free populace and open society. Without free media, announcing is controlled. Media face a self-censor. This sort of intensity can be attributed to the politically-sanctioned racial segregation system in South Africa. South Africa has a general media scene, with a lot of different perspectives being heard.

Media self-regulation help decrease the chilling impact of claims against media, which is certain as far as a media opportunity. For example, ANC has utilized the suspension of Steven Motale and the ‘ resultant discussion’ to state it will request that the parliament quick track the media Appeal Tribunal. The demonstration is maintaining media articulation and the right to speak freely of discourse while in actuality concealing the promise to subvert the assorted variety of perspectives.

Media self-regulation is advantageous for media freedom since it fortifies individuals basic rights to get exact and pluralist data empowering them to have educated suppositions and to take part in the law-based debate.At when everybody may accumulate and disperse data or go about as the s/he were a columnist, majority rules system despite everything requires free writers to give dependable and unbiased news. Media self-reference in this way adds to media opportunity. Some press committees even underline that advancing media opportunity is one of their center capacities. Media self-regulation should adhere to moral measures

3.1.2. Hindrances that obstruct media self-regulation

The main obstacles that appear to a have an immediate impact and help to control the substance of media are pressure gatherings. A voice of an individual gets weak if the media is enormous; along these lines pressure bunches the self-guideline of media. They become excessively powerful in setting the motivation for the media and they additionally impact the manner in which media should cover an event.To show this point, The individual from the decision party ANC, Mahumapelo couldn’t deal with the weight bunches after he supposedly said something that there was right now ‘ activation’ under route inside the ANC to get certain government officials captured.

The second factor that turns into an impediment to media self-guideline is time. Time drives journalists to underline the ongoing occasion or as of late found realities to the detriment of that which happened previously (Nel, 2005:46). This just implies late occasions are a lot of liable to be chosen for distribution. To show this,the Fees Must Fall battle can be a genuine model in light of the fact that the second came into movement open country, most of south African media,be it press or broadcasting, they all centered around the inclusion of the development for very nearly two weeks.The different media associations were constrained to focus on the crusade and different issues turns out to be less important.This basically implies that occasions like these are regarded significant on the grounds that they have been in the open eye for sometime.To exhibit this, the Marikina slaughter has been going for a long time and still no equity. Such occasions are hindering.