How to identify a smear campaign in the media.

A smear campaign, a form of character assassination through false allegations, employs discrediting tactics such as labelling, relentless attacks, removal of context, omission of critical information, image manipulation, guilt by association, unverifiable rumours, distortion of facts, blatant lies, and half-truths. The audience must be aware of these tactics and take responsibility for identifying and calling out smear campaigns.

Labelling, the media’s most apparent tactic to destroy people’s reputations, has a significant impact on the audience. These labels, often inaccurate, are used repeatedly across different media outlets, altering the audience’s perception of the victim of the smear campaign. This awareness can help the audience become more cautious and critical of such tactics. Another relevant unethical media tactic is deliberately removing context from a story.

Context, or background information, is crucial for news consumers to form a well-rounded conclusion on an issue. Understanding context’s importance makes the audience feel more informed and equipped to evaluate news stories critically. Another tool the media uses for a smear campaign is publishing the same story repeatedly. If you repeat a lie enough times, it will become the truth for the news consumer.

THE CASE OF KWASIZABANTU MISSION – NEWS24 REPORTAGE

The media coverage of the unfounded allegations against the KwaSizabantu Mission has ample examples and cross-references of journalistic tactics misused to tell lies and fabricate stories from a few discredited sources. It represents a wide variety:

• Framing the mission as a cult where women and children are abused and the founder, Erlo Stegen, as a cultish leader.

• Comparing KwaSizabantu with Christian institutions that were found guilty of abuse in the past. • Providing condensed lists of cover terms that are misleading.

• Using emotive language extensively and listing hyper-charged words with opposing meanings to spark emotions.

• Wrongfully omitting the words ‘allegations’ or ‘alleged’ to give the impression the mission was found guilty. Omitting the word ‘alleged’ did not allow any room for alternative views.

• Advancing a smear campaign of individuals with a personal agenda.

• The media employed many techniques to sensationalise its stories. The coverage had numerous examples of editorial sloppiness.

• It was rife with inherently aggressive and insulting rhetoric and tone, especially toward the founder and head of the mission.

• Alternative views were gagged into silence.

• The reportage contained slogan-like headlines that villainise the mission

• The content of the media campaign was not in accord with the truth. It contained hearsay, false accusations, exaggerations, sensationalised content, deception and spurious attacks disguised as objective criticism.

SOURCES:

1. Devoted Online Magazine: https://www.devotedmag.co.za?

2. A JOURNEY TO THE TRUTH: The case of KwaSizabantu Mission: Potgieter, Gerda: 9780639797038: Amazon.com: Books: https://www.amazon.com/JOURNEY-TRUTH-case-KwaSizabantu-Mission/dp/0639797032