Reply to Makhudu, 17 August 2025 after PowerFM interview
The Editor of the Sunday Times
Hi Makhudu
I note your emails and say thank you for writing. I am thrilled that we are having the public seminar that I requested, and that you were initially opposed to. I am sorry for the delay in replying as I was following up on other work, and also what was happening in Cape Town today. This instagram shows the number of journalists who have gone out to speak for their fellow journalists who were killed by the Israeli state.https://www.instagram.com/p/DNcvncgo0l9/?hl=en
In your two emails you paint a picture of a caring and solidaristic organisation – but as I will show there are shortcomings.I appreciate particularly the articles which you referenced:Should we die on our feet or live on our knees?, as well as the new Führer of Gaza decides the fate of Palestinians. These and much more are welcomed. I fear, however, these are weakened by your belief that there are two sides to every story and in the case of a widely confirmed genocide, results in complicity with the genociders, those killing and embarking in starvations campaigns and ethnic cleansing. We are truly living at a difficult time, that I could not have imagined where the powerful countries reveal their double standards and permitting many to just perish, as for them, these are not deserving victims.
This I will detail hereunder, suffice to say that at this time of a heightened genocide your two side-ism lets down your assertion that you stand against the genocide. In today’s paper ( (Sunday Times August 17) you run a piece by Angie Segal entitled Prejudiced Tsedu is deliberately offensive – Angie Segal (South African Zionist Federation) tries to rubbish Tsedu and the fact that there is an ongoing genocide.
I will return to this later in my reply suffice to say that I have hat I have not besmirched your good name. I have attempted to speak the truth and as Cabral asserted not claim any easy victories.
PowerFM
I opened the interview the show hosted by Chris Vick on PowerFM today about truth and neutrality and quoted our beloved Arch thus:“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
When you came on Air, you reiterated this view. At the heart of your inputs on air, off air and to your sponsors, is the belief that you are, in principle, required to be neutral. You cannot do this in the time of a genocide now or during the time when the Nazi’s were exterminating Jewish people, gay men,, Roma, Black people, communists, Soviet prisoners of war and others.
I have argued similarly on other programmes about neutrality in a time of a genocide, particulary on the same day as our PowerFM interation, on Newsroom Africa interview with Thabo Mduli. Here, where in error, I stated that your Editor at Large wrote a year after the massacres on Palestinians in Gaza began asking for us to write about other things. It was a month after the ethnic cleansing and atrocities, not a year.
The genocide against Palestine is before the ICJ and the ICC. As of today over 60 000 people have been killed by Israel and possibly thousands lay dead under rubble. In addition, has Israel killed a total of 269 Palestinian journalists, according to Al Jazeera’s data from the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, and shireen.ps.
Israel’s history of false accusations against journalists is distressing local journalists activists recently argued. The CPJ’s 2023 “Deadly Pattern” report details five claims of terrorism or militant activity against journalists killed by Israeli forces between 2004 and 2018, and how many journalists Israel has accused of being members or suspected members of militant organisations – all with questionable “evidence” or none at all. At least three journalists were killed by the IDF after these claims were made.
Don’t get me wrong as a basic bottom line, we have to adhere to the Press Code, which does not address what to do in reporting genocides, or even conspiracies amongst journalists. My sense was clearly that you were not even given true balance, even by the Codes standards. If you are committed to hearing both sides you can start by affirming the victims and call out the aggressors, those with overwhelming force and power, that continue killing their victims with impunity as I write to you. Both-sideism or fake balance does not get us there.
Tsedu and Bartov vs the Zionist Federation
It is both-sideism that results in you whittling down Tsedu’s arguments. This both sideism in a time of a genocide is a game we cannot and must not play. Angie Segal from Zionist Federation in The Sunday Times today, hides the atrocities of the world’s most immoral army and engages in genocide denial. A sample of what she says goes like this: “This is what a real genocide looks like…” The low figure (we all agree it is much more) she calls “suspect” and clearly believes that it is lower. Finally she gets into victim blaming (courtesy of The Sunday Times) “Hamas has turned Gaza into one gigantic armed fortress (so Gaza blockaded themselves, cut off their own water supplies and electricity and voluntarily asked Israel to put check points? Check what Jewish NGO Btselem says about checkpoints and their number here
Omer Bartov, wrote in the Guardian a year ago, that whilst he once doubted in November 2023, when Msomi wanted us to stop his paper from talking about Gaza, that there was “no proof that genocide is now taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening. […]”
He no longer is of such a mind.
“ By the time I travelled to Israel (19 June 2024), I had become convinced that at least since the attack by the IDF on Rafah on 6 May 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions. It was not just that this attack against the last concentration of Gazans – most of them displaced already several times by the IDF, which now once again pushed them to a so-called safe zone – demonstrated a total disregard of any humanitarian standards. It also clearly indicated that the ultimate goal of this entire undertaking from the very beginning had been to make the entire Gaza Strip uninhabitable, and to debilitate its population to such a degree that it would either die out or seek all possible options to flee the territory. In other words, the rhetoric spouted by Israeli leaders since 7 October was now being translated into reality – namely, as the 1948 UN Genocide Convention puts it, that Israel was acting “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, the Palestinian population in Gaza, “as such, by killing, causing serious harm, or inflicting conditions of life meant to bring about the group’s destruction”.
Let me further develop this argument as it relates to South African newspapers. As late as 19 November 2023, a month after October 7 and a month before South Africa launched its case of Genocide against Israeli leaders, your Editor-at-Large, Arena S’thembiso Msomi wrote: “As important as Gaza is, we must turn to other issues. In recent weeks our pages have been filled with views and analysis about the Hamas-Israel war, but it’s time to move on.”
It is worth pointing out that other editors like Adrian Basson, argued similarly but this does not make it right, it is only a reflection of how much more work we all have to do. On 29 December 2023 South Africa v. Israel (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip) warned of famine, ethnic cleansing and much more. The South African government was in essence teaching the Fourth Estate, keeping it accountable.
I believe on the Power FM discussion that you be-laboured (which is your right) the fact that I got your email wrong. I cannot deny that the email was initially wrong and that I had phoned your office to enquire into your non-replies and it was remedied. All things considered, the email did eventually reach you.
But it goes to show it is not about a wrong email address that you are taking this stand, and I do not claim to be the first to say that you were being sponsored. In my final reply to the Press Council I inform the office that an activist Dr. Manjra indeed did write to your office and the editor writer concerned on 15 May 2025 and after a week heard nothing. Eventually on 23 May 2025, Mr. Msomi replied rather bureaucratically – that is to say, not substantively: “I am sorry I missed this email correspondence three days ago. I see that you first sent the original one to colleagues on the 15th. I am going to follow up with them this morning and hope to give you feedback by the end of business today (that was 23 May).”
This was the last time that he heard from you. Dr. Manjra at 1.30pm this afternoon (Sunday 17.8.25) confirmed this, adding that he was “ghosted” as no one replied to him. Finally I told the Ombud that The Sunday Times approach seemed to be geared to wearing out your critics and implied that you were not sincere in your dealings.
As you can see from the above conversation it is not about whether the email was sent or at first received etc because it eventually did reach you. At least your office offered me the courtesy of a reply, something that Dr Manjra was denied. Fundamentally what is at issue is the failure to identify sponsors of the freebie/propaganda junket and remains the central argument. It goes to the heart of media ethics especially for The Times editors who are expected as leaders within SANEF to differentiate between an impartial need to probe Israel’s conduct in Gaza/West Bank and a fully funded “Hasbara” mission. If it was about receiving emails Dr Manjra ought to have been treated better.
Press Council must rise
When I initially took the matter to the Press Council, I was not sure nor had I developed a fuller theory that the three media houses were conspiring with each other and the Zionist organisation/s.
I have subsequently confirmed that you were:
- Sponsored by a powerful lobby group, a participant in the war on Palestinians – the SAZF affiliate the SA Jewish Board of Deputies
- You failed to apologise properly in terms of the code. I make these assertions – on all platforms where the article was run. I argued that even your initial apology failed the Press Codes test as it was prominent and continued to continue to show bias.
- You remain addicted to the ideology of false balance, or both-sideism. The people you interviewed; the victims, photos used and so on – all.favoured one side. Amongst the three of you, The Citizen, Biznews and The Times, – you failed to interview Palestinians in Gaza who were being massacred in real life and in the media. All attempts were made to humanise only Israeli victims of the Hamas led attacks on Oct 7.
In my research I found that BizNews and the Sunday Times interviewed a number of people, some or many of them overlapped accross these platforms. The list of those interviewed inludes:
Dr. Sabri Saidam,
Haviv Gur,
Lieutenant-Colonel Eyal Dror,
Lieutenant-Colonel Sarit Zehavi,
Ruth Wasserman-Lande,
Orit Tzedikovitch,
Rita Yedid,
Daniel Cedar.
The only other person who had to set up the balance paradigm of both sideism was Dr. Sabri Saidam. By all accounts a good man but not in Gaza and not a victim of the genocide….although it is creeping up on the West Bank. Sabri Saidam (Deputy Secretary General) Sabri Saidam (صبري صيدم), born in Damascus in 1972, was elected to Fatah’s Central Committee (FCC) in December 2016. He is currently deputy secretary general of the FCC. He has served as an adviser to Mahmoud Abbas in various fields related to education and information technology.
- The three media houses have editors all implicated in this matter have over 90 years editorial and journalistic experience. You guys did not make a mistake, it was wilful neglect, it was consciously done and you were caught out.
- You cannot say you did not know as this is journalism 101 as I argued in the complaint. Declaring sponsorship and hearing the other side is basic. Your Editor at large wrote about this in his Nov 2023 when the killing spree of Palestinians was unfolding alongside starvation as a weapon of war. The events of 7 October 2023 have been well documented by these three papers and I will not go into it here.
What is worth reiterating is that Msomi in his November 2023 (move on piece) for all its faults does highlight critical issues about media, ethics, corruption and geopolitics such as:
- Media Distrust: Mcebisi Jonas notes declining trust in media, as people prefer news confirming their biases over objective truth, and misinformation spreads faster than facts.
- Independent Journalism: The media should verify facts firsthand rather than relying on partisan statements, but resources are an issue.
- Neutrality in Conflict: The writer argues SA’s government shouldn’t take sides in the Hamas-Israel war, as neutrality (like in Ukraine) is principled, writes Barney Mthombothi
- Coverage Challenges: Without aid groups like Gift of the Givers facilitating access, South African journalists are unlikely to report directly from the conflict zone. This is an interesting point about the Gift of the Givers which I referenced in the relief sought, I wrote about donating to the Gift of the GIvers and getting contacts from them for true balance with the victims / survivors in Gaza. I believe this shows that you were not keen to obtain real balance or am I wrong?
- My complaint was essentially about the failure of the Press Ombud and you – The Sunday Times – and the others in the complaints before the ombud, to declare tjat you acted in concert to undermine the public / readers. When the Press Council deals with cases as if they are individual problems of an errand child – it fails to see the bigger picture which can only be obtained by connecting the dots. The Press Council’s office is wrong if it does not see this connection.
- The non-declaration of sponsorship did not just happen out of the blue or by error, as you state. Journalists with close to a combined 90 years of high level media experience do not make mistakes like these. It does not just happen, Nje, Sommer so? Askies… Haibo…there was a conspiracy to defraud the public – your readers and our democracy. When I discovered this, I did not immediately think of Msomi’s piece from almost two years ago, Nov 2023 which referenced the Givers organisation, and so on – so there you had it. You knew if you wanted true balance how to get it, but chose not to do so.
- Webinar? Inquiry?When I began on this journey I was happy to settle for a public seminar but now I think the time is ripeto seriously convening a full investigation into brown envelopes, junkets and sloppy journalism that is out there in our society today. The Press Council must institute such an Inquiry in the ethics and practices of journalism – and all of society must attend and participate. We must ask why some five years after “Inquiryinto Media Ethics and Credibility” which was commissioned by the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) we are here again. Brown envelopes, two hundred rand notes, and much more.
A check on power?
- Because the Journalists are compromised they fail to keep politicians to account generally but, let us for a moment stay on the subject of Palestine-Israel. The journalists were neutralised at the same time as the political leaders, the elected leaders. In April 2025 the South African Friends of Israel (SAFI), an initiative of the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF), took a number of South African MPs on a propaganda junket similar to that of the journalists. These Members of Parliament, like their UK counterparts, met the Israeli President Isaac Herzog and government officials, thus underlying the fact that this was part of an international initiative by the Israeli government and their allies. The Labour MPs Peter Prinsley and Cat Eccles joined a “solidarity” visit funded by Labour Friends of Israel in May 2025.
The South African MPs too hid their sponsorship from public scrutiny until they could not. These MPs from the DA, ACDP, and PA visited Israel, meeting President Isaac Herzog and officials. When they declared to parliament there were discrepancies in their Declarations:
- Democratic Alliance (DA) MPs described the trip differently:
- Emma Powell: Study tour & sightseeing.
- Bridget Masango: Religious trip.
- Mlondi Mdluli & Bonginkosi Madikizela: Fact-finding mission.
- Glynnis Breytenbach, Nicholas Myburgh, Katherine Christie declared it as a gift (R110,000 each). Those in the UK were sponsored to the tune of about £2,600 per person.
- ACDP’s Steve Swart: Fact-finding & religious visit.
- Patriotic Alliance’s Ashley Sauls: To understand the Israel-Hamas conflict.
- Millicent Mathopa (PA) did not declare anything regarding the trip.
By the media houses being compromised it was easy for the politicians to do so without scrutiny. You have failed to ensure that our political office bearers are held accountable because you were both eating from the same pot!
And to tuck the so-called apology on the bottom righthand corner of page 16 (opposite the sports pages) far removed from “prominence” is utterly deceptive.
There is so much to talk about…Let us do so in the Public Media Ethics Inquiry. This is necessary to save journalism and public trust. Maybe we should do it every 4 or 5 years? The last inquiry initiated by SANEF re-affirmed the importance of self-regulation or co-regulation as many journalists like to call it. That inquiry was headed by Judge Kathleen Satchwell, as well as veteran journalist and author Rich Mkhondo, and award-winning journalist Nikiwe Bikitsha. The fourth estate purports to be a check on power but in the case of the Palestinian Genocide, the South African government has done better than the newspapers in question.
But be rest assured, I am open to being convinced by accuracy and justice not propaganda. If you heard me properly I quoted what The Citizen said to a private citizen in KZN when the sister / mother approached them to clarify their stance for the future. I read this:
CITIZEN South Africa
X(name withheld) : Our statement follows. I would like to follow it up with a full staff meeting to explain the decision as well as make sure there are no doubts.
The Citizen will no longer send anyone on sponsored trips to Israel. This is because these trips, being staged-managed and carefully curated, deliberately only portray one side of the story. It is not possible to cover the other side because on these trips journalists are restricted in where they can go and who they can talk to. No professional journalistic job can be done on such trips.
The challenge therefore, in light of the global outrage especially by media practitioners, is – will Times make a public commitment to distance itself from junkets to a regime commiting genocide and ethnic cleansing ?
We pray that The Times can do this ….
In solidarity
HASSEN LORGAT
