ABSTRACT

A news reporting scandal implicating South Africa’s Sunday Times in allegations of facilitating state capture during the regime of former president Jacob Zuma provoked debate over the proper journalistic practice, roles and guiding ethical values between journalists and press critics (e.g., academics). The majority of journalists defended the liberal normative news paradigm, while others joined hands with academics in questioning some of the norms’ adequacy in the post-apartheid socio-political and technological context. The study argues that what emerges here is neither traditional paradigm repair nor paradigm reconsideration but tensions over paradigm adaptation to modify conventional journalism norms to suit the South African context. In other words, the scandal reignited post-apartheid debates about the role of the news media and what professionalism means.

摘要

新闻报道丑闻牵扯到南非的《星期日泰晤士报》在前总统雅各布·祖玛（Jacob Zuma）政权期间促进国家俘获的指控中，引发了关于适当的新闻实践，角色和指导记者与新闻评论家（例如学者）之间的道德价值观的辩论。大多数记者为自由规范新闻范式辩护，而其他记者则与学者联手质疑种族隔离后社会政治和技术背景下某些规范的适当性。该研究认为，这里出现的既不是传统范式的修复也不是范式的重新考虑，而是关于范式适应以修改传统新闻业准则以适应南非背景的紧张关系。换句话说，这起丑闻再次引发了种族隔离之后关于新闻媒体的作用以及专业精神意味着什么的争论。