Journalism in Crisis? Framing Presidential Political Scandals in South African Media

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of the framing of the alleged political scandals involving the former President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, and the current President, Cyril Ramaphosa. Specifically, it examines two scandals, the Nkandla homestead upgrades controversy linked to Zuma and the Phala Phala farm controversy associated with Ramaphosa. The study scrutinized how these scandals were portrayed by three different media organizations: News24, TimesLive and IOL. The study’s findings indicated that in the case of the Nkandla homestead upgrades controversy, the media held the former president and his administration accountable, fulfilling its watchdog role and informing the public about the incident. However, concerning the Phala Phala farm controversy, the media exhibited less scrutiny and took a more defensive stance toward the current president and his administration. These findings highlight the complexities of media bias and selective accountability in political reporting. The study underscores the role of media framing in shaping public perception, influencing democratic discourse, and potentially affecting political legitimacy. By revealing discrepancies in how different political figures are scrutinized, this paper contributes to broader debates on media ethics, journalistic objectivity and the media’s role in upholding democratic principles in South Africa.