When Neutrality is a Lie

How Editorial Gatekeeping Warps South Africa’s Media Landscape

Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash

In any healthy democracy, the media should serve as both a watchdog against the abuse of power and a facilitator of open, balanced discourse. Editors, in turn, are entrusted with the responsibility of curating information and commentary in pursuit of truth, not ideology. They should act as neutral arbiters in the battle of ideas, safeguarding the public square where divergent views can be heard.

But in South Africa today, too many editors at prominent publications have abandoned that role. Rather than upholding journalistic impartiality, they increasingly act as ideological gatekeepers, shaping coverage and access to platforms based on their own political or activist convictions.

The Illusion of Impartiality

Publications like News24, Daily Maverick, Mail & Guardian, and IOL maintain reputations as reliable, balanced sources of news. Collectively, they reach millions of readers each day and are trusted by the public to report fairly and objectively.

Yet behind the scenes, editorial processes in many of these outlets are anything but impartial. Attempts to contact editors often go unanswered. When replies do come, they’re frequently dismissive, citing vague editorial standards or personal discretion rather than clear, evenly applied criteria.

While every media house has the right to determine what it publishes, the implicit promise of neutrality, and the trust that comes with it, creates a public expectation of openness to a broad range of perspectives. When that trust is broken, it undermines the credibility of the entire media ecosystem.

Activism in the Editor’s Chair

There is a growing tendency among editors and journalists to adopt the posture of activist rather than professional. This shift blurs the line between reporting and campaigning. Opinion pieces that diverge from the editorial consensus, especially on contentious global issues like the Israel–Gaza conflict, are often rejected, ignored, or subjected to heightened scrutiny.

In my own efforts to publish professional, well-researched commentary that challenges dominant narratives, I’ve frequently encountered inconsistent standards. Opinion submissions that express even moderate support for Israel are met with unusually high demands for citation and tone policing. Requirements not equally enforced for pro-Palestinian content.

This imbalance extends beyond editorial decisions to the platforms’ broader framing. A simple keyword search for “Israel” or “Gaza” across several major publications yields a starkly one-sided picture. Headlines routinely portray Israel as the sole aggressor, often without context or counterbalance. When alternative perspectives do appear, they are typically published after heavy-editing, badgering of the editor, and often the enforcement of a right of reply.

A Case Study in Double Standards

Editors frequently defend their decisions by pointing to editorial guidelines. But these guidelines are inconsistently enforced and often so subjective that they function more as shields than standards.

In one case, a response article I submitted correcting misinformation was rejected for having a tone deemed “inflammatory.” Yet the same publication had no issue publishing personal attacks directed at me, some bordering on defamation. Elsewhere, editors have requested citations for general moral arguments or subjective analysis that would never require sourcing in standard practice.

Another article I wrote on the mass sexual violence committed on October 7^th was criticised as unfactual, despite being supported by multiple sources, including eyewitness accounts and verified forensic evidence. Meanwhile, less substantiated claims that align with prevailing editorial narratives are routinely published with minimal scrutiny.

This pattern reveals a troubling reality: editorial neutrality is often a veneer. When content affirms the editor’s worldview, it slides through. When it challenges it, the bar is set far higher, if not insurmountable.

Beyond Israel and Gaza: The Broader Impact

While the Israel–Gaza conflict illustrates this editorial bias vividly, the problem is not confined to one issue. A legacy of incidents, such as HuffPost SA’s publication of a controversial piece advocating the disenfranchisement of white males. suggests a broader pattern of editorial decisions being guided more by ideology than principle.

At times, this has veered into outright irresponsibility. For instance, IOL published comments from Palestinian Solidarity Campaign’s Professor Chikte alleging that the December 2024 bombing of the Cape Town Jewish Centre was a “false flag” operation. An unsubstantiated and dangerous claim left unchallenged in the reporting.

This illustrates how editorial slant can, in extreme cases, lend legitimacy to conspiracy theories or harmful rhetoric, while marginalising reasoned, fact-based counterarguments.

The Way Forward

None of this is to suggest that editors and journalists must be free of opinions. Total objectivity is impossible, and indeed, expecting it is naïve. But professionalism requires that personal beliefs be subordinated to editorial fairness. It requires an openness to good-faith arguments from all sides, and a willingness to publish views that challenge one's own.

There are editors who embody this ethic, who set aside their personal politics to ensure that diverse perspectives are published. But they are becoming the exception, not the norm.

If South Africa’s leading media houses are going to maintain their public trust, they must confront this creeping editorial activism. If they truly wish to serve as guardians of truth and pillars of democracy, they must choose: will they be professionals who allow the contest of ideas to flourish, or ideologues who suppress dissent from the shadows?

Nicholas Woode-Smith is the Managing Editor of the Rational Standard, a political analyst and author. He writes in his personal capacity.