Lessons from the Editor
Accountability demands a face: The case for publishing Ambassador Sekete’s photo
TEBOHO KHATEBE MOLEFI
The Public Eye newspaper’s decision to feature Lesotho Ambassador to Ethiopia, Ntšiuoa Sekete’s photograph on its front page alongside the story of Tlapana Nthole’s arrest for drug smuggling in Ethiopia, and the Ambassador’s subsequent denial of knowledge, has ignited understandable public outcry.
Accusations that the image implies the ambassador’s personal involvement are serious too.
However, a rigorous examination of core journalistic principles and guidelines tell whoever felt irked by that editorial decision that the use of the photograph, while provocative, is defensible and served significant public interests.
Justification rests on the pillars of truth, accuracy in context, newsworthiness, holding power accountable and the inherent power of visual journalism.
The central journalistic imperative is reporting verified facts. In this case, Public Eye accurately reported two key, confirmed facts: That a Lesotho citizen was arrested in Ethiopia on serious drug smuggling charges – confirmed by the foreign minister Lejone Mpotjoane.
The second fact is that Ambassador Sekete, when questioned, stated she had not heard about this arrest of her own citizen.
The ambassador’s statement is itself a major news event. It is not merely a denial, it represents a potentially significant failure in diplomatic communication, consular responsibility, or governmental coordination.
Unless someone is lying in this story.
For the ambassador, the official representative of Lesotho in Ethiopia charged with protecting citizens’ interests, to be unaware of such a serious incident involving a national is inherently newsworthy and raises profound questions. The photograph serves as the direct visual representation of the source of this critical and controversial statement.
Omitting her image would have obscured the source of this crucial element of the story.
Using a generic government building or flag would have failed to connect the powerful denial to the specific individual responsible for Lesotho’s representation in Ethiopia.
Critics and social media boors argue that the image implies arrest.
However, responsible journalism, like ours, distinguishes between depiction and implication.
This story transcends a simple arrest report.
The conflicting statements from two senior Lesotho government officials, Sekete and Mpotjoane, create a legitimate and compelling news narrative of high public interest – and legitimises the use of a picture of either of them to go with the story.
Citizens have a right to expect their government, especially their embassy, to know about and assist them in such dire situations as that of Nthole. The ambassador’s claimed ignorance is alarming, as a result.
The discrepancy suggests a breakdown in communication within the Lesotho government or between the government and its embassy.
Is the ambassador ineffective, or has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs failed to inform her?
Which begs a question, where did the foreign minister get the information of Nthole’s arrest?
Wasn’t he supposed to be informed by Ambassador Sekete and her team in Addis Ababa?
So, how could she not know?
Taxpayers fund embassies and salaries of officials. The public deserves to know if their representatives are fulfilling their core duties. The ambassador’s statement directly impacts perceptions of her performance and the embassy’s functionality.
The ambassador is central to this newsworthy angle. Her image visually represents the official whose statement creates the controversy and raises these critical questions about governance and accountability.
Omitting her would weaken the reporting on this crucial aspect.
Let me remind all who threw stones at the Public Eye for using the ambassador’s picture that journalism serves as a watchdog, photographs are powerful tools for holding powerful figures accountable.
So, featuring the ambassador’s image personalizes accountability, it directly connects the official statement to the individual holding the office.
A nameless, faceless ‘Embassy spokesperson’ dilutes accountability.
The photograph forces the public and the government to confront the specific individual who made the statement. Placing her image prominently signals that her actions and statements in this matter are under legitimate public and journalistic scrutiny.
It underscores that high office does not exempt one from questioning.
Visually juxtaposing the report of Nthole’s arrest through text or other imagery with the ambassador’s image and her denial starkly illustrates the contradiction the story exposes.
Newspapers are visual mediums, therefore, front pages demand compelling visuals to attract readers and convey the essence of the lead story. Guidelines (like those from the Associated Press or Reuters) emphasize the importance of relevant, accurate images.
The ambassador’s statement was a critical, newsworthy element. Her image is the most relevant visual representation of that element.
Again, a story about bureaucratic failure or conflicting statements risks being dry. The ambassador’s image provides a human face to the controversy, making the story more accessible and engaging for readers, thereby amplifying its reach and impact – which is crucial for issues of public accountability.
Our using her image acknowledges the ambassador as a public figure performing a public role. Shielding her with anonymity in this context would be inappropriate for someone in her position of responsibility.
The public outcry is understandable and highlights the immense power of images, but it does not make wrong or unethical our use of Ambassador Sekete’s picture.
Public perception of implication, however strong, also does not automatically equate to journalistic malpractice. The ethical test lies in the actual content and context provided by the publication in interviewing her.
The Public Eye’s use of the Ambassador Sekete’s photograph was not a casual choice, it was a journalistic decision rooted in reporting a significant, verified fact – her surprising denial of knowledge about a serious incident involving a citizen under her embassy’s purview.
The image served the public interest by accurately identifying the source of a critical and controversial statement.
It highlighted the profound discrepancy between government officials, revealing potential systemic failures, or lies.
What Public Eye has done is personifying accountability for a statement impacting trust in consular services and government coordination utilizing the essential power of visual journalism to engage readers and underscore the human element of a story about bureaucratic responsibility.
Suppressing the ambassador’s image would have sanitized the story, obscured the source of the denial and diminished the accountability of a key public official.
Journalism’s duty is to report the truth clearly and hold power to account, even when the visual representation of that truth provokes discomfort. In this complex case, based on the principles of truth, accuracy in context, overwhelming public interest and accountability, the use of the ambassador’s photograph stands as a defensible, albeit challenging, application of core journalistic ethics.
The controversy itself stems from the uncomfortable truth the story exposed – a truth that the image helped to convey with necessary impact.
The unbowed sentinel of truth in an age of obeisance
In the local media landscape increasingly fragmented, polarized and susceptible to the seductive whispers of power, the role of a truly independent press becomes not just important, but vital to the health of democracy.
Publications like Public Eye stand as crucial bulwarks against the erosion of truth, embodying the core journalistic mission to report facts relentlessly, to hold power mercilessly to account, and crucially, to resist the corrosive temptation of bootlicking government or politicians at the expense of our readers’ right to know.
Public Eye’s foundation rests on an unwavering commitment to factual reporting.
This isn’t mere stenography, passively recording official pronouncements. It’s proactive, investigative digging. It means verifying claims, cross-referencing sources, scrutinizing data, and challenging narratives – especially those emanating from corridors of power.
In an era of ‘alternative facts’ and strategic disinformation, Public Eye understands that facts are the bedrock of public discourse.
Our reporting on complex issues like the Lesotho Flour Mills avoidance to pay dividends to government, the dubious Ha Ramarothole Solar project or the intricate web of political lobbying doesn’t shy away from complexity.
Instead, we dissect it, presenting readers with rigorously checked information, allowing them to form judgments based on evidence, not spin.
This dedication transforms us from mere news providers into essential truth-gatherers.
This commitment to truth naturally fuels our second core function, holding power to account. Power, whether wielded by diplomats such as Ambassador Sekete, elected officials, corporate giants, or unelected bureaucrats, inherently seeks to consolidate, obscure and avoid scrutiny.
Public Eye acts as the persistent counter-force. We operate on the principle that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Our reports – often painstaking, time-consuming and legally risky – shine that light into dark corners,
This accountability function is inherently adversarial.
It makes those in power uncomfortable. It invites pushback, legal threats, and smear campaigns. Yet, it is precisely this adversarial stance that defines Public Eye’s value. We understand that robust, uncomfortable scrutiny is the price of a healthy democracy, not a sign of disloyalty.
Which brings us to the critical third pillar – the absolute rejection of bootlicking.
Bootlicking – the fawning, uncritical amplification of power, the suppression of inconvenient truths to curry favour, the transformation of journalism into public relations for the state or political parties – is the antithesis of Public Eye’s ethos.
We recognize this corrosive practice for what it is, a fundamental betrayal of a journalist’s duty to the public.
Public Eye applies its scrutiny universally. A policy from the RFP receives the same rigorous examination as one from the BCP.
A corporation lauded for philanthropy is investigated for its labour practices or environmental footprint with equal vigour.
We refuse to trade critical coverage for friendship and privileged access to powerful figures in the manner the Lebakeng Development Trust would want us to.
We understand that such access often comes with implicit or explicit strings attached – a softening of criticism, a reluctance to ask the hardest questions. Public Eye prioritizes truth over proximity to power batho ba Lebakeng. Our use of your boss’s picture in our story had nothing to do with friendship links or meant to disrespect her, it was a simple, basic journalistic decision.
Our reporting is characterized by directness and courage. We frame our findings based on evidence, not on the potential for political backlash or the desire to maintain cordial relations with officials. We tell the stories powerful entities and government official like Ambassador Sekete would rather bury.
Our ultimate allegiance is not to politicians, government spokespersons or corporate advertisers, but to our readers. We operate on the understanding that citizens have an inalienable right to accurate, unfiltered information about those who govern them and the forces shaping their lives. Sacrificing truth to appease power is a direct violation of this covenant.
The cost of this independence is real. It can mean legal battles, exclusion from insider circles, vitriolic attacks from partisan voices as seen across the breadth of social media this past week, and potentially limited resources compared to media conglomerates with cosier relationships.
Yet, we persist because the alternative – a muted, compliant press that serves power rather than the public – is infinitely more dangerous.
It leads to policy made in the dark, corruption flourishing unchecked, and a citizenry disempowered by ignorance.
Public Eye, therefore, is more than just a newspaper, it is a vital institution. It serves as a constant reminder of what journalism should be, a fearless pursuit of truth, a tireless watchdog for the public interest, and an unwavering refusal to bend the knee to power.
In a world where clouding and sycophancy are often rewarded, Public Eye’s commitment to reporting facts without fear, holding power to account without favour, and rejecting bootlicking as a matter of principle, makes it an indispensable vehicle not just for news, but for the preservation of democratic accountability itself.
We are the unbowed sentinels ensuring that truth, however uncomfortable, is told. We do it all for our readers, and for society no matter the backlash. This is not just valuable – it is essential.
