When writing an article that challenges a person or company – or accuses them of wrongdoing – journalistic ethics and libel laws require adherence to strict procedural standards. The core principle is the right of reply (audi alteram partem – “hear the other side”), which ensures fairness, accuracy, and legal protection.
Journalists Standard Operating Procedure
Document and Corroborate First: Before reaching out, compile clear, verifiable evidence (documents, on-the-record statements, data, or primary source interviews) supporting the claims.
Formulate Precise, Specific Allegations: Never send vague inquiries like “We are writing about your misconduct.” Outline the specific facts, dates, events, and allegations so the party fully understands what they are responding to.
Issue a Formal “Right of Reply” Request: Send the allegations via an official, traceable channel (email to media relations/legal representatives, followed by a phone call to confirm receipt).
Maintain Neutrality & Confidentiality: Keep your tone objective, professional, and free of bias. Treat all draft responses confidentially until publication.
Integrate the Response Fairly: Include their response with appropriate weight and context in the article. If they deny the claim, state their denial clearly without editorializing.
Time Frames for Replies
Time frames depend on the urgency of the story, publication frequency, and the complexity of the allegations:
| Story Type / Context | Standard Response Window | Notes / Expectations |
| Breaking News / Daily News | 2 to 6 hours | Used only when the story is actively developing. A phone call follow-up is mandatory. |
| Standard Investigative / Feature Story | 24 to 48 hours | The industry baseline for standard daily print, digital news, or routine corporate inquiries. |
| Complex Financial, Legal, or Multi-part Investigation | 3 to 7 business days | Required when allegations involve detailed audit trails, technical data, or legacy events requiring internal legal review. |
What the Subject Is Expected (and Entitled) to Do
During the provided time window, the subject or company is expected to:
Acknowledge Receipt: Confirm that the press query has been received and state who is handling it.
Request Clarification (If Needed): Ask for specific details or additional time if the allegations are complex or cover historical events.
Provide an On-the-Record Response: Issue a statement, point-by-point rebuttal, or supporting documentation to refute or clarify the claims.
Provide Background / Off-the-Record Context: Offer context to help the journalist understand internal procedures, even if certain details cannot be quoted directly.
Specify Attribution: Indicate clearly whether the statement comes from a named spokesperson, an unnamed official company representative, or legal counsel.
Handling Non-Responses, Refusals, or Extensions
If They Request More Time: Grant a reasonable extension if the subject demonstrates a good-faith effort to investigate the matter internally.
If They Decline to Comment or Exceed the Deadline: State transparently in the published article: “Company X was contacted for comment regarding [specific allegation] on [Date/Time] but did not respond prior to publication” or “Company X declined to comment.”
If New Facts Emerge Later: Update digital versions promptly with any late-arriving response or official statement.
What if the Subject Has Vast Reach (and uses it)?
I have used this article as an example: The Accuracy of Reported Figures Is Critical to Truthful, Fair and Responsible Journalism and assumed the viewpoint of most South African Citizens – one of slight distrust.
When a powerful state-owned entity or corporation like Eskom uses its vast platform (press releases, official portals, social media) to issue a public clarification or “right of reply” that contains untruths, misleading accounting, or selective semantics, it creates an asymmetrical information dynamic.
Journalists, media houses, and the public have clear recourse through investigative methodology, legal avenues, and regulatory mechanisms to hold the institution accountable.
Investigative Follow-Up & Semantic Deconstruction
Expose the Definitions: Large entities often use technical distinctions to make true numbers appear inaccurate. For example, distinguishing between an Approved Internal Capital Construction Budget versus Total Project Lifetime Cost (which includes interest during construction, debt financing, and external consultancy costs). Journalists should explicitly publish both figures, explaining why the entity’s stated figure excludes certain real expenditures.
Audit Trail Verification: Compare the entity’s public claims against statutory documents – such as Eskom’s audited Integrated Annual Reports, parliamentary submissions (PCOE), National Treasury briefings, or NERSA tariff applications – where lying carries legal consequences.
Formal Media Response & Publishing Options
Publish a “Fact-Check / Analysis” Article: Media outlets are not required to leave the entity’s response unchallenged. Journalists can publish a follow-up piece (e.g., “Fact Check: Breaking Down Eskom’s Claims on Medupi & Kusile Budgets”), quoting Eskom’s response verbatim while providing line-by-line evidence showing where it contradicts historical records or Treasury data.
Editorial Annotation: Include editor’s notes directly on updated digital versions of original articles: “Editor’s Note: Eskom issued a statement on [Date] claiming approved budgets remain R160.5bn. However, official parliamentary records from [Date] confirm total project exposure exceeds R230bn when accounting for debt financing.”
Institutional & Regulatory Recourse
Press Council / Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB): If the entity publishes misleading or false statements via paid media campaigns, complaints can be lodged with regulatory bodies for misleading advertising.
Parliamentary Oversight Committees: Public entities like Eskom answer to Parliament (e.g., the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises or SCOPA). Journalists can submit specific questions through MPs to compel official, legally binding written answers on record.
PAIA Requests (Promotion of Access to Information Act): Submit formal PAIA applications to demand access to board minutes, budget revision approvals, and contractor settlement records to legally disprove untrue statements.
Legal Protection: Defamation vs. Fair Comment
Truth and Public Interest: Under South African media law, as long as a journalist’s original reporting is substantially true and published in the public interest, the publication is protected against defamation claims.
Caveat / Contextual Disclaimer: The media house is under no obligation to retract or amend its story simply because an entity denies the figures, provided the original sources were credible and verified.
Track Your Press Release HERE:
Check Online Visibility
Verify where this release is currently indexed:
