Mpenzi wrote:
But the point remains that journalists have a responsibility to present to us all the "facts" they gather - this does not make those "facts" true. But at the very least we will have all the available information on the basis on which we can then make our own informed judgment.
That is the quandary.
If their policing or security job is done for them (and e.g. all the facts are dug out for them as a result), they will say a parallel policing and security force has been established and fall on it like a ton of bricks.
And this time they will have the backing of the constitution.
This is the best option, not to give them any moral or legal high ground, IMHO.
But any way they have presented their facts and the journalist has presented counter facts. Which ones seem believable to us?