Karyn Maughan's recent letter to Dr Iqbal Survé is scrutinised for its biassed portrayal of Independent Media and its chairman, revealing a deeper issue within the media landscape. Picture: Robert Sloma/Pixabay
By Edmond Phiri
Karyn Maughan’s recent “letter” to Independent Media Chairman, Dr Iqbal Survé, is a thinly veiled piece of propaganda designed to manipulate public opinion against him.
Far from being an authentic engagement with Survé, her article is a tirade cloaked in self-righteousness, playing every classic propaganda trick in the book. From selective reporting and weaponised language to emotional triggers, Maughan’s approach is reminiscent of Goebbels-era techniques, with a few modern twists.
The piece begins with a sensational title—“freedom of expression is not freedom to harass, lie, or vilify”—a lofty opening that primes the reader to accept her as a truthteller and Survé as an opponent of free speech. But this narrative quickly devolves into a calculated attack, weaving isolated incidents into a one-sided story designed to falsely paint Survé as the villain.
Take her reference to the “decuplets” story. Maughan cites this as evidence of “manifest dishonesty” but fails to acknowledge the independent expert commission that investigated and produced a report that cleared the Independent Media. Instead, she reduces Independent Media’s reporting to a single event, attempting to turn this isolated incident into a defining flaw, a classic Goebbels tactic.
“Manifest dishonesty” is the whole white-mainstream media playing along and reporting on a fake story of Hasim Mustafa, a Dubai-based Sudanese “businessman”. Maughan’s own News24, was at the forefront reporting the dubious Phala-Phala story of Mustafa, who allegedly landed in South Africa on Christmas, while randomly driving at Phala-phala, he decided to immediately spend $580 000 (over R8 million) in cash to buy the buffalo that he never cared if they were delivered. Her “highly reputed” News24 was at the forefront of spreading and spinning the unbelievable story. So for Maughan and her media colleagues to preach about media integrity is quite a stretch.
Returning to her article, it’s drenched in emotionally charged language meant to provoke outrage. Terms like “toxic evasion,” “manifest dishonesty,” and “very pungently and publicly decomposing” do nothing to advance a factual or logical discussion. Instead, they reinforce a visceral, negative image of Survé, intended to trigger outrage. This weaponisation of language designed to bypass critical thinking and evoke an immediate response is a hallmark of Goebbels and Nazi propaganda style.
Maughan also uses my article, where I compared her reporting to “Nazi propaganda”, to cast herself as the moral, embattled hero standing against tyranny. Far from it! My article critiqued her for using the same single-sided narrative now deployed in her diatribe against Survé. There is no attempt to report in a balanced manner or to report from the perspective of Survé or his companies. According to her “Maughanism,” journalistic integrity means reporting only one side of the story—a tactic she has routinely used against Survé and his companies.
Survé has been a key figure in breaking South Africa’s white-owned media monopoly for over a decade, yet Maughan casually glosses over his achievement and his efforts to establish an independent multi-plural voice in a landscape dominated by white corporate-controlled media.
Since Sekunjalo acquired Independent Media, the publication has been a thorn in the side of the establishment, tackling stories that challenge South Africa’s entrenched power structures. But rather than recognising this, Maughan resorts to a vile and nasty propaganda attack to undermine him and the Independent media. The Independent Media is one of the few publications that dared to cover government corruption, such as the Covid-19 PPE scandal, exposing malfeasance at the highest levels.
What Maughan also strategically omits is the context surrounding the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) inquiry. The inquiry was not an inquiry against Sekunjalo or its companies but was intended to investigate PIC’s internal processes. The final report mentioned around twelve companies, including those with Steinhoff links. Yet, in true Goebbelsian style, Survé and his companies were thrust to the forefront of the whole inquiry. The inquiry’s findings became distorted, and Sekunjalo was unfairly targeted. Maughan should not claim victories from such skewed reporting.
Perhaps the most glaring irony in Maughan’s piece is her defence of journalistic freedom while undermining Survé’s right to defend himself. She accuses him of using his media outlets to counter critics, yet feels justified in weaponising her own New24 platform to launch a full-blown character assassination against Survé. Maughan is free to criticise, but in her view, Survé must remain silent and unresponsive—so much for a disturbing double standard. Such selective outrage is reminiscent of propaganda regimes where dissenting voices are systematically suppressed under the guise of protecting “freedom”.
If true journalistic integrity means covering both sides of the story, then Maughan’s articles about Survé and his companies fall woefully short. Her selective use of incidents, inflammatory language, and refusal to present Survé’s side suggest her objective is not to inform but to control the narrative. Her article or disguised “letter”, brimming with resentment, reads like a condemnation driven not by facts but by a deeply-rooted personal vendetta, thinly veiled as public concern.
Maughan’s piece, ultimately, is more than an assault on Survé and Independent Media. It is a symptom of a broader problem in the white-owned media today: the impulse to simplify, vilify, and use whatever means necessary to control narratives to serve vested interests. Propaganda masquerading as truth is still propaganda, and Maughan’s “letter” is a prime example. Her piece of propaganda is so impressive it would make Goebbels grin in his grave.
I know that Maughan squirmed when I compared her reporting to Nazi propaganda, but her disguised “letter to Dr Survé” proved me right.
* Edmond Phiri is an independent writer, commentator, and political analyst. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.