By consistently portraying entities like Sekunjalo and Independent Media unfavourably, corporate mainstream media outlets create a perception of reputational risk, writes Gillian Schutte.
By Gillian Schutte
Corporate mainstream media significantly influence banks' decisions by shaping public perception through sustained negative coverage. By consistently portraying entities like Sekunjalo and Independent Media unfavourably, these outlets create a perception of reputational risk.
Financial institutions, which rely on media reports and public sentiment to assess client credibility, may interpret this adverse coverage as indicative of potential financial or ethical issues. Consequently, banks might decide to terminate relationships with such entities to safeguard their own reputations and avoid perceived risks. This dynamic illustrates how media narratives can directly affect financial decisions, leading to the financial isolation of targeted organisations and suppressing alternative viewpoints that challenge dominant economic and political narratives, argues Gillian Schutte
Independent Media, one of South Africa’s largest independent news organisations, is facing a coordinated campaign that threatens its very existence. Owned by Sekunjalo, under the stewardship of Dr. Iqbal Survé, Independent Media publishes some of the nation’s most significant newspapers, including The Star, Pretoria News, The Mercury, Cape Times, and Sunday Independent. Independent Media’s commitment to showcasing South Africa’s full diversity of perspectives and its resistance to corporate and foreign influence have set it apart in a media landscape often dominated by Western-aligned narratives. Yet this independence has made it a target.
In 2020, major South African banks, citing "reputational risk," began closing Sekunjalo's accounts, directly jeopardizing Independent Media's operational stability. In August of that year, Absa, Sekunjalo's primary banker, issued a formal notice of account closures, which took effect by February 2021. This timing coincided with Independent Media's extensive and critical coverage of significant national issues, including investigative work on state capture from a perspective sympathetic to the ANC's Radical Economic Transformation (RET) policies. These policies aim to address historical inequalities by promoting economic justice and challenging neoliberal economic structures that many believe uphold Western economic dominance and entrench inequality.
Furthermore, Independent Media’s ongoing coverage conspicuously highlighted BRICS as a critical alliance for South Africa, presenting it as an alternative economic path to the dependency on Western financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. In showcasing BRICS trade agreements and the New Development Bank as instruments for South Africa to pursue genuine economic sovereignty and infrastructure development without restrictive Western conditions, Independent Media offered a narrative that diverged sharply from Western-aligned media. This stance—championing BRICS, advocating for RET, and accentuating issues central to South African autonomy—set Independent Media apart from the mainstream media (MSM) narratives that consistently echo Western perspectives. In taking these positions, Independent Media has positioned itself as a media platform unafraid to interrogate Western influence in South Africa, which has drawn attention from powerful global interests invested in maintaining the status quo.
The actions by South African banks against Sekunjalo ostensibly have roots in the findings of the Mpati Commission, which expressed concerns about the Public Investment Corporation’s (PIC) investments in certain Sekunjalo subsidiaries. However, these findings have not resulted in any legal convictions or proven financial misconduct by Sekunjalo. Nevertheless, banks continue to invoke “reputational risk” as a justification for terminating Sekunjalo’s accounts. This move endangers Independent Media’s financial security, as Sekunjalo provides the financial infrastructure for the publication’s payroll, operating expenses, and essential functions. Without banking access, Independent Media’s ability to continue publishing and retaining its staff is in serious jeopardy.
Behind this façade of reputational risk lies a more complex, strategic motive to silence voices that might encourage South African citizens to critically examine the influence of the United States and other Western powers in shaping a unilaterally aligned foreign policy and neoliberal economic framework in South Africa. US-backed media organisations and aligned watchdogs work to enforce the Western narrative by framing critical analysis of this influence as “conspiracy theory,” despite the basis for such critiques in peer-reviewed leftist scholarship. Independent Media’s consistent interrogation of these global power dynamics threatens the dominance of Western interests in South Africa, thus positioning it as a focal point of reputational attacks and coordinated efforts to limit its influence.
The concept of “reputational risk” used to justify the banking closures against Sekunjalo is far from an impartial assessment. Rather, it is a narrative systematically crafted to undermine Sekunjalo’s public standing, driven by negative media coverage, social media sentiment manipulation, and targeted reporting by foreign-funded watchdog organisations. Four key elements fuel this orchestrated campaign: (I have termed these 4 key factors The Four Hounds of Hell – Guard-Dogging US Economic and Cultural Hegemony).
Negative media coverage surrounding Sekunjalo and Independent Media is frequently driven by mainstream media (MSM) outlets such as Daily Maverick, News24, Mail & Guardian, and TechCentral, as well as figures like Daily Maverick’s Chris Roper and News24’s Karyn Maughan. These sources repeatedly associate Sekunjalo, Independent Media and Survé himself with terms like “controversy,” “scandal,” and “fraud”. Such terms create a constant stream of negative content that search engines and social media algorithms recognize as “relevant” or “engaging”. As a result:
Financial institutions rely on reputational risk assessments from risk profiling agencies, such as World-Check and Refinitiv, which compile reputational scores for companies based on available media, social sentiment, and third-party reports. Bias in media and social narratives directly influences these scores in the following ways:
- Compilation of Risk Profiles: Risk profiling agencies aggregate publicly available data and third-party sources to assign reputational risk scores. When the majority of data on Sekunjalo and Independent Media comprises negative media reports, the risk agencies view them as “high-risk” by default. For instance, repeated mentions of terms like “corrupt” or “fraud” in media headlines can lead to a higher risk profile, even if these accusations are unfounded.
- Reinforcement of Negative Scoring Loops: Risk profiles often reflect previous ratings and assessments, creating a self-perpetuating cycle. Once Sekunjalo or Independent Media receives a “high-risk” rating based on biased media content, this rating is likely to persist as further negative coverage reinforces it. Banks, relying on these risk profiles, view the company as a liability, further justifying their decision to close accounts under “reputational risk” concerns.
Watchdog groups like amaBhungane, Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), and the South African National Editors' Forum (SANEF) and the Press Council of South Africa (PCSA)
add further weight to reputational risk narratives by producing critical reports that often align with Western-aligned narratives and funding interests. These watchdogs amplify and validate the negative reputational perception through their assessments:
The cumulative effect of biased algorithms, media coverage, and watchdog reports influences how the general public perceives Sekunjalo and Independent Media. This public sentiment, often measured by sentiment analysis tools, has direct implications for reputational risk scores:
The biases against Sekunjalo and Independent Media create a cycle of manufactured reputational risk, where algorithmic preferences for high-engagement, negative content amplify media biases. These biases then filter into risk assessments, watchdog reports, and public sentiment analysis, producing a skewed reputational score. Banks, reliant on these scores, justify their decision to cut financial ties, exacerbating financial instability for Sekunjalo and Independent Media. This constructed reputational risk narrative not only impacts financial access but ultimately undermines the diversity and independence of South Africa’s media landscape. It is a weaponisation of media tools to take out an adversary and the legal system ought to take this manipulation into account.
In the current ideological media landscape, it is essential to scrutinise the roles of watchdog organisations such as amaBhungane, Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), and the South African National Editors' Forum (SANEF) as well as their closely aligned news outlets. These entities have been influential in shaping narratives that portray Sekunjalo and Independent Media negatively, often labelling them as "corrupt" or "problematic," and describing Independent Media as "biased" or "unreliable". While these organisations assert their impartiality, their significant funding from international donors, including those based in the United States, raises questions about potential biases and the influence of foreign interests on South African media narratives. This financial backing may inadvertently align their reporting and advocacy efforts with Western perspectives, potentially compromising their objectivity and the authenticity of the local media landscape.
For example, amaBhungane regularly critiques Independent Media’s journalism, framing it as a threat to journalistic standards without providing concrete evidence. This portrayal aligns with the agendas of amaBhungane’s foreign funders, whose interest in African media aligns with broader geopolitical goals. Similarly, SANEF and MMA echo these narratives, furthering the notion that Independent Media lacks ethical standards, a characterisation that lacks substantiation but effectively shapes public perception.
This coalition’s influence has created a media echo chamber where negative depictions of Sekunjalo and Independent Media are amplified and reinforced, shaping public opinion and pressuring banks to view these organisations as financial risks and sever financial ties.
In response, Sekunjalo has taken legal steps to challenge these actions. In 2022, the Competition Tribunal temporarily prevented certain banks from closing Sekunjalo’s accounts, but this relief was overturned in 2023 by the Competition Appeal Court, allowing banks to proceed with closures. Sekunjalo’s appeal to the Constitutional Court was dismissed in early 2024, although an interim interdict from the Western Cape High Court currently prevents Standard Bank from closing Sekunjalo’s accounts until further hearings.
This legal struggle highlights the risks of permitting banks to use reputational risk as a pretext for financial exclusion, particularly when the risk is constructed through narratives rather than evidence. For Independent Media, the loss of banking services would lead to major operational challenges, potentially resulting in job losses and the silencing of a key independent voice in South African journalism.
The targeting of Sekunjalo and Independent Media extends beyond financial decisions; it represents an effort to silence an independent voice that challenges Western-aligned narratives within South Africa’s media. South Africans deserve a media landscape that reflects their own stories, values, and realities. Defending Independent Media protects media diversity, counters foreign influence, and safeguards South African sovereignty over its own media. Here’s why this matters:
The campaign by banks to sever ties with Sekunjalo and Independent Media transcends business decisions; it is a calculated attempt to reshape South Africa’s media landscape by removing all voices that defy Western-aligned narratives. This effort, fuelled by US-funded entities, moulds public perception through a fabricated reputational risk narrative, enabling banks to leverage financial pressure as a tool to silence dissenting media voices.
South Africans must understand the broader implications of this campaign and defend Independent Media’s role as a genuinely independent news organisation. Opposing the closure of Sekunjalo’s accounts is about supporting a media environment that remains free, diverse, and reflective of South African perspectives. Defending Independent Media is a stand for media freedom, an opposition to external manipulation, and a commitment to ensuring that South African voices remain strong, autonomous, and true to their own reality.
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.