![The market-builder who restrained the market [Part 2]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/PHOTO-2026-08-25-17-16-32-360x180.jpg)
![The merchant preceding the Prophetic mission [Part 1]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/01-360x180.jpg)
MUSLIM VIEWS EDITORIAL
The fatal shooting in Emmarentia on Sunday, April 19, 2026, has shaken the public conscience. It is, without question, a matter of legitimate public interest.
Reports indicate that what began as a road-rage confrontation escalated into a fatal shooting, leaving one man dead, his wife injured, and a suspect now before the courts. Witness accounts indicate that the incident unfolded in the presence of young children.
But alongside the reporting of facts, another phenomenon that unfolded is the rapid, unfiltered circulation of a graphic video recorded at the scene. The video was shared across WhatsApp groups, social media feeds and informal platforms, and it has compounded the harm of the tragedy.
There is a clear difference between responsible journalism and the unregulated production and distribution of harmful content. The Press Council’s Code of Ethics and Conduct requires that the media report truthfully, fairly and in context, while avoiding unnecessary harm and showing particular concern for children and the bereaved. These regulations apply precisely to moments such as this.
By contrast, the video, presumably taken by a bystander, effectively voids all such safeguards. It appears to show the immediate aftermath of the shooting, depicting a victim lying on the roadside, an injured woman in distress, and children at the scene in a state of shock. Even if recorded with no intent to cause harm, its circulation raises serious ethical and legal questions.
The Press Code is unequivocal on children. It requires “exceptional care and consideration” and prohibits identifying or exposing children where harm may result, unless strict conditions are met. The code is founded on the values and principles of our Constitution and places the best interests of the child at the centre of every matter affecting them. In this context, the production and repeated sharing of identifiable images of children in a moment of trauma is insensitive, and it risks crossing into unlawful conduct.
Equally clear are the Press Code provisions on violence. The code requires the media to exercise due care when presenting brutality and suffering, and to avoid graphic depictions of violent crime unless a compelling public interest justifies it, but even then, only with appropriate warnings. The uncontrolled production and circulation of such footage by members of the public does the opposite. It amplifies harm devoid of context, restraint, and accountability.
It is important to recognise that the Press Code does not bind every individual who has a smartphone. But that does not absolve the public of ethical responsibility. Nor does it excuse media platforms that amplify such content for clicks and engagement. The code explicitly requires that even third-party content shared by media organisations must comply with its standards.
The Emmarentia video illustrates a deeper moral dilemma of the digital age. It is too tempting for a witness to a dramatic scene to exploit the scene, even unwittingly, without due consideration of common ethics when he or she has a convenient recording device at hand. The impulse to record and share is too often instinctive and impulsive. And too often the impulse disregards the dignity and interests of victims, especially children.
Public interest does not demand that we see everything. It demands that we understand what has happened, why it matters, and how it affects society. The verified reports emerging from the incident, grounded in witness testimony, police statements and legal process serve that purpose. The video as police evidence, and in a court of law, does so too. The video going viral in public does not.
Journalism is a public trust and a discipline that balances the right to know with the duty to protect. But even if you are not a journalist, you still have a responsibility to use your discretion before producing and sharing sensitive content. You must ask yourself if the news value and public interest value of the content outweighs its potential harm. That balance is not always easy to achieve, but it is always necessary.
You may also want to read
A society that consumes violence without reflection risks becoming indifferent to it. And a society that disregards the dignity of its most vulnerable, especially its children, undermines its own moral foundation.
Muslim Views is a member of the Press Council and also represents the Association of Independent Publishers (AIP) on the Council’s Panel of Adjudicators.
