There is a particular kind of freedom you only recognise once you’ve lived without it, or more truthfully, once you realise how easily it could be taken away.
For many South Africans, press freedom sits quietly in the background of daily life: in the morning bulletin, in a talk-radio segment, in a scrolling headline. It feels ordinary. But it isn’t.
Long before stepping into media practice, I relied on journalists, broadcasters and other media professionals to ask the questions I could not ask myself. I relied on journalists to help translate governance into something the public could interrogate.
That, in itself, is the first quiet gift of press freedom: it allows citizens to see. And seeing is not passive. Seeing is political.
In a democratic society like SA, press freedom is not merely about the rights of journalists to publish; it is about the rights of citizens to know, to question and, ultimately, to decide.
The constitution guarantees freedom of expression, and the media puts that freedom into practice every day. Without it, rights are only written down. With it, they are exercised.
Over the past three decades, and particularly in the past 10 to 20 years, the South African media has played a critical role in tracing the distance between promise and performance.
This has not been about destabilising government nor about partisanship; it has been about accountability. When the governing party makes commitments, it is the media that documents those commitments over time, measures them against reality, and presents that gap to the public.
That gap is where democracy lives.
Consider the shifting political landscape leading into and beyond the 2024 elections. The ANC losing the majority vote for the first time since the dawn of democracy in SA.
Public sentiment did not change overnight. It was shaped, informed, and sharpened over years of reporting on governance failures, on corruption, and on service delivery breakdowns, but also on local successes, emerging political alternatives, and community-level dynamics.
Through this sustained visibility, citizens were not simply reacting emotionally; they were making informed decisions.
And those decisions reflected something profound: a willingness to rethink political loyalty, to move beyond historical allegiance, and to participate in democracy as an active, evaluative process.
Whether in national outcomes or in more localised shifts, such as changing party support in municipalities and wards, what we saw was not just political movement, but democratic maturity.
This is what press freedom makes possible. It creates a feedback loop between the state and its people. Government acts. Media reports. Citizens respond. And in that cycle, power is continually negotiated rather than assumed.
The alternative is far more fragile.
In societies where dissent is discouraged or punished, the consequences are not always immediately visible, but they are deeply corrosive.
Without a free press, information becomes controlled, narratives become manufactured, and citizens are left to operate in partial or distorted realities. Elections may still occur, but they lose their substance. Participation becomes symbolic rather than meaningful. Democracy, in its truest sense, begins to erode.
SA’s strength lies precisely in resisting that trajectory. Here, criticism is not only allowed; it is embedded into the democratic culture. We question. We challenge. We debate. And crucially, we do so publicly.
As a media practitioner, this is not something I take lightly. The ability to call government officials into a studio, to question them on missed deadlines, to interrogate policy failures, and to ask them to account — not to me, but to the public — is a profound professional privilege.
It is also a responsibility. Because the freedom to ask questions must always be matched by the discipline to ask the right ones.
What often goes unspoken is how this freedom shapes not just content, but confidence. When citizens hear their concerns reflected in the media; when they hear their frustrations articulated, their realities acknowledged, it affirms their place within the democratic process.
It tells them that their voices matter, that governance is not distant or untouchable, but something they have the right to engage with.
In that sense, press freedom is not only about information. It is about participation. It is about dignity.
Of course, this freedom is not without its tensions. Questions around media bias, ownership, agenda-setting, and representation are real and necessary. A free press must also be a self-reflective one. But these debates themselves are made possible by the very freedom they seek to refine. That is the paradox and the strength of an open media environment.
What must remain clear, however, is this: without press freedom, the entire democratic architecture weakens. Not immediately, not always visibly but inevitably.
So when we speak about press freedom in SA, we are not speaking about an abstract principle. We are speaking about the everyday ability of a citizen to make sense of their country.
We are speaking about the right to hold power accountable without fear. We are speaking about the quiet but constant work of ensuring that democracy does not become a performance, but remains a practice.
And perhaps most importantly, we are speaking about a freedom that feels ordinary until the moment it is not.
That is why it must be protected, exercised, and never taken for granted
- Ngaleka is a content producer at 702 and 947.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.