Karyn Maughan’s latest article on Sekunjalo raises questions about biased reporting, with critics accusing her of selectively promoting the banking sector’s interests while downplaying key findings of corporate collusion.

Karyn Maughan’s recent coverage of the Competition Tribunal’s ruling on Sekunjalo has once again sparked controversy, with critics accusing her of biased reporting that serves corporate interests.

In her January 9 article, Maughan focuses on the dismissal of Sekunjalo’s interim application, but the real story – a groundbreaking finding of corporate collusion involving major banks – is barely mentioned.

The Competition Commission’s revelation that Nedbank and other financial institutions coordinated the closure of Sekunjalo’s accounts is buried deep in the article, overshadowed by Maughan’s emphatic presentation of the banks’ side of the story.

The core issue, according to critics, is whether Maughan’s consistent slant towards the banking sector is driven by her personal biases or a more systemic, ideological alignment with corporate elites.

Maughan’s article follows a familiar pattern, where she constructs a narrative that amplifies the banks’ perspective while downplaying Sekunjalo’s.

The headline itself, which dismisses Sekunjalo’s legal efforts as a “last-gasp” bid, sets the tone for a piece that prioritizes the procedural over the substantive.

The much larger issue – the coordinated effort by financial institutions to cut off Sekunjalo from the banking system – is relegated to a near footnote.

This omission has led many to question whether Maughan’s journalism is truly objective or if it is, in fact, a polished piece of corporate propaganda.

What stands out most in Maughan’s reporting is her ability to completely overlook the Competition Commission’s damning findings, which determined that the banks’ actions constituted a “prohibited concerted practice.”

Instead of focusing on the implications of this ruling, Maughan shifts the spotlight to the Tribunal’s decision to reject Sekunjalo’s interim application. While this is certainly a noteworthy development, it is hardly the crux of the issue at hand.

By devoting so much space to the Tribunal’s ruling and downplaying the findings of collusion, Maughan creates a narrative that serves the banks’ interests while ignoring the broader, more troubling implications for black-owned businesses in South Africa.

The structure of Maughan’s article is a textbook example of selective reporting. She repeatedly emphasizes the Mpati Commission’s findings, which do not find Sekunjalo guilty of any wrongdoing, while minimizing the Competition Commission’s revelation of corporate collusion.

By doing so, she crafts a narrative that shifts the focus away from the real issue: the power of banks to exclude businesses from the formal economy, particularly black-owned businesses like Sekunjalo.

This omission is striking, given that the Competition Commission’s findings should have been the centerpiece of any serious journalistic inquiry into the matter.

Maughan’s continued focus on AYO’s share price further reinforces her portrayal of Sekunjalo as a suspect entity.

By giving scant attention to the broader market conditions or other investments made by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), she paints a one-sided picture that distracts from the larger issue of financial exclusion.

In doing so, Maughan perpetuates the narrative that Sekunjalo is an outlier, when in reality, the larger issue is the systemic exclusion of black businesses from economic participation.

The most troubling aspect of Maughan’s reporting, however, is her failure to engage with the fundamental question raised by the Competition Commission’s findings: how can banks wield such unchecked power to close accounts and exclude businesses from the financial system?

This is a question that goes to the heart of the matter, yet Maughan chooses to sidestep it in favor of retelling Nedbank’s version of events.

The potential for abuse in this area is enormous, but Maughan opts to gloss over it, instead focusing on procedural details that are far less significant in the grand scheme of things.

Critics have drawn comparisons between Maughan’s style of reporting and the techniques used in Nazi propaganda, not in content, but in methodology.

The careful selection of facts, the strategic placement of information, and the emotional loading of language are all hallmarks of sophisticated propaganda.

By presenting a seemingly objective narrative while selectively emphasizing certain details and omitting others, Maughan creates a distorted version of events that serves the interests of the banking establishment.

The issue of costs in the Competition Tribunal’s ruling further highlights the imbalance in Maughan’s reporting. She celebrates the rejection of Sekunjalo’s interim application while ignoring the Tribunal’s refusal to award punitive costs to Nedbank.

This is a significant detail that undermines her portrayal of the case as a victory for the banks.

At the same time, the much larger case, which centers on the banks’ role in corporate collusion, is barely mentioned, despite its far-reaching implications for the future of black-owned businesses in South Africa.

The question that remains is whether Maughan’s bias is the result of ideological alignment with the banking sector or whether it is a reflection of deeper, possibly racial, biases that continue to influence her reporting.

Either way, her latest article serves as a stark reminder of the power of corporate interests to shape the narrative in the media.

By selectively reporting facts and omitting crucial details, Maughan has once again demonstrated her ability to spin a story in favor of the financial establishment, even when the truth is far more complex and troubling.

As the case against the banks continues to unfold, it is clear that the issue of financial exclusion and corporate collusion is far from resolved.

The question of how banks can be held accountable for their actions remains unanswered, and the role of the media in shaping public perception of these issues is more important than ever.

Maughan’s reporting serves as a cautionary tale of how the media can be used to obscure the truth and protect the interests of powerful elites, even at the expense of the broader public good.

In the end, Maughan’s latest piece is not just a report on a legal case; it is a reflection of the broader power dynamics at play in South Africa’s financial system.

By choosing to focus on procedural details while ignoring the larger issues of corporate collusion and financial exclusion, Maughan has once again demonstrated her ability to shape the narrative in favor of the banking sector.

Whether this is the result of personal bias or a more systemic alignment with corporate interests, it is clear that her reporting serves to protect the status quo rather than challenge it.