White offenders are saints: The SABC’s interview with Nicholas Ninow’s mother

Zimasa Mpemnyama
Nov 6 · 5 min read
Nicholas Ninow appearing at the Pretoria Magistrates Court. Photo: Gallo Images/Netwerk24/Deaan Vivier

Almost two weeks after Nicholas Ninow was sentenced to life in prison for the rape of a 7-year-old-girl, South Africa’s public broadcaster, the SABC, broadcast an “exclusive” interview with Ninow’s teary-eyed mother, Chantelle. The rationale for the interview, according to the journalist, was to gather why she did drugs with her son at a young age. The journalist said on Twitter, “[w]e simply went to his mother to ask her why she was a bad mother. How do you do drugs with your child?” The channel faced fury from social media users who called the interview out for showcasing white privilege and for being insensitive to the young girl that Ninow preyed on. And typical of social media outrage, other trending topics have grasped the imaginations of South Africans.

I have watched the interview several times and the main questions the interview evokes are the following: is the channel implying that it was Ninow’s drug use, or the use of drugs with his mother particularly, that made him capable of committing such a heinous crime? If not, then why interview his mother? Why the mother of this particular rapist, when South Africa convicts hundreds of rapists a year, with similar or worse background stories? Furthermore, in journalism’s constant quest for ‘Breaking News’ and ‘Exclusive’ stories, where do the lines of race, gender, class, power, ethics and sensitivity meet? Did the interview fulfill its aim of trying to understand the mother’s logic of exposing her son to drugs? Did it broaden the conversation around drug addiction, motherhood and sexual violence?

Firstly, it would be remiss not to note how Ninow’s performances on the dock during his testimony was typical of the white male offenders we have seen in recent South African history. He sobbed uncontrollably, just like we saw with Oscar Pistorius. He underwent psychiatric evaluation and shared that he had mental health challenges, like Pistorius and Henri van Breda. And there is the blame shifting. He blamed his drug addiction and accused his mother of introducing him to “chemicals” at a young age. Van Breda said his parents, brother and severely injured sister were attacked by “an axe-wielding black man”, Pistorius blamed a faceless intruder, while Pieter Dooreward & Phillip Schutte blamed their 16-year-old victim for stealing sunflowers.

Looking at the news reports about Ninow’s testimony, it seems like they all rushed to foreground ‘reasons’ for his violence. They overemphasize his history of drug use, the psychiatric evaluation the court prescribed, and his bipolar diagnosis. This desire to find the ‘reasons’ why white males commit violent crimes might partially explain why the SABC thought it would be a good idea to air the interview. In the SABC’s logic, there has to be a reason why a white mother would take drugs with her son. The producers knew that this would make good television. Ratings are not just a thing of soap operas and reality tv. In television news, words are important because they correspond with the amount of time an interviewee is granted on screen. What viewers see on screen are usually heavily edited cuts of much longer interviews. This means that the journalist selected the controversial parts, like where Ninow’s mother says, “my oldest son is not a rapist, he made a mistake”, intentionally to shock, enrage, entertain, and to garner sympathy and attention. White tears on screen have social value and currency. White people know when to use tears as a weapon against scrutiny.

‘Voice’ is deemed as a highly important factor in news reporting. Who gets quoted or interviewed, how and in what context is not an innocent process in journalism — it is a practice steeped in questions of ideology, race, power and access. Media discourse scholar, Teun van Dijk refers to access to media as a form of symbolic power and an indicator of privileged access to economic, political and social resources. This is a question of value and meaning. What does it mean for the voices of white perpetrators, and their parents (and siblings, in the case of Oscar Pistorius) to be given unending airplay in the media realm? Why is it called an ‘Exclusive’ interview when a white mother of a convicted rapist “speaks out”, but the black mothers of many convicted prisoners are never given space to express their experiences of mothering persons convicted of violent crimes? Surely if news organisations are interested in the nuanced ways in which perpetrators’ troubled upbringings affected their choices as adults to commit violent crimes, then reporters would be spoilt for choice at the many cases that pass through the judicial system daily?

For me, what was also puzzling about the interview was how it was centred around Chantelle’s tears and her denial that her son is a rapist. The focus on Chantelle’s denials of the rape are deeply problematic given how easily survivors of sexual assault are not believed, are shamed and are generally not supported. Her words delegitimize the experiences of that little girl.

Due to its gender, race and class tone-deafness, the SABC lost a valuable opportunity to speak about the scourge of sexual violence, its correlation to drug abuse, while contextualizing the conversation in the complicated historical legacies associated with (white) male (sexual) violence in this country. The outrage and condemnation surrounding this case is not an accident. There is a well-documented history of white men evading responsibility and justice for the rape and abuse of black women during slavery, apartheid and in recent history.

The rush for an “exclusive” story robbed the public of a moment of further self-reflection and interrogation. This brings me to my next point, that journalists/editors can never evade responsibility for conscious decisions made in the news production process. Although it may not be easy to accept, the decisions journalists make while doing the fast-paced work of journalism function to elevate the voices of socially dominant actors. This is not a new conversation. Sarah Chiumbu’s study on the media representations of the Marikana massacre raised important questions about race, capital and the problematic ways which media dehumanize black, poor and working-class subjects, while privileging the interests of the elite. Another important study by Herman Wasserman, Wallace Chuma and Tanja Bosch highlights how reporting on service delivery protests favors elite voices and fails to give sufficient coverage to marginalized communities to express why they engage in protest.

The interview, and the selection of the quotes which were aired, perpetuates this exclusionary nature of journalism and news production. South Africa is at a crucial time in its history. We are a bleeding country trying to deal with the scars of our violent past and present. The media has a responsibility to be aware and sensitive of this fact, while not compromising on its core function of sharing information for the public interest. The balancing game is tough, but it is necessary.

Written by

Zimasa Mpemnyama is completing a Masters degree at the University of Cape Town’s Centre for Film & Media Studies. She is a writer, a photographer and activist.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade