[A] Publications & Dates: [001] [002] [003] [004] [005] [006] [007] [008] [009] [010] [011] [012] [013] [014] [015] [016] [017] [018] [019] [020] [021] [022] [023] [024] [025] [026] [027] [028] [029] [030] [031] [032] [033] [034] [035]
10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live: Citizen fights McBride in Concourt 10-09-29: SAPA-N24: Court to hear McBride ruling appeal 10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live: Citizen takes McBride appeal to Concourt 10-09-30: SAPA-Business Report: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ 20-09-30: SAPA-IOL: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer 10-09-30: SAPA-Pretoria News: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Argus: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer 10-09-30: SAPA-SA Star: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer 10-09-30: SAPA-Sunday Ind.: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer 10-09-30: SAPA-Daily News: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Times: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer 10-09-30: SAPA-Mercury: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer 10-09-30: SAPA-N24: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live: McBride murder accusation unfair 10-10-03: SAPA-Daily Dispatch: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest 10-09-30: SAPA-N24: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest 10-10-01: SAPA-IOL: Court weighs validity of TRC past 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live: Citizen argues validity of TRC past 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Times: Court weighs validity of TRC past 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Argus: Court weighs validity of TRC past 10-10-01: SAPA-Pretoria news: Court weighs validity of TRC past 10-10-01: SAPA-The Mercury: Court weighs validity of TRC past 10-10-01: SAPA-Sunday Tribune: Court weighs validity of TRC past 10-10-01: SAPA-SA Star: Court weighs validity of TRC past 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Mobile: McBride Concourt case continues 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Newswatch: McBride Concourt case continues 10-10-01: Citizen: Concourt: truth versus law 10-10-01: Mail & Guardian: ‘If I see someone stealing, can I call him a thief?’ 10-10-01: Eyewitness News: McBride lawyer are playing with semantics 10-09-30: TimesLive: When is a Killer not a Killer? 10-10-01: Business Day: Court reserves McBride judgment 10-10-05: Daily Maverick: Analysis: Citizen vs McBride, to remember or not to remember 10-09-30: SAPA-City Press: McBride murderer accusation ‘unfair’ 10-09-30: SAPA-SunInd-IOL: Court weighs validity of TRC past
[B] Nature of Complaint: Violations of Press Codes: 1.1 & 1.2.2 1.1: Inaccurate & unfair by omission; 1.2: Not in context, unbalanced, departed from facts by (2) intentional material omissions of Radical Honesty argument in public interest1.
[C] Overview of Radical Honesty White Refugee Argument 1.
Eight parties submitted arguments to the Concourt: Six Amici, Applicant and Respondent. The Radical Honesty argument has been censored from all CCT 23-10 news reports.
2.
It is alleged that the Omission of Radical Honesty argument is an intentional, malicious campaign of censorship of: [72] ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ Media Parasite complicity to Political Violence; [26-332] Dr. Blanton: How sincere v. fake forgiveness affects ‘reasonable reader’; [512] Dr. Maher: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection Study; [52-792] TRC’s ‘Crime of Apartheid’ Falsification of History, because Apartheid was a Just War for Afrikaner Demographic Survival; [86-982] 40 SA Media Editors Endorse Legal and Political Persecution (Denial of Freedom of Speech) of RH White Refugee.
1 2
Johan Retief, Media Ethics (2002: 160); Helge Ronning & Francis P Kasoma, Media Ethics (2002: 71) Paragraph [**] of Radical Honesty (First) Amicus Curiae to Concourt in The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10)