As South Africans get all tangled up pointing fingers every which way over the Semenya saga, I would like to meekly raise my hand. Yip, I would like to take some responsibility. Not all of it, of course, but I do feel that my profession has wronged this young woman. It has wronged readers by blurring the lines of ethical acceptability, and it has failed itself by sacrificing integrity for the bottom line.

Of course, you, dear reader, do not entirely escape the blame-game. Right or wrong, we publish what you want to read ? readers bring advertisers and advertisers pay the bills.

In the case of the story of Caster Semenya, it is the juicy details of her most private affairs which make the story both so enticing and so morally reprehensible. Sure, had she simply won a gold medal, we would have been chuffed. There would have been a bit of hype for a day or two, but then (as is the case with her fellow gold-medallist Mbulaeni Mulaudzi) the story would quickly have been forgotten.

But when it hit the media that she might not be '100 percent woman' newsrooms began to buzz, social networking sites were littered with cruel anagrams of her name, and her family was subjected to ruthless scrutiny.

Yes, it is the duty of the media to report the news, but only if it is in the public interest. We may have been doing our jobs, but we weren't doing them very well. A common error is to confuse what is in the public interest with what is interesting to the public. The two are very different.

The basic tenets of public interest include:

  • exposing a crime or serious misdemeanour

  • exposing serious anti-social behaviour

  • protecting health and safety

  • preventing the public from being misled by the statement or action of an individual or organisation

  • exposing hypocrisy, falsehoods, or double standards of behaviour

    • I fail to understand how, at any point, Caster Semenya's gynaecological make-up is in the public interest. It may very well be in the interest of the International Association of Athletics Federations; it almost certainly is in the interests of her fellow competitors; but considering that it has no bearing on the outcome of the result or the awarding of medals, it is not in the public interest.

    Furthermore, in publishing unconfirmed results of her gender tests ? results which the IAAF specifically refused to confirm ? the media (well, the South African media at any rate) has broken its own code of conduct. I plucked the following from the Press Code of Professional Practice for your benefit:

  • News obtained by dishonest or unfair means, or the publication of which would involve a breach of confidence, should not be published unless there is a public interest.

    • And

  • In both news and comment, the press shall exercise exceptional care and consideration in matters involving the private lives and concerns of individuals bearing in mind that any right to privacy may be overridden by a legitimate public interest.

    • Caster Semenya has not, as yet, been given the results of her gender test. That confidentiality has been broken and that the unconfirmed results have been unfairly obtained is clear. Furthermore, there is no proof that Caster Semenya has, in any way, attempted to mislead the South African public.

    The irony of writing an opinion piece on how the media has gratuitously capitalised on Caster Semenya's predicament does not escape me. However, I am not suggesting that the media should have ignored the story; I am merely suggesting that we should have handled it more ethically.

    If, as an industry, the media wants to hold on to the privilege of self-regulation, it needs to look more critically at itself. The short-term benefits of a few extra page impressions or newspapers sold will quickly be nullified if the industry loses its credibility.

    So, yes, I am willing to take some of the blame.

    Is anyone to blame? Vote in our poll or share your thoughts below...