OLIVIA LANGTON APPLICANT
AND
MAIL & GAURDIAN RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 1275/08/2015
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] Ms Olivia Langton (“applicant”) lodged several complaints with the Office of the Press Ombudsman. This was in connection with the headline “The apartheid spy who shagged almost everyone,” which appeared in the 31 July 2015 edition of the Mail & Guardian (“respondent”). The complaint was also against the headline on page 7 “Scant sauce in ‘honeypot’ memoir”, where the story appeared. The story was about applicant’s memoir, Agent 407: A South African Spy Breaks Her Silence”. The book is about applicant’s past activities as a student political activist for the so-called left, while she was, in fact working for the security police. At the time, applicant was a student at Rhodes University. What irked the applicant most, was the impression created that she was a “honeypot” which is reference to her sex life at the time. In his Ruling of 1 September 2015, the Press Ombudsman gave the gist of applicant’s complaints as follows:
“l both headlines and the story made untrue, unfair, denigratory and sexist allegations, calculated to vilify her;
l Only the front-page headline and the first-two paragraphs of the story were published on its website – compounding the matter; and
l The newspaper did not ask her for comment.”
I think this is a fair summary of the complaints. Regarding the complaint which was later raised about the posters, the Ombudsman, correctly, ruled that he could not adjudicate on it as he did not see the wording thereof.
[2] The defence raised by respondent was essentially that what was written was a review, in the form of comments, of the book. That it was entitled to conduct a review of the book and in the process, if need be, express subjective opinions. It also appeared that respondent did seek some comments from a number of people who had been involved with applicant during her student activist days, but who did not know that applicant was in fact spying on them for the security police. What is also important is to note that indulgence in sex is not being denied; possible argument could only be with whom and maybe also for what purpose. Indeed, respondent stated that it was prepared to call as its witnesses applicant’s erstwhile peers “to give account of such context to illustrate the usage of words that she interpreted as sexual slurs”.
[3] The Ombudsman dismissed all the complaints, on the premise that what was published was indeed a review of the applicant’s book: “Different rules apply to reviews/comments thaN to news........My adjudication of this complaint therefore rests first and foremost on the question of whether the text was a review, or whether it was rather presented as news ...”. After examining the matter, he concluded that what was published was a review coupled with comments. That being the case, respondent did not have to seek applicant’s comments. But, ironically, this finding led the Ombudsman to a conclusion that respondent violated article 7.2 of the Press Code: “Comments by the press shall be presented in such manner that it appears clearly that it is comment...” Yet, held the Ombudsman, the applicant failed to clearly indicate that was being published was a comment. A sanction was then imposed.
[4] I agree with the Ombudsman’s Ruling. What was published was clearly a review of the book. It must have been foreseen by the applicant that the book was going to attract diverse and excited reactions, given the history of our country. As one of the readers stated, there were allegations of gross brutality by members of the security branch, for who applicant was spying. What also had to be expected, was the reaction of those who would feel betrayed. For example, as indicated above, respondent says there were former peers of the applicant who were prepared to be called as witnesses about allegations of sex indulgence. Suppose this happened, and they came to testify in a hearing – which would have had to be public; I am sure the hall would be full. I make this point to demonstrate that it should have been foreseen, and accepted, by the applicant that the publication of her book was going to illicit all kinds of comments and reactions. Respondent is correct to argue that the applicant “cannot choose how the public or her critics react to a book published and distributed for public consumption. [Applicant] needs to accept and deal with the consequences of playing in the public arena.” This, of course, provided that it is clearly indicated that what is written are comments as a review of the book.
[5] For the reasons given above, as well as for those given by the Ombudsman, I find that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed and the sanction imposed by the Ombudsman should be implemented.
Dated this 19th day of October 2015
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel