MVUSIWEKHAYA SICWETSHA APPELLANT
AND
THE HERALD RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 1884/08/2016
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] Mr Mvusiwekhaya Sicwetsha (“applicant”) submitted to the Press Ombud a complaint against what was published by The Herald (“respondent”) on 26 July 2016. This was not a complaint about what was said about the applicant. His first complaint was that the respondent replaced one word in a letter which he had written to the respondent for publication. He says the respondent replaced a word he had used, namely, “prose” with the word “prove”. This was in the following sentence: “While the Human Right (sic) Commission might investigate the matter, the discourse around this should not favour a side that can prose its defense in a manner that gives usable sound bytes and quotes.” (Own emphasis).
The second complaint he had was that the respondent left out certain questions was asking about the object of his letter, namely, Mr Trollip who was at the time a mayoral candidate in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan for the Democratic Alliance. The applicant said he was a member of the African National Congress, writing in his personal capacity. He complained that by so doing, respondent was protecting Mr Trollip. The portions he says were left out accused Mr Trollip of racism.
[2] In its response, the respondent says that it had the right to edit applicant’s letter. It said “Like any other newspaper, we reserve the right, without reason, to shorten or edit letters. This happens on a daily basis, with all letters written, and no justification is provided”. Respondent also denies that it was seeking to protect Mr Trollip.
[3] In his Ruling dated 24 August 2016, the Ombud upheld the first complaint, and ordered respondent to publish a correction for the use of the word “prose” to “prove”. The respondent accepted the sanction, and conceded that it was a misprint. The second complaint was, however dismissed. The Ombud upheld respondent’s defence that it had the right to edit what the appellant had submitted for publication. This application is for leave to appeal the latter finding.
[4] I notice that in his application for leave to appeal, applicant argues that what he had submitted was not a letter, but an opinion piece. I do not think that, given the defence raised by the respondent, this makes any difference. It must be noted that what appellant submitted, be a letter or what he calls an opinion piece, was indeed very lengthy. The Press Council be slow to take away editorial discretion to amend or edit pieces. If the appellant’s view were to be correct, it would mean that each and every opinion piece, no matter how long, should be published in full. This would simply not work. The sanction against a paper which regularly emasculates letters or opinion pieces is that it would, amongst others, loose credibility and therefore popularity; people would stop writing to it. It is also noteworthy that part was what was published was critical of the respondent as well; that is, respondent was not out to suppress applicant’s critical views. Also, what was said to have been left out was a series of questions for Mr Trollip to answer, as opposed to making pertinent substantive points to drive a message home.
[5] For the reasons given above, the application has no reasonable prospects of success. It is emphasized that there are no prospects that the Appeals Panel would compel respondent to publish an opinion piece in its entirety; that could set a difficult precedent. What if someone next time writes a piece of twice as many words as applicant’s?
Dated this 4th day of October 2016
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel