SUNDAY SUN APPLICANT
VERSUS
PEARL THUSI RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 1580/2016
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] This is an application by Sunday Sun (“applicant”) for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Press Ombudsman, dated 26 February 2016. The Ruling was in favour of Ms Pearl Thusi (“respondent”) following her complaint against the applicant. The complaint was prompted by an article published by the applicant on 31 January 2016; entitled “Show is now all shook up!” and the sub-head “Rumours of two ditched presenters”. The presenters referred to were the respondent and one Warras.
[2] The respondent lodged a complaint with the office of the Press Ombudsman, contending that the article contained the untruth; and asked for an apology and a retraction. She was really saying that it was not true that she had been ditched. The Ombudsman held that the story was in breach of section 1.10 of the Press Code in that it failed, subsequent to coming across the correct information, to publish an amending article; he therefore made an order to that effect. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Ruling.
[3] The respondent’s complaints, as identified by the Ombudsman, were that the applicant:
· “inaccurately stated that she had been ditched by the SABC;
· Did not contact either her or SABC1; and
· Quoted her incorrectly – she did not either confirm or deny anything, but asked the journalist to speak to the show’s producer.”
[4] In response, the applicant said that the journalist did in fact speak to the respondent and that she was accurately quoted. It also said the story did mention three other sources.
[5] As the Ombudsman says, although the journalist’s contemporaneous notes say respondent said “yes, it is true”, it is difficult to see what she was referring to as being true without seeing the question. In fact, I see more problems with the applicant’s case. The subhead, and indeed the whole tenor of the story is that respondent was fired or kicked off, whereas she was merely being moved from one show to the next, or put on different time slots. Respondent’s complaint of damage to her professional career should be understood in that context. The Ombudsman took into account the fact that, as it turned out, respondent, contrary to the story, continued to present the same show beyond the time which had been predicted by the article. It was for that reason that he ruled that the applicant should have come up with a corrective follow-up story subsequent to the lapse of the time predicted for her departure. As I said earlier, in my view, the story itself was offensive to the respondent. It cannot be seriously argued that she said it was true she was dumped or kicked off.
[6] In support of its application for leave to appeal, the applicant submitted a press release by the respondent’s “employer”, the SABC, in which it was stated that respondent was indeed being moved to another programme. This, argues the applicant, proves the applicant right! Firstly, I am not sure I can take into account events which occurred after the Ombudsman’s Ruling. One of the fundamental principles behind the self-regulatory process is that matters must be dealt with and finalized as expeditiously as possible. What would happen if events keep on changing? Moreover, who knows whether the true cause of the press release and the shifting of the respondent wasn’t the very story complained about? Maybe the ratings of the respondent’s show dropped as a result of the incorrect publication of the article complaint about (damage to her reputation?), forcing the SABC to shift her! One does not want to enter the realm of speculation. Secondly, the press release does not confirm any suggestion that the respondent was dismissed or kicked off; on the contrary, it speaks gloriously of her performance in the show in question. Therefore, considering the respondent’s real complaint, the press release does not avail, let alone, vindicate, the applicant.
[7] For the reasons given by the Ombudsman, as also for those I give, I find that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel. The application for leave to appeal the Ombudsman’s Ruling is therefore refused.
Dated this 31st day of March 2016
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel