APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL
CITY OF TSHWANE APPELLANT
versus
PRETORIA NEWS AND THE STAR RESPONDENTS
MATTER 24/11/2014
DECISION OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE
[1] The City of Tshwane (“appellant”) lodged a complaint against the two papers (“respondents”) with the Office of the Ombudsman against stories published on 19 November 2014 by each. The heading in the Pretoria News read: “R15m spent on fast food in one month”, while in the Star it read “R15m to cater for Tshwane staff’s big appetites”. In essence both articles were saying that appellant spent R15m on take-away food parcels for its stand-by staff in one month, namely, August. The appellant raised a number of complaints; but they all stem from the argument that the money was not spent over only one month.
[2] The following is a summary of the appellant’s complaints:
2.1 The journalist did not show any diligence in compiling the story; if he did, he would have realised that it was impossible to spend R15m in one month on food for City of Tshwane’s staff.
2.2 The headlines were untrue.
2.3 The story was misrepresentation of facts.
2.4 Request for comment was not genuine.
2.5 Harm was caused to the credibility of the leadership of the Tshwane City Council in the eyes of the public.
2.6 The sole intention of the article was to put the DA in a positive light, and the ANC administration in a negative one.
2.7 That applicant was not given enough time to respond.
[3] The respondents are sister newspapers and both articles were written by the same journalist. The essence of the response was that the headlines and the story were based on a document which had been tabled before the Tshwane Municipal Public Accounts Portfolio Committee, a press statement released by a Democratic Alliance Councillor; and an interview with her; also contacted was a member of Cope. The journalist also said he had contacted a spokesperson of the appellant.
[4] The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in his Ruling dated 29 January 2015. The appellant sought, and obtained, leave to appeal the Ruling. The appeal was heard on 20 May 2015. Attorney Louw appeared for the respondents and Adv Dewrance appeared for the appellant. The parties submitted, albeit at the last moment, extensive heads of argument. The Ombudsman dealt with the complaints against the two respondents together. Although Mr Louw said he was appearing for the Pretoria News, the complaint against the Star is exactly the same and in dealing with the one, one would in effect also be dealing with the other. We will, in this Decision, therefore not separate the complaint against the Star from the one against the Pretoria News; we dispose of both in the same breath.
[5] By the time the appeal came before us, the crux of the matter was whether or not the respondents were justified in saying that the R15m spend was all in one month. The appellant’s contention was that in so reporting, the respondents violated clause 2 of the Press Code in that they did not report accurately, truthfully etc. The appellant puts its case as follows in its heads of argument:
“27. Section 2.1 of the Code places a duty of care on the media (the respondents) to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly. By all accounts, the articles complained of were neither true, accurate nor fair.
28. As a matter of fact – which the Ombudsman also confirmed – the appellant did not spend R15 million in one month on “take-a-ways” as reported by the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents’ publication was therefore untruthful and inaccurate and, consequently, in breach of section 2.1 of the Code.
29. The respondents therefore did not exercise a duty of care to report truthfully and accurately, especially because, with reasonable care, they would have been able to obtain accurate information. However, they hastened to publish inaccurate articles thus causing severe damage to the appellant.
30. The Ombudsman correctly pointed out in the Ruling that the reporter should have ‘smelled a rat...’” (that such a huge amount of money could not possibly have been spent in just one month, and should therefore have been more careful in publishing that).
This was the crux of the appellant’s case. It contended that the amount was so incredible, that the respondents should have at least awaited its response, which was to come the following day; had the respondents waited, they would have been informed that the R15m was not a one month spend.
[6] Mr Louw, for the Pretoria News, raised a point before us which had not been raised before the Ombudsman. He argued that the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that, the appellant, a local government, could not be defamed. He missed the point. The crux of appellant’s case was not a case for defamation. As indicated above, its case was that the respondents had violated clause 2 of the Code to which they were subscribed. The argument raised had no merit because the issue is simply: have the respondents violated article 2 of the Code or not? In any event, the point was never raised before the Ombudsman; the respondents accepted that the matter was justiciable in terms of the Code.
[7] In his heads of argument, Mr Louw conceded that the 19 November 2014 article in the Pretoria News was “not true to the extent that it states in the headline that R15million was spent in one month”. He however, goes on to defend the heading and the article as follows:
“49. The first article in its entirety is based on:
49.1 The press statement issued by Bronwynn Engelbrecht, in her capacity as a Councillor in the City of Tshwane;
49.2 The interview with Councillor Engelbrecht;
49.3 The interview with Councillor Mathebe;
49.4 The response by Lindela Mashigo;
49.5 The copy of the document that served before the Tshwane Municipal Public Accounts Portfolio Committee”.
[8] The real question is whether the document referred to, could reasonably be interpreted as conveying that the amount of R15m was a one month spend. We have had a good look at the document, the heading of which reads:
“CTMM TENDER STATISTICS FOR AUGUST 2013”
It sets out some tender numbers, including the one in question. The document is pretty ambiguous; that is the difficulty. We are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the journalist, particularly in light of the following:
8.1 It is true that the spokesperson for the appellant, when confronted by a question from the journalist, said that he was going to investigate and would come back the following day; but if the interpretation given to the document by the respondents was so outrageous, one would have expected the spokesperson to raise a query or at least express some doubt there and then. This point must also meet the argument that the appellant needed more time, till the next day.
8.2 The press statement which had been issued by a Democratic Alliance Councillor had been in public circulation for a few days before the articles.
8.3 The interview with some Councillors.
[9] We appreciate appellant’s contention that the amount of money was too huge for a one month spend. We however think that the journalist took some steps to verify. Given the ambiguity of the document and what is said in 8.1 to 8.3, we are of the view that the respondents did not act in breach of the Press Code.
[10] It is also important to bear in mind, as an additional factor, that the respondent reported the correct state of affairs as soon as respondent had it, the next day.
[11] For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.
Dated this 1st day of June 2015
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
Prof F Kruger, Member
Mr P van der Merwe, Member