Ruling by the Press Ombud
19 May 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Andile Mngxitama, president of the Black First Land First movement (BLF), as well as Mr Njabulo Sithebe, and those of Dumisane Lubisi, executive editor of the City Press newspaper (where the story originated).
BLF and Sithebe are complaining about a story in News24 of 29 April 2017, headlined ‘Prepare for the worst’, says Gigaba’s advisor.
Complaint
They complain that the story:
· incorrectly and misleadingly quoted Prof Chris Malikane, and adviser to the Minister of Finance, Mr Malusi Gigaba, as saying that if the Constitution could not be changed, “to achieve what we want to achieve, we need to go that route [take up arms]...”; and
· did not reflect the fact that Malikane was responding to a question, and that this issue was not a part of his speech.
Mngxitama says it was shocking to see how the white-owned media “blatantly” lied about what was said.
The text
The article, written by Msindisi Fengu, said Malikane had warned South Africans to be prepared for the worst if radical economic transformation was to succeed. He was speaking at Blacks in Dialogue, which was organised by the BLF movement.
Malikane reportedly reiterated his call for a new economic policy and for an amendment to the Constitution to nationalise key sectors of the economy.
He was inter alia quoted as saying, “We need a two-thirds majority to change the Constitution. Otherwise, to achieve what we want to achieve, we need to go that route [take up arms]. Let’s try two-thirds. I don’t like war.”
A decision to take up arms, he reportedly said, would have to be discussed and could not be a decision taken by an individual.
The arguments
Lubisi admits the story did not state that Malikane was responding to a question when uttering the remarks in dispute. However, he says, the words in question were put into brackets to show that those were not Malikane’s words, but those of the newspaper, and that it referred to a statement made by someone else.
He also points out that the story, immediately after the brackets, added the rest of Malikane’s statement – which clarified that he was against the idea of taking up arms and that he preferred a democratic process.
The editor says it is his understanding that it is acceptable in English grammar to put words in somebody’s quotes when the writer seeks to clarify a point made by a speaker.
Lubisi emphasizes that it was not the intention to misrepresent and distort what Malikane had said, but rather to clarify it.
The complainants say even if it was not City Press’s intention to misrepresent Malikane, the effect has been that people believed that those words were what Malikane had said.
Mngxitama also criticizes the journalist for putting those words in brackets, and says that City Press ought to have done a better job to portray the correct context.
He adds that, if the newspaper insists it was not its intention (a statement which Mngxitama disputes) to convey the message in brackets, it should apologise for the unintentional misinterpretation (which other publications have followed).
Mngxitama also argues that, if it was grammatically acceptable to put the words of other people in someone’s quote, as argued by Lubisi, other publications should not have made the mistake of misinterpreting Fengu’s reportage.
He argues that square brackets are used to make the text flow, and should not be misused to enclose words contrary to what a speaker suggested.
Analysis
I have listened to the relevant part of Malikane’s speech – Mngxitama is correct, the professor did not propagate the taking up of arms, and I note that neither did Lubisi argue that he did do so.
The issue is quite simple: Lubisi says the newspaper did not want to portray the message that Malikane was contemplating taking up arms as an option – therefore, I merely need to decide whether the story could reasonably have portrayed the message which City Press did not want to portray.
The fact that Malikane did not dismiss the possibility of taking up arms either (he said that was a matter to be discussed, even though he did not like the idea) is therefore irrelevant as far as this adjudication is concerned.
Like some publications, my first impression was indeed that Malikane was in favour of taking up arms to solve the land issue if democratic processes failed; this impression remained when reading the text again.
I also note that the journalist used square brackets more than once (in the same story) – in which he clearly elaborated on what the speaker himself, and not what somebody else, had said. This, of course, has contributed to the confusion.
Unlike Mngxitama, I am not willing to accept that City Press deliberately tried to misrepresent Malikane’s words; I simply do not have enough evidence to substantiate such a serious allegation.
However, talking about serious: The (wrong) impression created by Fengu’s reportage is indeed extremely (I do not often use adjectives and adverbs) serious – an option (taking up arms) which reasonable citizens surely would want to avoid at all costs.
Of course the media should report it if a person in Malikane’s position propagates violence as a means to an end – that goes without saying. But the last thing this country, including the media, needs, is for someone to needlessly fuel the already volatile climate in this young democracy – not to speak of the tag which Malikane might be carrying with him for who knows how long, without justification. His reputation was at stake, was it not?
I shall reflect the gravity of this mistake in my sanction below.
In conclusion: Sithebe provides me with links to various publications which have taken over the gist of Fengu’s article. Clearly, these publications have interpreted Fengu’s article the same way than I did.
I shall ensure, as a matter of urgency, that such publications and other relevant parties receive this finding, in order for them to rectify or clarify the matter.
I have also noted, with appreciation, that well-known journalist Ferial Haffajee has published a report in the Huffington Post on the very same event – an article which accurately and adequately reflected what actually had been said at that meeting.
Finding
The impression that Malikane favoured the taking up of arms to solve the land reform issue misrepresented him, was unfair to him, and unnecessarily associated him with a position which, if taken to implementation, would have consequences too ghastly to contemplate.
The text was in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;
· 1.2: “News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion … or misrepresentation …”; and
· 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving … reputation.”
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above is a Tier 3 offence.
Sanction
News24 is directed to apologise, unreservedly, to Malikane in particular and to the public in general, for misleadingly and unfairly creating the impression that Malikane favoured the taking up of arms to solve the land reform issue.
The text should:
· be published in the same position as that used for the offending article;
The headline should contain the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Malikane”.
Appeal
The Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombud