Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
19 February 2016
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Claire Taylor and those of Jeni Ingram, on behalf of The Highveld Gazette newspaper.
Complaint
Taylor is complaining about a front-page picture in The Highveld Gazette of January 2016, headlined Boven – Service delivery protests.
She complains that the picture:
· was offensive and amounted to hate speech;
· perpetuated a stereotype, continuing to stigmatise black people as emotion-driven and destructive criminals with no regard for other people and their property;
· dehumanised black people by failing to provide the proper context for the woman’s image on the picture – rather than “celebrating” the destruction shown in the photo, she was merely posing because her picture was taken; and
· exploited a vulnerable group – young, black women living in rural areas – in exchange for nothing more than shock value.
The picture
The picture, covering the whole of the front page, showed a (superimposed) young, black woman in the foreground with her arms in the air, sporting a huge smile. In the background approximately thirty other black people were protesting on a tarred road, with a fire on the road and lots of stones. They were clearly demonstrating and, according to the headline and caption, the action had been aimed at poor service delivery (in the Waterval Boven area).
The caption to the picture read, “Residents of Emgwenya came out in force on Thursday to protest against poor service delivery from Emakhazeni Local Municipality.”
The story was carried on page 2.
The arguments
In addition to her complaint, as cited above, Taylor says, “Superimposing the photo of a young black woman in an iconic celebratory pose (smiling, with arms raised) against a background of rocks and fire with protesters in the background is offensive and irresponsible and, I argue, amounts to hate speech.”
She says that the picture was even more “profound” in a rural town such as Waterval Boven which still “continues to be divided along socio-economic, racial and language lines”. She argues that the media have an additional responsibility in rural areas, meaning that they should be more sensitive to divisions so as not to widen these partitions – a sensitivity that was lacking on the front-page in question.
Taylor deems it a “disgrace” that the same edition of the newspaper did not also carry the message that everybody in the area had been (equally) affected by dismal service delivery.
Ingram says she sees “where there is concern” and takes note of the argument – but avers that the picture was published “in the right spirit of fair and reliable news reporting”.
The journalist says the woman in the picture had not been celebrating the destruction (shown in the photo), but was posing merely because her photo was being taken. “I would not have used an image of a person, be they black, white or of any other race unless the picture directly relates to the subject. This particular image … was taken from one of the photographs at the actual event and does address the ‘relevant matter’ [covered in the report].”
Besides, she argues that from other pictures of the same event it was clear that the protestors, including the particular woman, were dancing and celebrating. “This image was simply chosen as an indication of the spirit of the occasion and is a fair and unbiased reflection of the event.”
Ingram denies that the picture exploited young, black women living in rural areas. She argues that the newspaper had no need to employ “shock value” – as it is a free montly publication, there is no need to promote sensationalism to sell papers.
She adds that the article did not in any way refer to race or people’s status – it simply related the events as they occurred.
In conclusion, Ingram says the fact of the matter is that the only people at this event were from Emgwenya, and none from Waterval Boven. “[T]o fabricate a story to include other areas … would not be in the spirit of fair reporting.”
Tylor responds that the picture violated the Press Code because the sense derived from the photo was that the woman was happy and celebrating – yet in the background a number of people were protesting on a road blocked off by rocks and fire. “By superimposing a photo of the woman onto this backdrop, the impression given is that the woman is happy and is celebrating the destruction shown in the background.”
She denies that this woman was dancing in the other pictures of the same event made available by Ingram – she was rather toyi-toying in protest. The woman was smiling and looked celebratory in only one picture – taken when she was posing for the photographer.
Taylor concludes that the picture in question was not an “indication of the spirit of the occasion and … a fair and unbiased reflection of the event”, as claimed by Ingram – instead, it violated the Press Code “by misrepresenting the young woman and thereby misleading the public”.
Analysis
This complaint is more complicated than meets the eye.
Firstly, when a picture is altered (whether it is super-imposed, cut, or photo-shopped), all the red lights should flicker at the news desk. The danger is that people may be misled – thus eroding the credibility of the media in the process.
This is why a newspaper should take the utmost care not to alter the meaning of a picture or of an occasion.
This brings to mind the iconic picture taken of President Nelson Mandela, who released two white doves shortly after his release from prison. This picture was photo-shopped to fit the doves into the frame. The newspaper did not state this, but was later brought to book.
My first question, therefore, is whether the super-imposing of the young woman changed the meaning.
I note that, while the event was clearly serious and people were angry, there was at least one other picture showing some people smiling.
Also, and this is the more important argument: It is not for me (and neither is it for Taylor, for that matter) to decide for this woman just why she was smiling – it could have been because she was being photographed (as has been suggested); it could also have been because she felt victorious because of her actions and those of the group. Or for some other reason.
The point is that nobody except this woman herself knows why she smiled – which is why I have no ground to determine that the meaning of the event was altered by featuring her with a “triumphant” smile. Besides, the woman was smiling, was she not – her smile was not super-imposed.
The other parts of Taylor’s complaint relates to the dehumanisation of black people, the offensive nature of the picture, the exploitation of a vulnerable group of society, and the perpetuation of a stereotype (stigmatising black people as emotion-driven and destructive criminals with no regard for other people and their property).
These are my considerations:
· The fact of the matter is that a protest took place, and that only black people participated in it. This was not fabricated by the newspaper; it was merely the messenger;
· Taylor’s argument can also be overturned – because only black people participated in the process, and because young women were part of it, it can be argued that these were the only people who were brave enough to leave the shelter of their dwellings or workplaces and were putting their bodies on the line for the good of society. In that case, it would nullify this part of the complaint, of course; and
· Taylor uses the plural when referring to the alleged dehumanisation and the stigmatising of black people (“as emotionally-driven and destructive criminals with no regard for other people and their property”). This means she refers not only to the woman, but also to the protestors. However, these people were all adults, and they chose to demonstrate in public in the way they did. If there is any possibility of dehumanisation then Taylor’s argument, when logically thought through, boils down to a conviction that these people, through their actions, have dehumanised themselves (as again, the newspaper was merely the messenger). I accept that this was not Taylor’s intention – but it still needs to be said.
A separate comment regarding the complaint about hate speech is appropriate.
Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (which is referred to in the Preamble to the Press Code as well) provides that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression… [This] right…does not extend to: (a) Propaganda for war; (b) Incitement of imminent violence; or (c) Advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”
This, according to the Bill of Rights, is what defines hate speech – which, clearly, is why I cannot uphold this part of Taylor’s complaint.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
Appeal
Our 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 Ombudsman