Ruling by the Press Ombud
11 October 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Altaaf Kazi, head of media and communications at Cricket South Africa (CSA), on behalf of the latter, and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.
CSA is complaining about a story on page 24 in Sunday Times of 13 August 2017, headlined T20GL throws a no-ball – SA franchise pulls out of cricket’s Global League as conflict of interest rears its head.
Complaint
CSA complains about the following sentence: “A knock-on effect of Brimstone’s abrupt decamping has seen the player auction that was initially slated to take place on August 19 being delayed by a week.”
Kazi says this statement was incorrect and aimed at painting the upcoming international cricket league in South Africa in a negative light, despite the fact that he had given the journalist the correct information on the week’s delay of the player auction.
The text
The article, penned by Khanyiso Tshwaku, said that Brimstone Investment Corporation’s withdrawal from CSA’s T20 Global League (T20GL) had “threatened to stall the tournament before it begins and robs it of South African participation”.
The journalist reported that Brimstone’s withdrawal led to a delay in the player auction.
The story quite elaborately quoted CSA’s CEO Haroon Lorgat.
The arguments
Kazi says the reporter sent him a request for comment on Friday afternoon, August 11.
He explains he was in New Zealand at the time – and with the time difference and having to touch base with Lorgat on this, he managed to send his response at 14:00 on Saturday, August 12.
He says that, while the journalist reflected certain aspects of the story accurately, but there was one “glaring omission … and disregard of the facts”.
Kazi said the journalist asked him why the player auction had been pushed back another week (from the original date of August 19). He responded as follows: “During the Owners Workshop in Dubai at the end of July, the owners requested more time to prepare for the Players Draft. That was perfectly understandable and we had no hesitation to agree to move a week later.”
He adds that this information was also reflected in a media release issued on August 10, which the reporter would have received.
Notwithstanding this response, Tshwaku reported that Brimstone’s abrupt decamping had the “knock-on effect” that the player auction, initially planned for August 19, was delayed by a week.
Kazi says the factually incorrect statement shows that the journalist intended to paint a bleak picture of the Cricket League.
Referring to a finding by this office last year, he says this was the second time that the particular journalist reported unnecessarily negatively on CSA matters.
He concludes, “… this trend from the reporter and the Sunday Times is quite serious and all we asking for is fair treatment and accurate reporting.”
Smuts submits the sentence in dispute was based on information from a trusted and knowledgeable source who has a long-standing relationship with the reporter, and whose previous information was correct.
She adds that the story in fact did reflect the comment Kazi complains was left out.
Also, the statement in dispute and the one in the media release did not conflict one another – the one merely added flesh to the other’s bones. “In other words,” she explains, “the owners asked for a delay following Brimstone's withdrawal. We submit that the other quotes from CSA's Haroon Lorgat underpin that CSA was looking for an owner for the Stellenbosch franchise and was willing to warehouse the franchise until the ownership had been resolved.”
The legal editor says the newspaper is willing to engage to resolve this matter amicably, and to this end she requests Kazi to provide more details on the owners’ request for the delay. “In particular, we ask that he address whether Brimstone's departure featured in the request, and whether (and what) other reasons were given,” she adds.
Kazi replies that the story never attributed anything to a source – Tshwaku stated his information as fact (while it was, in this case, incorrect).
He asks why the journalist:
Kazi also disagrees with Smuts’s comment that the owners requested the delay after the withdrawal of Brimstone. He says CSA has never made such a statement, and calls it “an ill-informed assumption”.
He explains the owners said at a workshop in Dubai (on July 29 and 30) that the draft date of August 19 was too soon, as some of the owners were in the process of appointing their coaches (who needed more time to study the players in the draft and to work on strategies for the player draft). “Based on that, we had moved the date of the player draft to a week later,” he says.
This decision, Kazi adds, was communicated in a media release on August 4, while Brimstone only pulled out on August 10 (which was communicated to the media the following day).
He argues there is “no way” that the journalist can prove, with or without his source, that the draft date was postponed due to Brimstone’s departure – which leads him to believe that the reporter had a hidden agenda (as he had “done on previous occasions”).
Kazi concludes, “CSA will gladly accept any criticism when reported correctly and factually. However, when facts are incorrect and get reported despite the fact that we provided the correct facts, we won’t accept this.”
Analysis
The only bone of contention is whether Brimstone’s withdrawal from the league had caused the delay of the auction.
If it is true that the auction was postponed before Brimstone withdrew from the tournament, as CSA says, it follows that the postponement could not have taken place as a result of it.
If Tshwaku had contrasted CSA’s statement with that of the source, there would have been no problem. What he did, though, was to state the information garnered from his source as fact, without pointing out that CSA in fact disagreed with it (even though he quoted Lorgat at the end of his story).
I have previously asked publications to reveal the identity of a source to me in confidentiality, in order to come to a reasonable finding. I am not doing so in this case, as the story did not attribute the disputed information to a source – it was stated as fact.
In deciding which one of the possibilities is reasonably true, I am therefore confronted with a statement of fact (by the journalist), for which no evidence was proffered – giving me no reason to believe that Tshwaku’s reportage on this issue was correct – and with the official response of CSA.
It is important to emphasise that it is dangerous to report information given by a source as fact, especially when dealing with potentially contentious issues; it is even dicier not to attribute such information to a source (which is what happened in this case).
While I am satisfied that the story did reflect Lorgat’s comment, I also am concerned that it appeared right at the end of the article – I would have expected this statement within the immediate context of the one in contention.
Another area of concern is the fact that this office has previously found against the same journalist with regards to the same complainant, as Kazi correctly points out.
In that finding, delivered on 12 July 2016, I wrote that the journalist should have given CSA an opportunity to respond to well-known cricketer Mkhaya Ntini’s remarks on its allegedly negative attitude towards Zimbabwean cricket.
I found that the newspaper was in breach of the Code and described it as a Tier 2 offence (a serious breach of the Code), and inter alia reprimanded it for this mistake.
Section 8.3 of the Complaints Procedures says, “When the Ombud finds that a publication is a repeat offender, he or she should specifically point this out in the ruling. If it occurred again, the Ombud may recommend that the Press Council convene a hearing to inquire into the repeated offences and ask the offender for an explanation and a plan to prevent recidivism.”
I am now executing the first requirement of this section – I am pointing out that this is not the first time that Tshwaku has breached the Press Code with regards to CSA.
Hopefully there will be no need for me to put the second requirement of Section 8.3 into practice in future.
Sensing that Smuts did not have all the available information at her disposal, especially the data which Kazi proffered in his reply to her response to the complaint, I have given her the opportunity to respond once more before coming to a finding.
She duly obliged, offering the following text:
“In ‘T20GL throws a no-ball’ (August 20), we stated that Brimstone Investment Corporation's departure from Cricket SA's T20 Global League led to the player auction that was initially slated for August 19 being delayed by a week. Cricket SA has since complained that in fact the request from owners to delay the players draft by a week was made before Brimstone pulled out. We regret the error.”
I am thankful for this admission, as it shows that the newspaper is serious to avoid mistakes – and to correct them when it has made them. I am taking this into account with regards to the sanction which follows.
Finding
The statement in question was in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1 – minor errors which do not change the thrust of the story), serious breaches (Tier 2), and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Press Code as indicated above are Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
Sunday Times is directed to publish the following text:
“In ‘T20GL throws a no-ball’ (August 20), we stated that Brimstone Investment Corporation's departure from Cricket SA's T20 Global League led to the player auction that was initially slated for August 19 being delayed by a week. Cricket SA has since complained to the Press Ombud that in fact the request from owners to delay the players draft by a week was made before Brimstone pulled out. We apologise for the error. Visit www.presscouncil,org.za for the Ombud’s finding.”
The newspaper is requested to publish the text:
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