Ruling by the Press Ombudsman and a Panel of Adjudicators
21 October 2014
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Dineo Nchabeleng and those of Makhosazana Zwane-Siguqa, editor of Drum magazine, as well as on a hearing that was held on 14 October 2014 in Johannesburg. Nthabiseng More (news editor), Koketso Mashika (the journalist), Mathawe Matsapola (entertainment editor) and Mpumi Zulu (deputy editor) represented Drum. Nchabeleng was accompanied by her mother, Thoko, and by Latiefa Mobara, the Public Advocate.
The members of the Panel of Adjudicators who assisted me were Moshoeshoe Monare (press representative) and Carol Mohala (public representative).
Complaint
Nchabeleng is complaining about an article that was published on page 13 in Drum on 4 September 2014, headlined Dineo’s all grown up – Former Generations child star Dineo Nchabeleng is now a confident adult. She is pregnant, but rumours keep circulating about her private life…
She complains that the article incorrectly and without proper verification stated that she had:
She adds that the story:
At the hearing, Nchabeleng withdrew her complaint about her pregnancy.
The text
The article, written by Koketso Mashika, asked what had happened to popular child TV star Nchabeleng (now 22) because she had gone so quiet. The journalist reported that Nchabeleng was six months pregnant with her first child. According to two sources, allegations of drug use also continued to follow her. Nchabeleng reportedly brushed this allegation aside, saying that it was just a rumour. Mashika also quoted two sources who alleged that Nchabeleng had not turned up for a TV shoot and that she had been dropped on another occasion due to bad performance.
Analysis
Incorrect statements
This part of the complaint deals with two alleged incidents of unprofessionalism on Nchabeleng’s part, as well with an allegation that she used drugs.
The relevant part of the story quoted an unnamed source who reportedly:
Nchabeleng complains that all of the above allegations were unsubstantiated, and adds: “The journalist speaks of two anonymous sources for the respective incidences which I know to be untrue as both [alleged] occasions never occurred.” She adds that at no point in the communication between her and the journalist did the latter mention any rumours of her alleged lack of professionalism or use of drugs with regard to the events reported in the article. “…no effort was made…to verify any of what they went to print with…”
She also says that she was first approached by Mashika on 18 August 2014 “with regards to their interest in doing an interview with me about addressing apparent rumors to do with my alleged teenage pregnancy”. She states that this then led to an exchange of emails between them. “I indicated to her that I would gladly speak to the magazine next year once I was good and ready. This however did not hinder Koketso from her continued persistence of wanting to meet and do the article as she claimed her editor thought it would be beneficial for me to tell my ‘side of the story’.”
Nchabeleng insists that Mashika was not up front with her. “My parents were both here on all the occasions she called and they heard the conversations. So her claim of being truthful is not the case…”
|
In her response to the complaint, Mashika’s first words are: “I first heard of Miss Nchabeleng’s alleged drug use and pregnancy a year ago…” She then says that she heard from a second source this year, who told her that Nchabeleng did not turn up for work – upon which the producers (of a small local film company) said that she was not going to be part of that production any more. This source also told her that Nchabeleng was said to be taking the supposedly highly addictive drug Menopinopi (he knew nothing about a child). She was then referred to a third source, who told her on condition of anonymity that Nchabeleng had been axed from presenting at a three-day festival. This source said that he had heard about drugs and the child. Mashika says she eventually had a lengthy telephone conversation with Nchabeleng. The latter then “confirmed that she is currently pregnant, which came as a surprise considering she had during our first telecommunication, agreed to have a shoot/interview with her child the next day before cancelling. She indicated that around May/June her baby will be about 6-months-old and that’s when she will do an interview with us…” She also confirms that she tried on several occasions to persuade Nchabeleng to do an interview with her about pregnancy, drug use and unprofessionalism. |
Nchabeleng replied to the above, saying that she was a Wits student at the time. “I was asked to be part of a team of artists/personalities who would mc for the annual orientation beer garden segment which takes place over a period of 5 days, with each of us allocated one day only and partner to work with during that week. There was never a point where more days were assigned to me as this was a non-paying booking that we were doing as personalities of the entertainment industry who were current students at the university. I took part in this event for two years and never had any complaints from the student representative who was assigned to me for this particular event, this the representative at the time can verify.”
She also denied that she had ever agreed to any castings/bookings for a show or film without a contract or email correspondence in her personal capacity about the matter in question. “Furthermore I have always had artist representation therefore such an incident did not occur as I was not notified by my agent at the time of any such shoot nor was I contacted by any production staff with regards to this apparent film.”
At the hearing
The panel first dealt with the issue of whether or not Mashika told Nchabeleng that she wanted to get comment from her on the allegations of drug abuse and unprofessionalism.
Mashika insisted that she had mentioned these issues to Nchabeleng during their first two telephonic conversations; she also provided the panel with her notes made during one of these conversations to prove that she did mention the rumour of the use of drugs.
Ncbabeleng, on the other hand, denied that these matters were ever put to her. Her mother testified that she had over-heard these conversations (the speaker-phone was on), and she corroborated her daughter’s version.
The panel refrained from making any finding on this particular issue, because while the panel could not rule out the possibility that the reporter may have indeed put these allegations to Nchabeleng, the dispute regarding the accuracy, truthfulness and the substance of the allegations far overweighs the dispute over whether (and the manner in which) these allegations were communicated to Nchabeleng.
The allegation of the use of drugs: Mashika said that she had used three sources to back up her story. However, it soon became clear that all these informants were secondary sources, as none of them had seen Nchabeleng use drugs. The story reflected this, as one of the sources is quoted as saying: “She is said to be taking a drug called menopinopi” (emphasis added).
In Drum’s response to the complaint, it emphasised that one of the sources said that he/she “had heard” about the allegations.
The reporter admitted that she had made no attempt to independently verify this allegation and admitted that the information was second-hand which, of course, amounted to mere hearsay.
Drum also argued that it published the allegations on the grounds that they were denied by Nchabeleng and, secondly, that they were communicated to the magazine by several sources. It appears that the magazine ignored the consequences and ethical requirements regarding stating unverified and unsubstantiated rumour as fact, including by implication.
This is despite the Drum’s reporter and editorial managers at the hearing admitting that they failed to verify the truthfulness and/or accuracy of the allegations as required by Section 2.4 of the Press Code which says: “Where there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a report and it is practicable to verify the accuracy thereof, it shall be verified. Where it has not been practicable to verify the accuracy of a report, this shall be stated in such report.”
The deputy editor admitted that “we should have verified it, but we did not.” She added: “It was a mistake, using Dineo as verification…”
This admission implies that the magazine was negligent or/and ignored the elementary editorial standards and ethical requirements during the process of verifying its report before publication as required by Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the Code.
There were neither reasonable factors nor public interest consideration that compelled the magazine to proceed with the publication of unverified allegations.
Claims that Nchabeleng was unprofessional in her work: The story cited two such instances (as cited above), with one source giving information on each case. This time, the sources were said to be primary.
The Drum delegation argued that it had viewed the matter of unprofessionalism as a whole, which meant that the one case in the magazine’s opinion verified the other.
This argument has some merits, but it also has its demerits – as neither of these cases had in fact been independently verified.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that (unlike the allegation of the use of drugs) it should have been easy to verify the facts by contacting the people who were responsible for the two events. It was the responsibility of Drum in this instance to corroborate the information from their anonymous sources as prescribed by Section 11.2 of the Press Code.
Mashika admitted that she had not tried to contact other identifiable sources involved in the organisation of the events – which, to the panel’s mind, she should have done. Again, the Drum delegation admitted to this neglect.
At the hearing, Nchabeleng submitted emails by the organisers of these events to show that her professionalism was not in question and that she had not been booked for the second event.
Drum questioned the credibility, reliability and motive of the witnesses and questioned the evidential value of the documents submitted by Nchabeleng.
The panel concludes that the Press Code required Drum to have tried to verify the allegations with both the institutions involved – without which the magazine was not justified to publish the allegations. The same argument as the one used for the allegation of the use of drugs applies in this case based on a single source (for each event).
Published despite ‘disinterest’
Nchabeleng complains that Drum published the article even though she had explicitly expressed her “disinterest” in addressing any rumours.
At the hearing
The panel explained to Nchabeleng that it was her right to refuse to be interviewed, as much as it was the magazine’s right to decide to publish despite her “disinterest” in the matter.
Harmful of her dignity, reputation, future
Nchabeleng complains that the article will harm her career, and that it has defamed and damaged her dignity and reputation. “As artist we are casted or booked for work mostly on these two factors and their eagerness to go to print with false information is defamatory for me as an artist.”
At the hearing
Having decided that Drum published the allegations without verification, the panel agreed that the nature and seriousness of the allegations in the context of the complainant’s professional standing and status did cause some serious, unnecessary harm to her dignity and reputation, and possibly also have endangered her career.
In this case, Section 4.7 of the Code is relevant. It reads:
|
The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation. The dignity or reputation of an individual should be overridden only by a legitimate public interest and in the following circumstances: · The facts reported are true or substantially true; or · The article amounts to fair comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are true or substantially true; or · The report amounts to a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, Parliamentary proceedings or the proceedings of any quasi-judicial tribunal or forum; or · It was reasonable for the article to be published because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct and in the public interest. |
The panel believes that none of the provisions above have been met by Drum.
Finding
Incorrect statements
There is no finding on the issue of whether or not Mashika tried to get comment from Nchabeleng on the allegations of the use of drugs and of unprofessionalism.
The allegations: Drum is in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
Published despite ‘disinterest’
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Harmful of her dignity, reputation, future
Drum is in breach of Sect. 4.7 of the Press Code.
Sanction
Drum is directed to:
If the story in question was or is published on its website, the magazine is also required to publish this apology and retraction in an appropriate place on its site.
|
Section 5.5 of the Complaints Procedures reads: “At the conclusion of a hearing, and after a Panel has reached a decision, both parties shall be entitled to address the Panel, personally or in writing, on sanctions and where appropriate mitigation.” Either party may do so within three working days of receipt of this decision. Please note that this is not an application for leave to appeal – which is a separate process, as explained below. |
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 Adjudication Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Carol Mohale (public representative)
Moshoeshoe Monare (press representative)
Johan Retief (press ombudsman)