Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
29 July 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Dr Ronald Goldman, executive director of the Circumcision Resource Centre. The editor of TimesLive, Dominic Mahlangu, has opted not to respond, but has asked me to continue adjudicating the complaint.
Complaint
Goldman is complaining about and article in TimesLive of 11 July 2015, headlined KZN offers 3-day camp for safe male circumcision.
He complains that the article was a continuation of unfair, unbalanced reporting on male circumcision, saying that “everything” in this pro-circumcision story can be refuted by professionals. He denies that circumcision is “safe”, and asks for an open debate on this issue – the publication, he states, ignores the other side of the debate, while it should include all views on the matter.
Goldman questions whether TimesLive has met the standards set by the Press Code “with only pro-circumcision articles when international professionals and … professional literature find such positions seriously flawed and incomplete?”
He says a letter or an article from him would not solve the problem of continuous unfair reporting. “I request that the [Press] Council fulfill its responsibility and direct editors to conform to the South African Press Code with regard to circumcision reporting and monitor them for compliance.”
The text
The article started with the following: “Would you like to go on a three-day camp in KwaZulu-Natal? You can if you’re a man and want to be circumcised safely.”
The story then reported a statement by the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Department of Health, to the effect that medical circumcision camps had been opened in eleven districts. “Circumcision has many crucial benefits, particularly that it cuts the chances of getting HIV by about 60%. Penile cancer is also reduced…”
The KZN MEC for Health, Sibongiseni Dhlomo, reportedly appealed to parents to ensure their male children attended the circumcision camps, “which are safe”.
My considerations
If the story was about a scientific debate on the pros and cons of circumcision, of course both sides of the matter should have been reported. In this case, though, the article was about camps opened by the Department of Health in several districts.
This was newsworthy, given the number of males who have recently (and over the years) died following such operations performed by non-medical staff. The erection of camps, to my mind, was a positive development and should be lauded as such. While I am not a health expert, I do think it is reasonable to assume that circumcisions performed by medical staff should at least be safer that those conducted in the “bush”.
I also note that the statement about these circumcisions being safe did not in the first place come from TimesLive, but rather from the MEC for Health. Surely, TimesLive was justified in publishing such a public statement.
It is strange that Goldman asks for an open debate, and yet refuses the suggestion by the Public Advocate to write an article stating the other side. That does not add up.
Goldman’s proposal that this office monitors the press on this issue is impractical. It is impossible for two people (the Public Advocate and the Press Ombudsman) to monitor way over a thousand publications countrywide.
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