Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
22 July 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Vukile Zondi, managing director of Gagasi FM, and those of Johan Vos, deputy editor of the Sunday Sun newspaper.
Complaint
Zondi is complaining about a story in the Sunday Sun of 10 May 2015, headlined Vukile flips some wigs! – Guards toss radio boss into air.
He complains that the story falsely said he was tossed into the air by hefty security guards, and denies that the journalists witnessed the alleged incident.
He adds that the:
· newspaper did not exercise care and consideration in publishing the article, with the result that his dignity and reputation were tarnished;
· journalist is under an obligation to disclose the identity of his sources; and
· headline misrepresented the story and misled the public.
The text
The story, written by Bongani Mdakane, said that American rapper Rick Ross’s bodyguards tossed Zondi into the air at an event in Durban. An eyewitness reportedly said, “When Vukile saw Rick Ross leave the stage, he came running towards him for a selfie. But instead of posing with the rapper, he was sent packing.”
Mdakane quoted Zondi as follows: “I didn’t try to take a selfie as I don’t know the guy like that. I tried to take a photo from backstage but was told it was not allowed. I wasn’t kicked out or manhandled in any way.”
Analysis
‘Tossed into the air’, not witnessing the alleged incident
The sentence in dispute says, “The SunTeam witnessed the incident when the boss of Gagazi FM, was tossed into the air by hefty guards belonging to Big Boyz Security.”
Zondi denies that he was “tossed into the air” – nor was he manhandled, kicked or physically removed by security guards, as implied in the story.
He says the Sun team did not witness the incident, as it never happened.
Zondi also argues that, as the media were not permitted to enter the backstage area, it is improbable that the Sun team could have witnesses any incident in that area.
|
Vos responds that the story did not say that Mdakane attended the event. He says the Sun team consisted of three members, who were all on the attendance list. He adds that three people witnessed the incident, including a member of the Sun team. Also, that three other witnesses informed a Sun team member about the incident. The deputy editor explains in detail how it was possible for the journalists to have a “prominent view” of the incident. He concludes, “He [the writer of the story] had no reason to not believe the witnesses of the particular episode, as they all share the same version of events, and therefore [we] decided to publish it as fact and not as allegations. The [six witnesses] made the events more than plausible and we had no reason to present the article as allegations.” Vos adds that the story did reflect Zondi’s denial of the incident, that it was in the public interest as Zondi was the boss of Gagasi FM, that the incident was witnessed at the concert of a famous American rapper, and that the altercations involved the latter’s bodyguards. |
Zondi says:
· the story said that “the SunTeam” had witnessed the incident, whereas Vos now admitted that only one member of the team saw what had happened. This made the reporting “inaccurate and untrue”;
· that Vos, in his reply, mentioned a journalist saying that he (Zondi) was tossed in the air – while Mdakane quoted an eyewitness as saying that he was “sent packing”. “It is submitted that the Article is clearly inaccurate.” He also argues that, if the incident was witnessed by one member of the Sun team “[t]here is no plausible reason why the member of the [team] was not accurately quoted”;
· he was accompanied by two witnesses while backstage, both of whom confirm that he was not attacked or threatened by the bodyguards. He therefore submits that the incident, as reported, did not occur;
· the newspaper could not have had eyewitnesses, and denies that the matter is in the public interest – arguing that Vos’s argument on this issue is irrelevant;
· if the incident was observed by members of the media, and was a matter of public interest, it would have been reported by other publications present – which has not happened;
· Vos is untruthful in saying that the names of three members of the Sun team appear on the accreditation list – “There is no record of a third representative…having attended the event”;
· the media did not have access to the restricted area; and
· the newspaper never asked him for his opinion on the allegation that he had been “tossed in the air”.
My considerations
I have asked Vos the following question: “In your response to the complaint you say the words ‘tossed in the air’ came from one of the journalists who attended the event. Did any other source use this expression?”
He says one of the journalists (I have his/her name) used the words and described the incident to him, adding that another source who was quoted in the story (I am also not revealing his/her identity) used the very same expression.
I have no reason to disbelieve this, and therefore conclude that the reporting was reasonable and fair.
Dignity, reputation
Zondi complains that the newspaper did not exercise care and consideration in publishing the article, with the result that his dignity and reputation were tarnished.
Vos replies that, if Zondi did suffer any damage in terms of his dignity and reputation, he was responsible for it – not the newspaper.
My considerations
Given my decision above, it follows that this part of the complaint has no leg to stand on.
Disclosing of identities
Zondi says that the journalist is under an obligation to disclose the identities of his sources unless there is no other way of dealing with the story. He argues that there is no reason for protecting the identities of the “eyewitness” and the members of the “SunTeam”.
Vos points to Section 11.1 of the Press Code that reads, “The press has an obligation to protect confidential sources of information.”
Zondi replies that the protection of the rights of members of the public does not extend to a journalist who is an eyewitness. He says there is no conceivable threat to the alleged eyewitness from the Sun team or to any of the other alleged sources – so there is no reason to protect their identities. “The only plausible reason is the lack of truth or accuracy in reporting…”
My considerations
I have asked Vos why he kept the identity of the journalist secret, as this is quite unusual. He said the reporter has requested this, as he/she was afraid that it would endanger his/her relationship with Gagasi FM. “That is also why Bongani Mdakane wrote the story, even though [xxx] attended the meeting.”
Vos also disclosed the identities of the other sources to me, on condition that I do not reveal their names.
He says one of the main sources personally witnessed the incident. The story was then confirmed by three people (who all attended the event). The deputy editor adds that another reason for keeping the newspaper’s sources confidential is that Zondi and his spokesperson are on a “witch hunt” and have demanded to know who the sources are.
Of course, Vos is correct in saying that the newspaper has a duty to protect confidential sources of information. The Press Code requires this, and does so for obvious reasons.
Headline
Zondi complains that the headline misrepresented the story and misled the public.
Vos does not reply to this part of the complaint, but his arguments about the truthfulness of the reporting imply that he denies that the headline misrepresented the story and misled the public.
My considerations
Given my decision above, it follows that this part of the complaint also has no leg to stand on.
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