Ruling by the Press Ombud
28 May 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Etienne van der Walt, on behalf of Mr Gert Swart, and those of Alet Wichmann of the Rapport newspaper.
Swart is complaining about a story on page 10 in Rapport of 26 March 2017, headlined Onmin oor hoof se duiwe – hulle vlieg glo hoër as sy matrieks.
Complaint
Swart complains about:
· several untrue statements in the story (details below); and
· the headline, as being untrue, unjustified, unscientific, disingenuous, misleading, sensationalist and degrading to both humans and animals.
He calls the reportage “malicious” and “defamatory”.
The text
The article, written by Elaine Swanepoel, said that parents at the Cullinan Combined School were unhappy about the principal (Swart) who apparently had been more concerned about his racing pigeons than about his learners’ academic performances.
The parents reportedly also accused Swart of using school funds to keep his pigeons on the school terrain, and of using school workers to transport his pigeons.
Swart was quoted as saying nothing stops him from having a hobby, adding that he paid for expenses relating to his pigeons himself.
The arguments
Statements in the story
Paragraph 1: “Parents from a school outside Pretoria are unhappy because the principal apparently is more concerned about his racing pigeons than the academic performances of his learners.”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
Parents are represented by a School Governing Body (SGB). No complaint was lodged with the SGB, meaning the allegation is untrue and defamatory.
The story referred to only two parents (one of them anonymous), which implies that the information was not sufficiently verified.
|
The journalist spoke to more than one parent, therefore the plural form was used. The fact that no official complaint was laid with the SGB did not negate the unhappiness of the parents.
The allegations in this report were made against the headmaster personally, so Rapport contacted Swart who gave comment in his personal capacity as well as – as is usually the case with headmasters – his capacity as the responsible representative of the school.
|
Swart: Rapport’s reply confirms his concerns. The fact that Swanepoel knew that Swart has not competed in pigeon races further stresses the male fides and intent to harm.
Analysis
The fact that no complaint was lodged with the SGB is of no concern to me – all I am interested in, is what was printed in Rapport’s story.
Swart’s assumption that the newspaper has not adequately verified its information cannot hold water. The fact that one source was unnamed can also not count against the publication.
I accept that the journalist spoke with two parents, which justified the use of the plural.
It may or may not be true that those parents did not have reason to be unhappy, as Swart ostensibly believes – but that does not take away those people’s right to feel the way they did or their right to say it. If they were unhappy with the situation at the school, it is not for me to say they should not be unhappy.
Neither was it for Rapport to make such a “decision” – hence the newspaper’s right to publish the views of those sources.
Paragraph 2: “They accuse the principal of using school money to keep his pigeons at the school terrain, and of using school workers to transport his pigeons to races.”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
Swart says he keeps his pigeons within the boundaries of the erf which he rents from the Department, and not on the school’s premises. He has a written rental agreement which allows him to keep his pigeons there.
It is untrue that school workers transport his pigeons – this is not allowed by the Pretoria Racing Pigeon Union (who does the transportation). |
This allegation is not stated as fact, and is an accurate version of the parents’ allegations.
The story documented Swart’s response to the allegations. |
Swart: The only named source was a person who has caused a number of investigations (which have proved him wrong). If parents were unhappy, it stood to reason that the SGB should have been contacted for comment.
Analysis
The sentence in question was not presented as a statement of fact, but as an accusation by a source. It is serious allegation, as it boils down to dishonesty and even theft. However, the matter was of sufficient public interest for the newspaper to report the concerns of some parents in this regard.
But that is not the only justification – see below the content of the Gauteng Department of Education’s “final written warning” to Swart (which should be understood in conjunction with the public interest argument).
Please note that I am not mandated to investigate people, let alone those who had nothing to do with the editorial decisions of a newspaper. If it is true that the only named source was a person who had “caused a number of investigations”, so be it.
Paragraph 3: “[Swart] said nothing stops him from having a hobby. He pays for his own expenses.”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
Swart says he informed the journalist that he keeps racing pigeons as a hobby and that he pays for all the relevant expenses. |
Noted. |
Analysis
The journalist duly reported Swart’s response in this regard, which means that his complaint on this specific issue cannot hold water.
Paragraph 4: “The Gauteng Department of Education furnished Swart last year with a final warning as he, according to departmental correspondence, misused school funds for not declaring extra money that he had received from the school. He also did not inform the school governing body about the financial consequences of this remuneration.”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
The statements about a final warning, about Swart not having declared the money, and about the principal not having declared the remuneration to the SGB are all untrue.
The SGB of a few years ago did not follow the Department’s guidelines – which indicate that it is the SGB’s duty to apply annually for approval.
Swart says he showed the relevant documentations to Swanepoel – yet she still proceeded to publish false allegations (which are misleading and defamatory).
|
Swart was given a final written warning on 2 February 2016 (see attachment). This document stated that Swart had “failed to apply for permission to be granted for additional remuneration”.
The departmental letter mentioned as source in the news report, is attached. It notes that “the abuse of finances by the principal ... (had been) investigated... The principal was found guilty and was served with a final written warning".
Swart’s and the school's stance that this was an error by a former SGB was reported in the article. |
Swart: He was not found guilty of the misuse of school funds. The warning, which is still pending, states, “You failed to apply for permission to be granted additional remuneration.” In terms of existing legislation and policy documentation, the application must be done by the SGB and not by the principal. The decision to grant the financial benefits was taken by the SGB – but the Department addressed a written warning to the principal. Rapport knew that Mr Michael Howell (see below) was a member of the SGB that granted him the benefits.
Analysis
Firstly, the story did not say that Swart had been found guilty – only that he had been issued with a final warning regarding the misuse of school funds (more specifically, for not declaring extra money that he had received from the school).
In this regard it is important to note the content of this “final written warning” by the Gauteng Department of Education, directed to Swart on 2 February 2016. It reads as follows:
“This is a Final Written Warning in terms of the disciplinary procedure. Should you engage in further misconduct it could lead to formal misconduct proceedings being instituted against you.
“This Final Written Warning will be placed in your personal file and will remain valid for a period of six months from the date of the Final Written Warning.
“Should you wish to do so, you may lodge a written objection to this Final written warning, or provide additional information which will be filed together with this Final written warning.
“The nature of the misconduct is:
You failed to apply for permission to be granted for additional remuneration.
You also failed to advice (sic) the School Governing Body of financial consequences of the decision on the matter of your financial benefits which the SGB granted you.”
Rapport did not accuse Swart of the misuse of school funds, some sources did. But that accusation was not grasped out of thin air – the Gauteng Education of Department has presented Swart not with a “written warning”, but with a “final written warning”. This presupposes that it was preceded by at least one other warning.
I also note the following formulation in that document: “Should you engage in further misconduct…” (Emphasis added.) If words have meanings, this implies that the Department (and not only sources outside of that institution) has directly stated that Swart had been implicated in some misconduct – or else the use of the words “further misconduct” do not mean anything.
Given this formulation, I submit that Rapport was justified in reporting the accusations by its sources (together with the argument that the matter was in the public interest).
Swart’s argument that the SGB should have made the annual application for approval also falls flat in light of the Department’s letter – which stated that he (and not the SGB) had failed to apply for permission to be granted additional remuneration.
I certainly do not expect Rapport to intervene, telling the Department that in fact it was not Swart’s duty to do the application (if that was the case).
Paragraph 7: “Michael Howell, a parent at the school, was so mad at the principal that he resigned as treasurer and took his child out of the school.
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
Howell has been running a vendetta against Swart for a number of years, making false and slanderous allegations against him – and the principal informed Swanepoel accordingly. |
The statement is factually correct; the story merely stated that he was angry at the principal.
|
Swart: The story portrayed Howell as being angry with him about the alleged misuse of school funds – while, in fact, he is mad at him for other reasons.
Analysis
Like Rapport, I also do not know about any disagreements between Swart and Howell, and (again) it is none of my business. Even if Howell has been “running a vendetta” against Swart, this office is not the forum to address this matter.
Paragraph 8: “School funds are used to supply water and electricity for [Swart’s] pigeons and the principal appoints people at the school who participate with him in racing events.”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
Swart says he did not use any school funds to pay for his expenses regarding his pigeons.
It is untrue and malicious to suggest that he appointed people at the school who participate in pigeon racing. In any case, it is the SGB that appoints employees and not him. |
This is a direct quote from Howell.
Swart's denial of this allegation is noted throughout the article.
Swart concedes that the area on which the pigeons are housed belongs to the Department. The story stated that Swart was living in a separate house on the school premises. “We have no knowledge of how the larger school premises are legally subdivided into different plots. The entire school premises, including Swart's house, are fenced as a single premises behind green palisade fencing. Furthermore the pigeon cages are clearly visible from the school building.”
Although staff members are appointed by the SGB, the principal is part of the appointment process. |
Swart: Howell was part of the SGB that made the appointments.
Analysis
I have already argued that Rapport was justified to report allegations made by its sources (which this statement also was) – based on the content of the Department’s letter to him, as well as on public interest. The same argument goes for the publication of this statement.
Swart’s argument that Howell was part of the appointment process is neither here nor there. Given the fact that Swart was the principal, I accept that he had an influence in the appointment of personnel.
Paragraph 9: “Another parent who does not want to be identified said it is scandalous how school facilities are being used for [Swart’s] pigeons. He even sends the school’s workers to fetch food for his pigeons in the Free State.”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
Swart says he has been the subject of three investigations – all of which were caused by the very same false allegations. The principal has informed Swanepoel accordingly.
|
This is an allegation and a direct quote from a parent, which was reported as such.
The story did not mention any investigation in this paragraph. The two investigations mentioned in the report, also the only two investigations that the reporter are aware of, are discussed in paragraphs 4 and 10. |
Swart: Swanepoel also knew that Howell was a complainant in those matters, and of the outcomes of the investigations. Rapport, however, did not report that those outcomes were favorable to him, leaving the public with a skewed picture.
Analysis
I need not repeat my arguments made above.
Paragraph 10: “The Gauteng Department of Education appointed the firm Outsourced Risk and Compliance Assessment (Orca) in April last year to do a forensic investigation into these allegations. According to Oupa Bodibe, spokesman of the Gauteng Department of Education, this investigation is not completed yet and the findings will be made public at a later stage.”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
Orca was a private initiative by Howell – and not by the Gauteng Department of Education. |
The information is correct. It was attributed to Bodibe (correspondence attached, in which he stated that the Department indeed “outsourced an investigation to be conducted by an external auditing company”).
Correspondence authored by Jabu Zwane, forensics manager at ORCA, explicitly states that the company was commissioned by the Department. |
Swart: The pending status of the investigation is still disputed.
Analysis
I have perused the correspondence to which Rapport refers, and am satisfied that the sentence in question was accurate.
Paragraph 12: “Howell complains that the school is mismanaged to such an extent that matric learners from schools in the vicinity where no school funds are payable perform better in the end-of-year examinations that their counterparts in Cullinan Combine School…”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
There is no basis for a connection between the mismanagement of school funds and academic performances. |
This was Howell’s opinion.
The paragraph did not allege mismanagement of school funds – Howell alleged that the mismanagement of the school in general was causing the poor performance of the school.
|
Analysis
The statement in question merely reported Howell’s complaint, and the newspaper indeed did not allege or suggest any mismanagement on Swart’s part.
Paragraph 13: “Cullinan is not a former Model C-school and has achieved a success rate of 95% in the matric examinations of 2015. However, only 36% has received university exemption. At Ekangala Secondary School in a nearby township 40% of the learners have received exemption.”
|
The complainant |
Rapport’s response |
|
The allegations are untrue, and the reporter never asked the SGB for comment on this issue to verify Howell’s allegations. |
Swart does not specify which of the facts in this paragraph are allegedly untrue. The paragraph contained relevant factual statements to prove the preceding paragraph. |
Analysis
There was no need for Rapport to get the SGB’s comment on results of other schools; I also note that he does not specifically deny the statistics about this school.
Headline
Swart complains the headline created the impression that his pigeons achieved better results than his matric learners. Van der Walt argues that the basis of the allegation was untrue, and the comparison (between learners and pigeons) was unjustified, unscientific, disingenuous, misleading, sensationalist, and “degrading to both humans and animals”.
He adds that this belied Swart’s well-known passion to assist and contribute to the transformation of the education system, and states that he was committed to and professional in his job.
The attorney says Swart was also passionate about his pigeons, for which he has received national recognition. However, over the last few years he did not have the time to pursue his hobby – the last gold medal he won was in 2001, and the last time he participated in a race was in October 2015. Van der Walt submits, “The main reason for the decline of [Swart’s] national achievements is directly related to enormous workload and effort to make the Cullinan Combine School, one of the best schools in South Africa.”
Van der Walt concludes that the headline either speaks of an “absolute malicious writer” and / or editor with intent to harm, or of a very ill-informed writer and / or editor.
Wichmann says a headline is usually a summary of the contents of a report, or of one of the most important facts. She argues that the headline in question did exactly that.
She adds that the reasonable reader would also understand that the subheading used figurative language, which should not be interpreted literally, as a comparison between humans and animals.
She says she does not contest that Swart's pigeons have not been competing in recent years, but argues that that is not relevant. “The complaints stated by the parents are not about the performance or success of the pigeons, but rather about the misuse of school funds and school employees,” she submits.
Analysis
I cannot take the complaint seriously that the headline was “degrading” to both humans and animals, or that it was “unscientific”.
I also note that the word “glo” was used – freely translated as “allegedly”. This reasonably summarized the content of the story, as required by the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct, as it indicated that the statement was the view of a source or of sources.
Conclusion
Swart says Rapport’s motive for its defamatory and malicious reporting is still unclear to him. He does not exclude the possibility of a family relationship or a friendship between the journalist / editor and Howell, and says this matter “may still be investigated”.
Van der Walt also says the Gauteng Department of Education has telephonically confirmed that there are no pending investigations against Swart.
Wichmann denies any malicious intent, and says Rapport takes exception to the (untrue) allegation that Howell may have family or friendship ties with Swanepoel and/or the editor.
She attaches “proof” that there was indeed a pending investigation against Swart at the date of publication and concludes, “The report is factually correct and fair. We therefore ask that the complaint be dismissed.”
Analysis
Given by considerations above, it follows that I have no reason to attribute any malice to the newspaper.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
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