Not in dispute
Section 1.3 of the Complaints Procedures states that a complaint shall be made as soon as possible, but not later than 20 working days after the date of publication which gave rise to the complaint. It also gives our office discretion in deciding if there was a satisfactory reason for the delay.
The following dates are not in dispute:
· The first article was published on January 15; the second on January 29;
· On January 27 the complainant asked Sunday Times directly for a retraction and an apology (obviously, against the first story);
· The newspaper responded on February 9; and
· The complaint to this office was dated March 22, but it was only received on March 31 (according to the Public Advocate).
There were 53 full working days between January 15 and March 31, and 43 full working days between January 29 and March 31.
Attempting to be fair to all concerned
However, I need to take into account that the complainant did contact the newspaper directly (after 9 working days have elapsed, and before the publication of the second story). Such action always points to possible mitigating circumstances, potentially counting in favour of the complainant.
If one takes the date from February 9 as a starting point, when Sunday Times responded, a total of 34 working days have elapsed before the complaint was formulated (regarding the first story), making it 14 working days late.
This, of course, does not apply to the second story. In this case, some 43 full working days went by before the letter of complaint has been received – 23 working days late.
In other words, when taking the date of the newspaper’s response as a starting point, the last day the complainant had to complain about the first story was on March 9 (just over three weeks late), and for the second article the cut-off date was February 24 (five weeks late).
Reasons satisfactory?
So now, the question is if the reasons for the delay were satisfactory.
Apart from approaching the newspaper directly, the complainant also argues that:
· court papers were voluminous and required careful and meticulous study;
· additional documentation was required from the Free State Government and from certain respondents – which was also voluminous; and
· consultation with the client had to take place.
The newspaper rejects this approach, arguing that it compromises the principle of expeditiousness.
I would have preferred the complainant to have given our office notice of complaint, while studying court papers, asking for additional information and consulting various parties. That would have solved this matter instantaneously.
Decisions
Regarding the first story: Taking into account that the complaint was late, but not excessively so, as well as the reasons for the delay, I believe that the main purpose of this office should be the deciding factor in this instance – to ensure good, ethical journalism.
I have therefore decided to entertain the complaint about the first story.
I have little hesitation, though, to dismiss the complaint about the second story – it was complained about more than a month after the newspaper responded. There has to be a border, somewhere.
Johan Retief
Press Ombud