Ruling by the Press Ombud
18 April 2016
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Mbali Dhlomo, publisher and editor of Intuthuko Newspaper, and those of several people at Ilanga LangeSonto (chief editor Thobile Nxumalo, news editor Bheki Ndlovava, journalist Zowakha Mbatha and Managing Director Arthur Konigkramer).
Complaint
Dhlomo is complaining about a story in Ilanga LangeSonto of 7 February 2016, headlined Financial report causes friction among publishers – Suspected financial fraud and corruption all done under the name of the organisation (translated).
She complains that the journalist:
· falsely stated that she had committed fraud and had mishandled funds;
· misspelt her surname;
· inaccurately said that she was running Genuine Magazine; and
· should have realized that, after she and the former chairman, Ms Sheila Mhlongo, put their cases to him, it was a non-story coming from a bitter person (Mr Sam Masinga, the newly elected chairman).
She adds that the newspaper:
· used a picture of her, while the story was not about her; and
· inaccurately reported in the caption that she was the chairman of the organisation in question.
Dhlomo concludes that the reportage was a deliberate attempt to tarnish her reputation, character and dignity.
The text
The story, written by Zowakha Mbatha, said leaders of the KZN Community Publishers Primary Cooperative (Coop) were suspected of corruption. This organisation looks after the interests of community newspapers in that province.
The allegation reportedly surfaced at a meeting where a financial report had been tabled (held in Durban at the end of 2015), with Sheila Mhlongo as the chairman and Dhlomo the secretary.
At that meeting, Masinga was elected as the new chairman, but he resigned shortly afterwards – explaining that he could not involve himself in a situation with too many unanswered questions, especially on the financial report.
He reportedly said members of the Coop had no knowledge of some amounts of money appearing in the financial statements (the newspaper had a copy). The story singled out a “loan” for R136 605, “commission” (R41 520) and a “donation” (R180 600). Masinga added that the leaders of the Coop were not keen to hand over the reigns.
The story, as a matter of course, involved Dhlomo (as the secretary); the caption said she faced allegations of corruption.
The arguments
Dhlomo wants clarification on the fraud and corruption mentioned in the story, and requests the newspaper to provide proof to this effect.
She adds that her surname is spelled “Dhlomo”, not “Dlomo”, and that she stopped the publication of Genuine Magazine as long ago as 2012 (the journalist reported that she was still running it).
She also wants to know why the newspaper used a full-colour picture of her – while the story was not about her, but about the cooperative.
|
The newspaper admits the errors regarding Dhlomo’s surname, her position / title at the time, and the fact that she no longer ran Genuine Magazine, saying it was willing to print an apology regarding these matters. However, Nxumalo says he does not see how Dhlomo’s explanation should have stopped the newspaper from publishing the story just because she stated her side of the matter. He adds that Ilanga LangeSonto spoke to a few Coop members, and one of them said he had resigned due to problems in the organisation. He points out that Dhlomo herself confirms this in her complaint (saying that Masinga resigned two days after his election as chairman). He argues that Masinga’s sudden resignation made the financial matters an issue (who was right or wrong was not relevant for him) – and this made the story newsworthy. Ndlovana clarifies that the story was about the suspicious financial report that caused a stir in the Coop. He says the story did not accuse Dhlomo of committing fraud and mishandling the funds – “We are merely saying there [are] ructions and tensions in the coop around the financial statements. That is what the story is about. It is Ms Sheila Mhlongo that mentioned Dhlomo’s name and actually told us to find out for [from] her (Dhlomo) about our questions posed to Mhlongo.” He explains he decided to use Dhlomo’s picture because she was in the story (“it could have been [anyone] that [was] involved in the story”) – but says there was no malice involved in this decision, or any intention to tarnish her reputation. Mbatha argues that Dhlomo was an integral part of the story. He says Mhlongo refused to comment on donations to Dhlomo. Konigkramer offers Dhlomo an opportunity to provide a full response for publication. He adds that her photograph was used because Mhlongo had told the reporter she was the person to comment on the funds. |
In her reaction to Ilanga LangeSonto’s response, Dhlomo again challenges the newspaper to put forward some kind of proof to substantiate the accusation of fraud against her.
She asks whether the newspaper:
· interviewed all eight members in the Coop, including the chairman – and if so, what did she say?
· can provide the date of the donation she allegedly “embezzled”;
· knew the circumstances under which this donation was paid out to the Association of Independent Publishers; and
· understands how to read annual financial statements.
Referring to the caption, she maintains that the newspaper accused her of committing fraud and mishandling the funds, and asks, “Are they not basically accusing me of corruption? Again I ask, what proof do they have in their possession? What justifies them to lift my photograph … in the way that they did?”
Dhlomo says she does not accept the newspaper’s admission of some errors – “because this issue is far deeper than these ‘careless mistakes’ and their subsequent ‘routine’ apology. Ultimately, this is about MY reputation…”
She rejects Konigkramer’s offer, saying that she already provided the publication with her side of the story. “Yet they chose to still go ahead, and falsely label me a thief, a crook … are they now admitting that they erred, and … that their so-called journalist did not do a thorough investigation in the first place?”
Dhlomo also notes that Ilanga LangeSonto gave inconsistent reasons for using her picture – on the one hand Ndlovava says the newspaper could have used any photograph, but on the other Konigkramer argues the photograph was published because Mhlongo had told the reporter that she was the person to comment on the funds. She also asks, “[Isn’t] it that the person who is more senior in an organisation is the one held ‘accountable’ for whatever happens in that organisation? Is it not the CEO who is usually held accountable, and not the official, in an organisation? So why did they bypass our Chairperson’s photograph and choose mine specifically?”
Analysis
The crux of Dhlomo’s complaint is that the story falsely stated she had committed fraud and mishandled funds.
However, the story did not state any such thing. Of course, the context of the article involved Dhlomo – not in fraud, though, but in allegations thereof. The story itself did not even state her involvement explicitly; the caption did.
The question, therefore, is whether the newspaper was justified in either implying or in stating that Dhlomo had been involved in allegations of fraud. Given the sudden resignation of the new chairman, her position in the Coop at the time, and especially the reasons proffered by Masinga, surely it was.
I find Dhlomo’s insistence that Ilanga LangeSonto should provide proof rather baffling. As a journalist, she should know that a publication does not have to prove an allegation before publishing it. If a mayor, for example, is suspected of fraud, surely a newspaper should not wait for proof before publishing that allegation.
Proof, if there is any, should come from the relevant authorities.
It follows that I cannot agree with Dhlomo’s conclusion that the reportage was a deliberate attempt to tarnish her reputation, character and dignity.
The mistakes admitted by the newspaper are not in dispute and need no further comment – save to say that there is no excuse for such careless reporting.
Dhlomo quite correctly points out the newspaper’s inconsistent response to the question of her picture (not that anything really turns on this matter, as the newspaper was squarely within its rights to use her picture in this instance). However, she herself is not all that consistent either – she asks why her picture was used “as the article is about the cooperative, not about me”. But, if the story was not about her, why did she complain in the first place?
Finding
By getting the spelling of Dhlomo’s surname, her position in the Coop at the time, and the fact that she was no longer running Genuine Magazine wrong, Ilanga LangeSonto was in breach of Section 1.1 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct which says, “The media shall take care to report news … accurately…”
The rest of the complaint, which comprises the crux thereof, is dismissed.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are Tier 1 offences.
Sanction
Ilanga LangeSonto is reprimanded for the mistakes as pointed out in the Finding above, and directed to correct them.
The text, which should be approved by me, should:
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
If the offending article appeared on the newspaper’s website, the correction should appear there as well.
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 Ombud