Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
7 August 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Bruce Lennox, public relations officer (PRO) for the Mondeor Sector Crime Forum Executive, and those of Carina van der Walt, editor of the Comaro Chronicle newspaper.
Complaint
The Mondeor Sector 1 Crime Forum (the Forum) is complaining about two stories in the Comaro Chronicle of 19 and 26 June respectively, headlined:
· Respected south figure arrested for alleged vigilantism – One of ten men celebrated in the community for effective safety control has been arrested by Mondeor SAPS; and
· Prominent figure arrested linked to CFP – “Do we not qualify as residents” asked victims who say a high ranking Glenvista CPF member beat them to a pulp.
The first story was published on the newspaper’s website; the second appeared on the front page of its print edition.
With regards to the first story, the Forum is complaining that:
· it had no right of reply, or alternatively no reasonable right of response prior to publication – resulting in a one-sided view of the alleged incident; and
· the quote by one of the alleged victims, namely that he had been called a “k****r”, constituted hate speech as it advocated hatred based on race, constituting incitement to cause harm and discord between the Forum and the community it sought to serve.
The complaint about the second article boils down to the following:
· The newspaper did not give the Forum an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against it – again resulting in an unfair report;
· The views of the alleged victims were presented as fact, instead of as untested and unproven allegations; and
· The same racist quote appeared in this story, and the Forum repeats its complaint as stated above.
The texts
The first story, written by Zesuliwe Hadebe, said that a well-known and respected person had been arrested by the Mondeor police (SAPS) for allegedly beating to a pulp three men at Vorster Avenue Park in Glenanda. The men alleged they were sitting in the park, having a conversation, when they were ambushed by a group of about ten men. One of the three reportedly said he was called a “k****r”.
“According to the alleged victims, they were beat up, kicked in their ribs, stomped on their heads and verbally abused by the men who claimed they were bringing order in the community. The allege victims described the assailants as wearing bullet proof vests with the writing ‘Police’ on them.”
Hadebe reported that a suspect had been arrested for assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, but he could not be named as he had not yet appeared in court.
The follow-up article did not identify the man who had been arrested (and released on bail), but did state that he and his “partners” belonged to the Glenvista Sector Forum (Glenvista CPF). This time, Hadebe identified the three victims.
Analysis
First story
No right of reply
The Forum complains that it had no right of reply, or alternatively no reasonable right of response prior to publication – resulting in a one-sided view of the alleged incident.
Lennox says the chairman of the Forum, Mr Mike Fontes, received a voicemail message from Hadebe, stating that she was enquiring about the alleged incident. He then phoned the reporter, requesting her to send details via e-mail so that the Forum could investigate and respond properly. He provided her with his e-mail address telephonically (mike@msfattorneys.com).
When Hadebe failed to send him her enquiry via e-mail, Lennox says Fontes sent her the following SMS: “Hi still haven’t received you media enquiry. mike@msfattorneys.com”.
“The complaint in this respect is that the reporter withheld the details of the allegations such as time, date, place and other details including the nature of the alleged assault in an attempt to deprive the Forum of a right of reply or adequate right of reply.”
Lennox adds it appears that Hadebe took Fontes’s e-mail address down incorrectly as mike@msfattorneys.co.za (instead of .com). He argues that the reporter was negligent in taking down the wrong address (while she had received in both telephonically and via SMS), and argues that this mistake has caused the Forum “irreparable harm”.
|
Van der Walt says Hadebe spoke to Lennox, who referred her to Fontes. The latter did not give any comment over the phone, and it was agreed that the reporter would put her questions to him via e-mail – which she did twice. She admits the address that Hadebe used has since proven to be wrong. The editor adds that nothing was published until June 19, when the newspaper got an official report from the Mondeor police stating that somebody with links to the Forum had been arrested. The story was published online on the same day. She points out that the article did not mention the Forum at all – it just referred to a “prominent figure”. |
Lennox replies it is misleading to say that Fontes did not give any comment on the phone, as he had not been given sufficient detail – hence, he requested an e-mail setting out the detail and requesting comment from the Forum.
He says Hadebe was either negligent or deliberately sent the e-mail to an incorrect address.
My considerations
I have recorded the arguments above for the sake of completeness. After everything has been said and done, Section 2.5 of the Press Code states, “A publication shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication…”
Nowhere did the story refer to the Forum, neither did it identify any of its members. This means that the Forum cannot be depicted as the “subject of critical reportage”.
I appreciate the fact that Hadebe did phone Fontes, though (she did not need to do it).
The fact that she got the e-mail address wrong is, given these considerations, irrelevant.
Hate speech
The statement in question reads as follows: “… ‘I was told I was a kaffir’, said one of the victims who cannot be named.”
The Forum complains that this statement constituted hate speech as it advocated hatred based on race, constituting incitement to cause harm and discord between the Forum and the community (as the quote falsely portrayed the Forum as racist).
Lennox explains that the Forum’s primary function is to promote good relations between the SAPS and the community. “Falsely portraying the Forum as racist advocates hatred based on race that constitutes incitement to cause harm to CPF members especially since CPF members live in the area and patrol their neighborhoods… [this] puts [them] in danger…”
|
Van der Walt argues that Lennox’s assumption that damage was done to the Forum is unfounded, as the story was not about the organisation but rather about a member. “We did not portray the forum as a racist platform.” |
Lennox maintains that the story did cause damage to the Forum and its members in that it portrayed them in a bad light. “The article alleges that not 1 but 10 members of the forum assaulted the complainants… The article clearly implies and carries the sting that Glenvista CPF members acted as a group of vigilantes, assaulted people in the park, called them K……. and were racist. This resulted in false, unfair and biased reporting…”
My considerations
Again, the assumption that the statement in question constituted hate speech as it advocated hatred based on race, constituting incitement to cause harm and discord between the Forum and the community (as the quote falsely portrayed the Forum as racist) cannot hold water as nothing in the story suggested that this organisation or any of its members had been involved.
I’ll address the question of whether the quote advocated hate speech in general below.
Second story
No right of reply
Lennox says this article referred to the Forum three times, and yet the newspaper has not given it an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against the organisation – again resulting in an unfair report. “It is submitted that Hadebe was deliberate in her actions not to obtain the Form’s comments…”
|
Van der Walt replies that on June 21 the news editor, Julie Maule, received a call from Lennox asking her not to identify the accused. She then received another call, alleging that the man who had been arrested was in fact Fontes. “…seen in the light that the only person from the CPF allowed to speak to the media, Mr Fontes, was arrested as the accused, we could hardly go back to [him] for comment.” She argues that, knowing what was going on, Lennox should have been pro-active and come to the Forum’s defence with a statement to the newspaper. |
Lennox agrees that he did ask Maule not to identify the accused. He adds, though, that new information the newspaper received from the SAPS (and intended to publish) obliged it to approach the Forum for comment.
He denies the editor’s assertion that only Fontes was allowed to speak to the media – he says that he, in his capacity as PRO, already had a discussion with Maule “…and she was therefore fully aware of the fact that she could approach him for comment, but intentionally failed to do so.”
Lennox notes the editor’s expectation that he should have been pro-active and issued a statement, and argues: “…given her allegation that only Mr Fontes is allowed to speak to the media, how would this have been possible?”
He also asks how he or the Forum could have known about the newspaper’s intention to refer to the organisation if they were not informed of it. “The subject of critical reportage must be given complete or adequate information to comment, prior to publication, it cannot be left to organisations to ‘speculate’ what they should comment on.”
My considerations
This time, the Forum was indeed the subject of critical reportage – the headline stated that the arrested person had links to the Forum, and this reflected the content of the story.
I do not blame the newspaper for not asking Fontes for comment. Clearly, the matter was sub judice as far as he was concerned, and any comment from him might have influenced court proceedings.
However, Lennox is correct in saying that he is the PRO and that he had already communicated with the newspaper. This is the point: Even though a reporter may assume that a certain person may not respond to an enquiry, that journalist still is obliged to try and get comment. Hadebe should have attempted to get comment from Lennox. If unsuccessful, the story should then have reported the fact, as required by the Press Code.
Neither of these has transpired.
I also agree with Lennox that the newspaper’s expectation of him to be pro-active was unjustified – conversely, I submit that it was rather the publication’s duty to be pro-active (by asking Lennox for comment). If the PRO then indicated that he did not wish to respond, that would have been his decision to make.
Allegations presented as fact
The Forum complains that the views of the alleged victims were presented as fact, instead of as untested and unproven allegations.
Van der Walt does not respond to this part of the complaint.
My considerations
This part of the complaint is without any foundation. The story consistently attributed the allegations to the victims, and nowhere did it state any allegation as fact. The words “alleged”, “said”, and “according to” were used consistently.
Hate speech
The statement in question reads as follows: “… ‘I was told I was a kaffir’, said [Mr Solomon] Chitekedza.”
The Forum complains that this statement constituted hate speech and advocated hatred based on race, constituting incitement to cause harm.
Van der Walt denies that the story portrayed the Forum as a racist platform.
Lennox argues the article alleges that not one, but ten members of the Forum assaulted the victims. “The article clearly implies and carries the sting that Glenvista CPF members acted as a group of vigilantes, assaulted people in the park, called them K……. and were racist. This resulted in false, unfair and biased reporting…”
My considerations
Surely, Chitekedza was justified to tell Hadebe what he (thought he) had been called.
It was in the public interest to report the statement, and the newspaper cannot be held accountable for advocating hatred based on race when a victim (the newspaper has published a picture of him with injuries) claimed he had been verbally abused.
Finding
First story
No right of reply
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Hate speech
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Second story
No right of reply
Comaro Chronicle is in breach of Section 2.5 of the Press Code for not asking Lennox to comment, even though it may have assumed the PRO was not going to respond. This section reads: “A publication shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication…”
Allegations presented as fact
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Hate speech
This part of the complaint 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 breach of the Press Code as described above is a Tier 2 offence.
Sanction
Comaro Chronicle is directed to apologise to Lennox and the Forum for not seeking their views regarding the second story prior to publication.
This apology should be in the form of a kicker on page 1, referring to the text on either page 2 or 3.
The newspaper should supply me with the text for approval, which should end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding.”
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as “Matter of Fact”, or something similar, is not acceptable.
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