Ruling by the Press Ombud
17 October 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Lizanne Nel of Home Talk Developments, on behalf of Mr Neil Diamond, and those of Marga Ley, for Beeld and Netwerk24.
Diamond is complaining about a story in Beeld of 26 July 2017, headlined AfriForum krabbel terug oor stellings teen raadslid, which was republished online on Netwerk24 under the same headline.
Complaint
Diamond’s main complaint is that the:
· newspaper did not afford him a right of reply prior to publication as it should have, as he was the subject of critical reportage; and
· story omitted material information, to his detriment (details below).
He also complains that the story incorrectly referred to him as an Alberton ANC councillor, when in fact he is the acting municipal manager of Mbombela.
He asks for a retraction and an apology.
The text
The article, written by Jeanne-Marié Versluis, said that AfriForum and Forensics for Justice have removed statements on the “Alberton” ANC councillor Neil Diamond from their websites after his attorneys intervened. AfriForum alleged it had uncovered corruption of more than R60-million involving Diamond.
Forensics for Justice asked if he was a “blood diamond” – and stated, “you decide”.
AfriForum reportedly said it removed its statement after learning that the forensic expert Paul O’Sullivan and Diamond were involved in litigation in this regard – it confirmed, though, that it was continuing with its investigation into the alleged corruption.
O’Sullivan reportedly claimed there were solid grounds for thinking that Diamond had stolen money as executor of the estate of Mr Jannie van der Walt.
Versluis also reported the court found for Diamond and forbade O’Sullivan to “further” threaten, harass or intimidate him, or to enter Diamond’s place of business.
The arguments
Diamond says that, while it is true that he was implicated in the Meyersdal land swap deal, he was subsequently cleared from wrong-doing in all but two allegations (by the Nupen Report, which was adopted by the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality in 2010). The recommendation that no action should be taken against him was also adopted.
He complains that the story mentioned the allegations against him, but unfairly omitted the conclusions of the report, which constituted a material omission.
He adds that the article moreover created the wrong impression that the allegations of corruption was recent – in fact, the Meyersdal land swap deal occurred in the early 2000s.
Ley says the media house is prepared to do a follow-up report “as he could have been asked for his comment on AfriForum’s decision”, adding that this will include facts about his new appointment “as it was a factual mistake that we did not mention it in the first article”.
Diamond replies that he is not adverse to a follow-up article – provided that “its subject matter is a positive article relating to his new appointment”. He also says if such a follow-up simply related to the same subject matter, he would not be amenable to it as it would be a “rehashing” of the same story” (which did him some damage).
After some more correspondence in which the parties were not able to come to a mutually acceptable agreement, Diamond insisted on a retraction and an apology.
Analysis
It is not in dispute that Beeld:
· should have asked Diamond to respond, in accordance with his right of reply, but did not do so – a Journalism 101 mistake; and
· incorrectly referred to him as an Alberton ANC councillor (instead of the acting municipal manager of Mbombela).
I cannot agree with Diamond on the second part of his complaint, though (that the story has omitted material information). Versluis reported quite extensively towards the end of her article that the finding was in favour of Diamond. Also, I do not expect of Beeld to rake up all the detail of the Meyersdal land deal in a relatively short article such as this one.
Finding
Beeld and Netwerk24 were in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
· 1.8: “The media shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication…”; and
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news … accurately…” (regarding the reference to Diamond as an Alberton ANC councillor).
The complaint about material omissions is dismissed.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1 – minor errors which do not change the thrust of the story), serious breaches (Tier 2), and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The first breach of the Press Code as indicated above is a Tier 2, and the second one is a Tier 1 offence.
Sanction
Beeld and Netwerk24 are:
· directed to apologise to Diamond for not affording him a right of reply in advance of publication; and
· reprimanded for getting his designation wrong.
Because Diamond does not want a follow-up story, and the apology would have no meaning without the proper context, and the newspaper has nothing to retract, I am directing Beeld and Netwerk24 to apologise to Diamond in writing in a personal letter addressed to him.
This text should be prepared by the newspaper and be approved by me.
I see no reason for Beeld to publish “a positive article relating to his new appointment”, as requested by Diamond.
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