Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
16 January 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Dr Nishana Inderjeeth and those of Yogas Nair, editor of the Post newspaper.
Complaint
Inderjeeth is complaining that the publication of a photograph on the front page of Post (of 10-14 December 2014, accompanied by an article headlined Jamie was ‘starved’ – Post-mortem reveals shocking abuse) of an allegedly malnourished child who later died, was disrespectful and inappropriate.
She asks whether the newspaper has:
Inderjeeth concludes: “A newspaper is not a gossip column but is expected to be filled with factual information. This child’s tragic life is just being used by newspapers…for the purposes of promoting sales in a very cruel and heartless manner.”
The text
The story says a “disturbing photograph” of an apparently malnourished 3-year-old Chatsworth toddler, Jamie Faith Naidoo, and a post-mortem report detailing injuries described as “sickening and horrific”, have shed new light on the alleged abuse the toddler suffered before her death.
The picture, “which was leaked to POST”, shows the child’s thin legs dangling off a couch and her protruding shoulder blades.
The child’s condition was reportedly confirmed by the post-mortem report, which revealed that the girl was sexually violated, that she had cigarette-burn scars and bruises, and that she starved to death.
A relative, two neighbours and a ward councillor have confirmed that the toddler in the photograph, posted on the internet but subsequently removed, was Jamie. It is believed to have been taken weeks before she died.
Jamie’s mother, Patricia Kershnee Ishwarlal (31) and grandmother, Salatchee Basarich (55) have been charged with Jamie’s murder. The latter was the foster parent in terms of a court order.
The arguments
Nair
Nair says that the article (which was a follow-up story) was published in the public interest. “Baby Jamie suffered a horrific death and as the ‘voice and heart of the community’, POST is committed to exposing the pain and suffering she suffered.”
The editor adds that Jamie’s death “came in the time we were observing 16 days of no violence against women and children. It is a huge problem in our country, and [it] needs to be highlighted.”
Nair admits that the newspaper got the picture from the internet, but adds that the baby’s identity was verified by three independent people, including the local ward councillor.
“It was a bad quality picture and I believe that would have lessened the impact it would have had on readers.”
Inderjeeth
Inderjeeth says Nair’s response is far from adequate.
She questions the validity of this photo, which mysteriously surfaced only after the baby died, and asks why the picture was withdrawn from the internet. “Either it was false or there were issues regarding its sensitive nature. Both would have been good enough reason for the POST NOT to publish it.”
The doctor alleges that the publication of the picture was merely a disgusting marketing strategy. “Media are using the impact that this case has had on the public to make millions and their interest is clearly not that of this little child!”
Inderjeeth also argues that the ward councillor is not a forensic expert qualified to verify internet photos. “Besides, how many times did the ward councillor actually see this child for him to be a reliable in identifying her image – especially one that is so unclear. A few years ago media houses published photos of an alleged dead Osama Bin Laden, which were also taken from the internet. It was later revealed that those images were doctored!”
She concludes that the media have a moral responsibility to publish facts, and not gossip.
“Post…should do the moral and ethical thing which is to wait until this case reaches court and the facts are presented by the forensic experts. Lay people are not experts in interpreting post-mortem findings or describing wounds! Facts are clearly being distorted for the purposes of sensationalising this tragedy. It’s time the media showed some respect to this little child and let her soul rest in peace!!! Stop compromising her dignity further!!!!”
My considerations
Inderjeeth argues that Post should have validated the authenticity of the photo with a forensic expert before publishing it.
In this regard, I take into account that the:
Secondly, the statement that Jamie’s mother and grandmother have been charged with murder is not in dispute. In this regard, the press is not obliged to wait for court proceedings before reporting (either in print or in images) on the matter. On the contrary, the press has a duty to do so – if the matter is in the public interest (as is the case here).
On the issue of dignity: It is an accepted principle in law that a dead person cannot be defamed. Consequently, the section in the Press Code that deals with dignity cannot extend to the deceased. Jamie’s dignity can therefore not be compromised, as suggested by Inderjeeth.
This leaves me with the question of whether the newspaper should have asked the child’s father for permission to publish the picture. I note that the story makes no mention of the father, that Jamie was in foster care, and that Inderjeeth does not provide any information in this respect. It would indeed have been preferable to obtain the father’s permission – but, given the circumstances, I do not believe that the absence of permission amounts to a breach of the Press Code. If the picture depicted a dead child, it may have been a different matter.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
Appeal
Either party may apply for leave to appeal within seven working days of receipt of this ruling to the Chairman of the SA Press Adjudication Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. Contact him at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombudsman