Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
16 April 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Tristan Parsadh, representing his mother, Mrs PV Parsadh, and those of Shirley Brijlal, publishing editor of the Globe Post newspaper.
Complaint
Parsadh is complaining about two stories in the Globe Post newspaper published in the January and February 2015 editions respectively.
The headline on the front page read, “We want acting principal out!” – Back to school blues for Parkside Primary as parents embark on protest action to remove acting principal over allegations of racism and mismanagement… The story itself, published on page 3, was headlined “Enough is Enough” – SGB head, Trevor David calls parents to embark on mass protest action.
The second story was headlined, GDE finally steps into Parkside Primary saga thanks to mass parent protest action and GLOBE POST…
She complains that the:
· newspaper published incorrect, unverified allegations;
· allegations amounted to a conflict of interest;
· stories amounted to hate speech and were malicious;
· journalist did not contact her for comment;
· article falsely stated that the newspaper had tried to get a statement from the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE): and
· articles were not in the public interest.
The texts
The first report said that people at Parkside Primary school (in Lenasia) have experienced “regular” confrontations between its governing body (SGB) and the acting principal (Parsadh) over allegations of mismanagement. It stated that parents had reported “shocking conditions both learners and educators are experiencing”. The story then quoted a statement by SGB head Trevor David, who said that Parsadh had overs tayed her welcome.
The second article reported that the SGB and parents had joined in a mass protest action for the removal of Parsadh. A statement by the SGB concluded the story.
Analysis
Incorrect, unverified allegation
Parsadh complains that the newspaper published unverified allegations.
My considerations
Parsadh does not stipulate what these “unverified allegations” are, and I am therefore not in a position to adjudicate this specific part of the complaint.
Conflict of interest
Parsadh complains that the allegation amounted to a conflict of interest – the source from the SGB (the party making the allegation) is also the co-editor or journalist at the publication. “It is assumed that the journalist is in fact a member of the SGB and has colluded with the editor to publish false, inaccurate…facts that surprisingly support the views of the body to which the same journalist/co-editor is a party…”
Brijlal replies that she does not employ or have a journalist or assistant editor, as alleged – she herself manages, researches and writes 98% of the content. “So there is no member of my team…who would have any vested interest in this story or [in] the acting principal in question. Also, I do not have a personal relationship with any member of the SGB…”
She provided me with details of when she had met these members.
My considerations
The editor’s arguments are reasonable and believable.
Hate speech; malice
Parsadh complains that the stories amounted to hate speech “to incite reputational damage and injury” on her person. She adds that the articles had the potential to incite public unrest and violence against her. She also argues that the stories were malicious – they were a “deliberate public smearing campaign” that was done solely to defame her.
Brijlal replies that the issues at the school were already public knowledge prior to the publication of the stories.
My considerations
If the stories did cause some harm to Parsadh, she should not blame the messenger. I do not believe that the articles constituted hate speech, that the reportage was likely to cause her injury, or that they were malicious.
Not contacted for comment
Parsadh complains that the journalist did not contact her for comment to verify any of the allegations levelled against her.
Brijlal replies that the GDE requested the media not to contact schools in the event of a problem with a staffer, as in this instance. “I spoke to [GDE]’s spokesperson…who indicated that I was in fact correct and followed protocol.”
My considerations
The GDE itself in fact does not allow schools to reply to matters such as these. Parsadh should know that.
GDE: False statement
Parsadh complains the article falsely stated that the newspaper had tried to get a statement from the GDE. “The [department] has no knowledge of any contact made nor could the editor inform the writer of the person contacted at the department.”
Brijlal submits that she did contact the department on several occasions. She provided me with names and telephone numbers. “My phone records can prove the many times I called…the district director’s office, and that communication’s office for a spokesperson’s comment…I eventually managed to befriend Ntathu Mokoba in Communications, who assisted.” She also sent an e-mail “begging for comment”.
My considerations
I have no reason to disbelieve the editor.
Not in the public interest
Parsadh complains that the stories were not in the public interest.
My considerations
This part of the complaint is difficult to understand. Of course matters such as these are in the public interest – many parents and learners are involved.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
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