Ruling by the Press Ombud
12 July 2016
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Sara Davies and those of Steven Motale, editor of The Citizen newspaper.
Davies is complaining about a story on the front page in The Citizen of 16 June 2016, headlined Oscar’s pity parade.
Complaint
Davies complains that the headline was “offensive” and “disablist”. In later correspondence she says Oscar Pistorius did not show his stumps out of pity, but to show his vulnerability. “To call it ‘pity’ is condescending,” she argues.
She also complains about the publication of graphic pictures of Ms Reeva Steenkamp’s body – which were not presented to me, meaning that I cannot entertain that part of her complaint.
She adds in later correspondence that she was also unhappy that the journalist criticized Pistorius for not having testified. I cannot entertain this either, as the newspaper has not had a chance to defend itself against this allegation.
The text
The story was about the Pistorius murder case, with a picture showing him in court on his stumps.
The arguments
Motale replies that the headline reasonably, fairly and accurately reflected the picture in question, as required by the Code of Ethics and Conduct, and that it amounted to “fair comment on the facts of what transpired in court that day”.
He adds that the story correctly stated that Pistorius, on his stumps, attempted to show his vulnerability; the article was also balanced in that it stated both sides to this matter.
The editor argues that the headline was not intended, nor understood by reasonable readers, to be “disablist” or to denigrate Pistorius based on his disability.
Analysis
Even though Motale also defended the content of the article, I am not taking that into account as Davies’s original complaint was about the headline only.
I note that a sub-headline to the story read as follows: “Pistorius makes last-ditch attempt to show court his vulnerability when he fired the shots that killed Reeva Steenkamp.”
The word “pity” in the headline should be read in conjunction with the word “vulnerability” in the sub-heading.
However, even if that were not the case, the use of the word “pity” was still justified – as I believe the intention of Pistorius’s defence team to have him walk on his stumps in court was to portray this message: “Have pity on me, for I was vulnerable.”
Remember that this incident took place after Pistorius has been found guilty of murder, and when his sentence was being decided.
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 Ombud