Ruling by the Press Ombud
16 October 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Julie Fisher, on behalf of the family of her deceased nephew, Mr Toufeeq Matthews, and those of Neil Scott of Son newspaper.
The Matthews family is complaining about a story in Son of 5 September 2017, headlined Skote klap: 2 sterf en 4 beseer (Shots fired: 2 died and 4 injured).
Complaint
The family complains the:
· statement that Matthews died on the scene (a “smokkeljaart”, a smugglers’ den), falsely created the impression that he had been involved in untoward activities (while, in fact, he had been declared dead at the Mitchells Plain Community Health Centre);
· journalist did not inform or approach them prior to publication;
· newspaper used a picture of the deceased without permission; and
· reportage invaded their privacy and dignity.
The text
The article, written by Basil Afrika, reported on gang-related violence on the Cape Flats, inter alia about the fatal shooting of Matthews.
Son responds
Scott says a source told the newspaper that the shooting occurred at a “smokkeljaart”. Because this came from one source only and the reporter could not verify this information, he presented it as an allegation (the Afrikaans word “glo” was used).
He adds that the:
· police report did not state that Matthews had been declared dead at the Health Centre. In fact, it stated, “…a shooting incident on 2017-09-03 in Kerrem Street where a 19-year-old man was fatally wounded”;
· newspaper was under no obligation to contact the family in this matter as it occurred in public and was of great public interest;
· story did not contain any personal information, other than the deceased’s name and age; and
· picture of Matthews was a Facebook image and was already in the public domain, adding that the newspaper did not need the family’s permission to publish the photo of an adult.
He emphasises that it was never the newspaper’s intention to cause the family any further grief.
Analysis
Given the content of the police report, I do not blame Afrika for reporting that Matthews died at the scene.
I also concur that:
· the reporter was not obliged to contact the family prior to publication as the incident took place in public and the matter was of great public interest;
· for that same reason, the story could not have invaded anybody’s privacy; and
· the picture was in the public domain; there is no provision in the Press Code that a reporter should obtain anybody’s permission to publish such a photograph.
I also accept that it was never the newspaper’s intention to cause the family any further grief.
However, the reference to the “smokkeljaart” (“They allegedly drank at a smugglers’ den when the shooting started”) was quite unnecessary and, indeed, insensitive.
The focus of this story, as well as of another one on the same page, was on gang-related violence. Suddenly, the focus shifted to the victims (who might have been involved in illegal activities as well).
I also note Scott himself admits that Afrika could not verify this information, which came from one source only.
This brings me to Section 3.2 of the Press Code which states, “In the protection of privacy, dignity and reputation, special weight must be afforded to South African cultural customs concerning the privacy and dignity of people who are bereaved and their respect for those who have passed away…”
While I do not believe that the reportage invaded anybody’s privacy or dignity (the latter is what one thinks of oneself, which clearly cannot apply in Matthew’s case), I do believe that the deceased’s reputation (read: what other people think of a person) might have been unnecessarily tainted.
If it was true that Matthews has drinking at a “smokkeljaart” when the shooting took place, it would be a different matter – but to speculate, on the basis of a sole (unnamed) source, does not attest to the “special weight” which the Code requires of a journalist.
The use of a word equivalent to “alleged” is in this case not enough to safeguard the family against the possibility of unnecessary harm to a deceased’s reputation.
Finding
The statement that the deceased “allegedly drank at a smugglers’ den when the shooting started” was in breach of Section 3.2 of the Press Code, as cited above.
The rest of the complaint 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 breach of the Press Code as indicated above is a Tier 2 offence.
Sanction
Son is directed to apologise to the Matthews family for reporting the allegation that the deceased had been drinking at a “smokkeljaart” when the shooting started.
The newspaper is requested to publish the apology:
· on page 3, with a headline containing the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Toufeeq” or “Matthews”; and
· online (if Son carried the offending statement on its website as well).
The text should:
· be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed;
· refer to the complaint lodged with this office;
· end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”; and
· be prepared by the newspaper and approved by me.
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