Finding complaint 4301
Date of Publication: 19/2/19
Headline: “Members want reverend gone!”
Page: 3
Online: No
Author: Mbali Dlungwana
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by Reverend Thembinkosi Joseph Gumede, a written response by Mr Johan Vos of the Daily Sun and further inquiries with both parties.
Complaint
Reverend Thembinkosi Joseph Gumede, a priest in the Anglican church of the KwaZulu-Natal diocese, complains that a story in the Daily Sun, under the headline, “Members want reverend gone!”, falsely accuses him of “mismanaging funds” and falsely reports that “members want him gone.” He describes these allegations as “extremely defamatory particularly because I do not get involved in managing church funds.”
He does not specify but in terms of his complaint, the sections of the Press Code he claims were breached are the following:
The media shall:
1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization;
1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; and
3.3 exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if:
3.3.1. the facts reported are true or substantially true; or
3.3.2. the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are either true or reasonably true; or
3.3.3. the reportage amounts to a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, Parliamentary proceedings or the proceedings of any quasi-judicial tribunal or forum; or
3.3.4. it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct; or
3.3.5. the content was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the complainant was a party.
1.1 The introduction to the story, headlined “Members want reverend gone!” reads: “They want their reverend to step down”.
It explains that members of St Augustine’s Church in Umlazi, KZN, “are accusing Reverend Joseph Gumede of mismanaging funds.”
1.2 They also claim “Gumede was diving (sic) the church and refusing to work with committee members who questioned him.”
1.3 It reports that “members” of the church had told Rev Gumede they wanted him to leave. It quoted a “church member” saying “many things had changed” since Reverend Gumede had arrived at the church in 2011. Some had been trying to arrange a meeting with Rev Gumede “to discuss the difficulties” but other committee members kept postponing.
1.4 It also quoted the member saying: “Some committee members say funds are missing.” The source claims the conflict between the church members “and Gumede has caused division…We are not happy and feel it would be best if he left.”
1.5 Reverend Gumede, when contacted for comment said he could not talk about “church matters with newspapers.”
He is also quoted as saying that he could not comment about the meeting held on the Sunday.
Rev Joseph Gumede
2.1 Rev Gumede says his complaint is laid out of “deep concern for journalistic ethics”. He also says his name has been defamed by the publication.
2.2 He argues it is “important for us to be mindful of the time which this article finds itself written in. The church (as an institution) has been at the centre of a number of scandals and controversies which have rocked the very foundations of its relevance and existence in society.” He understands thus that stories that involve “sensitivity and potentially controversial matters of the church are gleaned on with keen interest.” This is why this story may have been run.
2.3 However, its consequences were “far reaching and damaging to my reputation and my dignity.”
2.4 He argues the article “lacks any credible evidence…is wildly sensational and…often lacking in accuracy and truth.”
He identifies various points in the story that are either “simply a lie” or a “sensational overstatement of views of an unnamed and unknown ‘so-called member’”. Among these are
2.5 He says if the anonymous source quoted was indeed a church member, “the first point [they] would have had to tell you is that in January, 2019 a letter from the Bishop of Natal which was addressed and read to the entire congregation stated that I was leaving St Augustine’s at the end of June 2019.” The omission of this “important fact” shows up a lack of credibility in “both the journalistic research and thought that went into the article as well as the credibility of the source …”
2.6 On the claim that he “mismanaged funds”: he says this is a “blatant lie”
“It clearly indicates a flagrant disregard for the truth insofar as it fails to assert how funds are managed to begin with as well as where along this process I fit in and come into contact with church funds.”
He “challenges” the newspaper to provide proof of this “damning” allegation, especially in light of the fact that he is not involved in any management of the church funds.
He says this statement has severely defamed his name.
2.7 Thirdly, the article claims he is “dividing” the church and “refusing to work with committee members.” He says this is a “vague” statement, “principally given that within the church there exists a number of committees all of which play very particular roles within the context of the church.”
An unnamed and unverified source, “who is identified as a member makes this claim and then the journalist states this as a universal fact.”
This makes a “mockery of journalism as a profession if this is what passes for news now.”
2.8 He says the media is “an extremely powerful mechanism in our democratic society in placing well supported facts which give the reader/consumer the opportunity to make an informed choice about what they would like to believe about a particular story. This article makes a mockery of that! I have been defamed and my right to dignity (amongst others) has been severely compromised as a result of this story.”
2.9 It is particularly unfortunate, he argues, that it was published when he had been “tasked with a new pastoral charge wherein I will be expected to provide spiritual leadership and guidance to a new group of people within this province. An article of this nature, which fails at the most basic hurdle of thorough research and credibility, simply promotes sensationalism and mere conjecture, slanders my name and diminishes my character thus compromising my ability to take on my new pastoral charge with confidence and dignity.”
2.10 He asks for a retraction of the story and an apology from the publication. He also wants the sources named so that their membership of the church can be “verified… as the content of this article speaks to the very dignity of St Augustine’s Church and the wider community it serves.”
Mr Johan Vos for the Daily Sun
2.11 Mr Vos quotes the newspaper’s KZN Bureau Chief, Ntombifuthi Mbhele, as saying: “According to the reporter she got a story from her source and went to church to speak to the members who asked not to be named. The members told her that there is conflict inside the church and members are divided in two, some want Reverend Joseph Gumede gone while others supported him. They claimed he was mismanaging funds. The SunTeam was not allowed inside the church, they then got the number of Gumede. They called him for comment but he said he couldn’t talk about church matters with the newspaper although the allegations are about him.”
2.12 Mr Vos said the paper had three sources willing to speak to the Ombudsman as long as their identities were protected.
2.13 He also said the newspaper was willing to offer Rev Gumede “a follow-up article and a full right of reply.”
Further Arguments
2.14 Mr Simphiwe Gumede responded on behalf of his father, Rev Gumede.
He acknowledged the publication’s offer but adds he wants to emphasize the following points:
That Rev Gumede’s name had been “smeared in the mud” as a result of the article. The “pernicious” effects of a story in a prominent publication could not be underestimated, “especially when the publication claims to attribute the story to three sources.” Ordinary readers may well make the assumption that a “thorough investigation had been conducted before the story was published.”
2.15 Alleging that a cleric was “mismanaging funds” was not something that “could simply be made in passing especially by a publication with the pedigree of the Respondent.”
Members of the public expect that such allegations are “made and
and published on the back of thorough and well-meaning journalistic ethics which encapsulates proper research and careful consideration. This does not seem to be the case especially given the fact that the allegation of mismanagement of funds was put to the test (the church’s auditors were requested to verify the financial statements of the church) merely a week later when the financial report was formerly presented to the congregation.”
2.16 He says the newspaper admits it was not allowed to enter the church so only the anonymous sources could give them information. “It is rather striking that the publication’s sources made no mention of where they received their information regarding the mismanagement of funds.”
2.17 He welcomed the offer to make available the sources to the Ombudsman, although cannot understand why their identities should be anonymous to Rev Gumede. He also points out there is no criminal investigation in this regard.
2.18 He indicated acceptance of the publication’s offer to run a follow-up story and also invited the newspaper to consult the church auditors “as well as the church wardens specifically with regard to the mismanagement of funds allegation.”
3.1 On the complaint that the story lacked truth and accuracy:
The story contained a very serious allegation against a cleric – that he was “mismanaging funds”.
3.2 The problem is that it was made on the basis of one unnamed source in the report.
Although the reporter told her editor that she had three sources, only one source was made known to the Ombudsman. When I called this person, he denied that he was the source or that he had anything to do with the allegations.
This posed a serious challenge. It may have been that he was initially a source but then thought the better of it. Or it could mean he had somehow been misunderstood by the reporter.
3.3 But even if the source/s had “come to the party”, as it were, there are still serious shortcoming in the verification of this story.
One is that there was no attempt to get a response from the church itself.
St Augustine’s is part of the Anglican diocese, a mainstream church with a clear hierarchy and accountability structure. Why was it not possible to ask the church for a response to these allegations?
3.4 The story mentions “committee members” at the church whom Rev Gumede “refuses to work with”. But there is no mention of how many committees there are, nor how many members may feel this way. It was couched in vagueness.
3.5 It also quotes one “church member” who says since Rev Gumede got to the church “many things have changed” (presumably this is the source who denied he was one to me).
Yet the headline of the story says: “Members want reverend gone!”
There is no sense given to the reader about how many members the headline (or story) refers to.
3.6 The quote that refers to the “missing funds” is also second hand. It says: “Some members say funds are missing”. This is attributed to the anonymous source. Yet he himself appears to have no first-hand knowledge of it; he attributes it to “some committee members.”
Yet the second paragraph of the story says “members” of the church accuse the reverend of “mismanaging funds”.
Apart from the fact that there is no definition of what “mismanaging” means, there is absolutely no substantiation for this claim other than the anonymous source whose knowledge anyway is second-hand, as the quotation shows.
3.7 Moreover, the quote from the source that says “they” (the unnamed and uncounted committee members) want “Gumede to leave” is similarly vague.
3.8 It also overlooks the fact that just a few months before the story was published, he had already told the congregation that he was moving to another parish. The reporter seemed unaware of this.
3.9 The charge about “mismanaging” church funds is particularly serious if true. Did the reporter ask to see audited statements? If she had, and she had been refused sight of them, she could have reported this.
3.10 Although Rev Gumede was approached for the right of reply, it seemed he did not realise the measure of the story that was to be published and he stuck by church protocol.
3.11 A priest stealing from his own church – or even “mismanaging” funds – would by rights be a big story. The accusation alone should have prompted adequate verification and investigation.
But there was no sign of this.
3.12 On the charge that Rev Gumede’s dignity and reputation were damaged: There is no doubt that the story was extremely hurtful. A cleric who is serving a community had his name in the paper in unflattering way with no substantiation.
3.13 The story was astonishingly flimsy, made flimsier by the fact that the only source whose name I was given denied it – my guess is he thought better of it.
This could have been idle gossip but it does not pass as journalism.
3.14 Reputation, especially for a clergyman, is vital to his professional standing and his wellbeing. This was fundamentally undermined for no valid reason that is apparent in the story.
3.15 The preamble to the Press Code urges the media to “avoid unnecessary harm”.
There is not a single good reason I can find as to why Rev Gumede’s reputation was so deeply damaged.
3.16 It was thoughtful of the deputy editor, Johan Vos, to offer Reverend Gumede a right of reply and follow-up interview; I also appreciate the lengths he went to during the early stages of the lockdown, which made work difficult, to try to extract the sources from the KZN bureau.
3.17 However, in the circumstances a right of reply to this story is necessary but not sufficient. The story must be retracted and an apology made.
Finding
I find the Daily Sun has transgressed sections 1.1., 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code as well as section 3.3. None of the exceptions to that section are relevant here. These are Tier 2 offences.
The newspaper must retract the story and apologise to Rev Gumede. The apology must be published on the same page as the original story, with a headline containing the word “apology” and it must include a logo of the Press Council and a link to this finding.
Appeal
The Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven (7) 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.
Pippa Green
Press Ombudsman
01 June, 2020