Ruling by the Press Ombud
6 June 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Amanda Manku and those of Johan Vos, deputy editor of the Sunday Sun newspaper.
Manku, a presenter for Supersport and a soapie star in SABC 1’s Skeem Saam, is complaining about a story in Sunday Sun of 23 April 2017, headlined ‘Amanda far from innocent’.
Complaint
Manku complains the story falsely stated that she had been involved in a love triangle with soccer players – while, she says, she is dating Hendrick Ekstein and has not even met the “third party” (Kabelo Mahlasela). She adds that this reportage could damage her career.
The texts
The first story: Sunday Sun’s Snazo Notho reported that, according to a source, Manku had been “seeing” Mahlasela whenever she visited Bloemfontein, and that the latter had been “cool” with the fact that she was dating Ekstein – “because this is what a smash-and grab-relationship is”.
A second source reportedly confirmed this information, saying that Mahlasela “brags” he did not care whether Manku and Ekstein were seen as a happy couple on social media or not, “because he bonks her when she’s in Bloem”.
Manku, Ekstein and Mahlasela all reportedly denied this “relationship”.
The arguments
Vos says the journalist relied on two reliable sources – whose names and contact numbers he gave to me on condition that I protect their identities. One of these sources, he says, also claims that he / she was with Mahlasela and Manku when she visited Bloemfontein in January this year. He adds that the story consistently attributed the information to these sources and never stated their views as fact.
The deputy editor concludes the newspaper believed that the article was reasonably true at the time of going to print.
Manku maintains that the allegations were false, despite what the sources might have said.
Analysis
Introduction
Section 11 of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct is headlined, Confidential and Anonymous Sources. While Section 11.1 allows for the use of anonymous sources, stating that the media shall protect confidential sources of information, Section 11.2 continues as follows: “The media shall avoid the use of anonymous sources unless there is no other way to deal with a story. Care should be taken to corroborate the information”.
The reason behind this caution (to “avoid” using unnamed sources, if possible) is important. In my booklet Decoding the Code – Sentence by sentence (published April 2017) I motivate, “This clause has been included because unnamed people can say whatever they like, without having to be accountable – and the problem is that they may have ulterior motives. I have indeed often seen anonymous sources deliberately misleading journalists to enhance their own agendas.”
The publishing of such misleading information may be disastrous for the subject concerned, as it may unnecessarily harm that person’s dignity and reputation, and could have far-reaching effects for such a person’s future.
That is why it is so important to corroborate information which was garnered from anonymous sources – and why I phoned the sources whose details Vos had given to me.
‘Amanda far from innocent’
After explaining the reason for those phone calls, and giving the assurance that I would not identify them, the first source admitted that he / she had informed the journalist that Manku and Mahlasela had an affair. Asked how he / she knew this, the source replied that the latter had told her / him so.
I deliberately asked this question, as I needed to know whether the information from this source was primary or secondary.
It was the latter, even though it might be true that Mahlasela did say that to him / her – he / she was not an eye-witness to the alleged affair, and merely repeated what she had been told.
That is called hear-say.
The second source, though, denied that he / she ever told the newspaper that Manku and Mahlasela had a sexual relationship – this source was concerned about other matters (which I shall also not disclose for fear of identifying this person).
Based on the above, I do not believe the newspaper was justified to report the allegation as its information – which was garnered from one secondary source only – was not corroborated, as required by the Code.
I have stated this umpteen times before, and I am repeating it here: A newspaper is not at liberty to publish an allegation just because someone has made it – there has to be some sort of corroboration, at least.
In this case, I can well imagine that the publication of this allegation has unfairly caused Manku some serious damage to her reputation and perhaps also her future.
I say “unfairly” with Section 3.3 of the Code in mind. This section states in full:
“The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation. The dignity or reputation of an individual should be overridden only if it is in the public interest and in the following circumstances:
3.3.1. The facts reported are true or substantially true; or
3.3.2. The reportage amounts to fair comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are true or substantially 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 and in the public interest.
3.3.5. The article was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the complainant was a party.”
I have no evidence that the information was true or substantially true; and I certainly do not believe that the article was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct (as the information was not only based on hear-say, but also not corroborated).
Finding
Sunday Sun is in breach of the following sections of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct:
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news … fairly”;
· 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation...”; and
· 11.2: “…Care should be taken to corroborate the information (garnered from anonymous sources”.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are all Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
Sunday Sun is directed to apologise to Manku for publishing the allegation that she had an affair with Mahlasela while she had a boyfriend (Ekstein) – without the necessary substantiation, unfairly causing unnecessary harm to her dignity and reputation.
The text should:
· be published:
o on the same page as that used for the offending article;
o online as well, if the offending article was carried on its website;
The headline should contain the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Manku”.
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