Mario Wanza vs Cape Argus

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Zuma takes off gloves – Chaos at city meeting follows stern words on youth league’s role in party (published on 24 February 2012).

This ruling by Deputy Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The story described what took place at a meeting which Pres Jacob Zuma had been addressing. A section of the crowd reportedly jeered at him while he was speaking. The disenchanted group were in the vicinity of or next to a UDF banner.

Mario Wanza, who said that he represented nine UDF members, denied that the heckling came from his group.

Both the newspaper and Wanza accepted that the heckling emanated from people who were in the immediate vicinity of the banner.

Retief noted that the story did not specifically attribute the heckling to Wanza’s group – in fact, it merely described the location of that heckling as being behind the banner. “If they were behind the banner, then that is a fact that cannot be avoided,” he said.

He dismissed the complaint, saying that he had no reason to accept that the story was not substantially correct.

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Mario Wanza, who says he represents nine United Democratic Front members, and the Cape Argus newspaper.

Mr Mario Wanza complains about a story in the Argus on 24 February 2012, headlined Zuma takes off gloves – Chaos at city meeting follows stern words on youth league’s role in party.

He complains that the story mistakenly says or implies that a UDF group was heckling at a meeting which Pres Jabob Zuma was addressing.

The story, written by Michelle Pietersen and compiled from SAPA, describes what took place at the Zuma meeting. It says that a section of the crowd jeered him while he was speaking. The disenchanted group were reportedly in the vicinity of or next to a UDF banner.

Wanza objects to the following words: “As he began a group behind a United Democratic Front banner started heckling, with another group of up to 300 joining in, booing …” He says that this portrays  the UDF in a negative light.

The Argus points out that the newspaper was at pains to identify the group as UDF members and adds that in fact the heckling had its origin from the audience behind the banner. That is why it did not report that UDF members were heckling, but rather that a group positioned behind the banner was doing so.

The newspaper says that the report was factual and was an actual portrayal of what had happened. It adds that the mention of the UDF banner was necessary as a “description or device in order to report on the events in a chronological or logical fashion”.

The issue for consideration is whether the report is substantially correct.

Both the newspaper and Wanza accept that the heckling emanated from people who were in the immediate vicinity of the banner. I note that the story does not specifically attribute the heckling to Wanza’s group – in fact, it merely describes the location of that heckling as being behind the banner.

If they were behind the banner, then that is a fact that cannot be avoided.

No information is available to question the accuracy of the report, save for Wanza’s denial, which is insufficient to be of assistance in challenging the accuracy of a report.

I also take into account that another journalist from another newspaper also mentioned the UDF banner. In fact, it goes further and explicitly says that it was UDF supporters who began jeering.

I therefore conclude that I have no reason to accept that the story was not substantially correct.

The Complaints Procedure permits a party to apply for leave to appeal against a decision of the Press Ombudsman. An application for leave to appeal, fully setting out the grounds, may be made to the Chairperson of the South African Press Appeals Panel, Judge Ralph Zulman. He may be contacted at [email protected].