Appeal Decision: Solal Technologies vs. Beeld

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, ‘Bakterie lei tot griep’: Firma gekap (‘Bacteria results in flu’: Company criticized). This was published on 16 November 2012.

This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The story said that Solal Technologies was in trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) because of its claim that influenza could be caused by bacteria. The ASA reportedly found that Solal should stop its claim that one of its products could prevent this illness. It was also reported that Solal could not find an independent source to substantiate its claim.

Solal complained that the story had favoured ASA, which resulted in an unfair and unbalanced story, and that its comments were not reflected (read: the article was biased).

Retief said he was not entertaining the complaint with regards to the ASA – that body did not subscribe to the Press Code, the newspaper did. He remarked that the story was about the ASA’s finding – the article did not intend to evaluate which of the two parties were correct. “I therefore do not believe that the story favoured the ASA,” he opined.

Dismissing the complaint, the Ombud concluded that the story was fair and balanced as it reflected all the relevant points raised by Solal.

Solal then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe dismissed the application, mainly because he agreed with the Ombud’s decision. He added that Solal, in its application, concentrated on its sour relationship with ASA and not on the gist of the story.

THE RULING ITSELF

Matter                                                                              269/2012

Solal Technologies                                                          Applicant

Vs

Beeld                                                                                 Respondent

1.The applicant, Solal Technologies, lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman against the respondent, Beeld, in relation to a story which appeared in the paper’s edition of 16 November 2012 headlined “ ‘Bakterie lei tot griep’: Firma gekap.” Before publishing the story, the journalist asked applicant for comment; the latter submitted its view in writing. The story centered around applicant’s claim that influenza could be caused by bacteria, and then went on to advertise that one of its products could prevent flue. The Advertising Standards Authority disagreed, and ruled that applicant should stop the advertisement.

2.The crux of applicant’s complain was that whereas it had submitted its response to the journalist, its views were  not reflected in the report. This was indeed the case. The applicant, in later submissions to the Ombudsman, put its complaint as follows:

“The cause of complaint is that the ASA…………was a protagonist in the story, yet their version of events was proffered over that of another (the applicant itself), based on no investigation, and despite damning details being submitted as regards the ASA, its procedures, its jurisdiction (or lack thereof) and its overt bias as against ourselves.

It is the press’s obligation to report objectively, and that did not happen in this case.”

The applicant averred that the respondent contravened certain articles of the Press Code then, such as article 1.1 (truthful, fair and accurate reporting) and article 1.5 ( failure to reflect applicant’s written response). The Ombudsman ruled against the applicant, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

3.In his Ruling, the Ombudsman succinctly summarizes the complaint as follows: firstly, that the story “favoured a protagonist in the story (the Advertising Standards Authority), which resulted in an unfair and unbalanced story.”  Secondly, that the story “did not reflect its comments (bias).”

4.The basis of applicant’s complaint is really that its point of view was not covered, which resulted in the story being unbalanced. That basis cannot, however, hold. The problem is that in what was supposed to be its response, applicant concentrated on its sour relationship with ASA. This was not to be the gist of the story, even less so the question of ASA’s procedures or its jurisdiction (or lack of it).The dispute between applicant and ASA was a matter to be resolved before court. In issue, which was what was to be the story, was whether or not influenza could be caused by bacteria, and whether or not applicant’s product could cure it, as applicant claimed. I agree with the Ombudsman, and the reasons given by him, that the story was not unbalanced.

5.For the above reasons, I hold that there are no reasonable prospects of success that applicant could succeed before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore refused.

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chairperson, Appeals Panel.

22 August 2013.