Appeal Decision: Annelize Jerling vs. The Herald
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Social media users defend ‘kidnap’ posts (published on 12 March 2015).
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 Nelson Mandela Bay social media users who had triggered a public frenzy when they posted what turned out to be a hoax information of a schoolgirl who had been abducted, raped and murdered, had defended their decision to do so despite not having verified the information. The Humewood community policing forum’s Annelize Jerling reportedly put the report on the Public Servants News Network (PSNN).
Jerling complained that the newspaper erroneously quoted her as the person who had posted a hoax on PSNN. She concluded that the report had caused serious damage to her relationship with various organizations that were working closely with the SAPS.
The Ombud noted that the article merely said that Jerling had “put the report on PSNN” – after “Beer’s initial post” (his emphasis). “From the story itself, therefore, it should be clear that Beer initiated the post, and not Jerling. It is also true that she did react on PSNN”, he opined. He also considered that Jerling’s post appeared on a separate Facebook page, with a different audience.
The complaint was dismissed, upon which Jerling applied for leave to appeal.
Judge Ngoepe said the gist of the complaint, namely that that the story portrayed Jerling as the initiator of the hoax, could not hold water “because the article clearly says she put the report on PSNN after Beer’s initial post, as the Ombudsman points out”. Referring to her name was merely to show that she was linked with the fighting of the crime as a member of the Policing Community Forum, and as someone who had been recognized for her services, he added.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
THE RULING ITSELF
ANNELIZE JERLING APPLICANT
versus
THE HERALD RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 1019/04/2015
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] A rumour which turned to be a hoax, was circulated on 9 March 2015 that a 7 year old had been kidnapped, raped and murdered. Applicant complained to the Office of the Press Ombudsman that the respondent, in its edition of 12 March 2015, mentioned that she posted the hoax on a social media page. Respondent, complained the applicant, said that applicant had poste the hoax report in the Public Servant News Network (“PSNN”), read by thousands of people. Applicant argues that it could clearly be established that the message had been imitated by a certain Christian Beer, who also posted further false messages related to the main one. The applicant complained that as a result of the allegation, her working relationship with eg SAPS had been damaged, including as a Unit Commander of the Victim Support Unit. She served in the Community Policing Forum.
[2] The Respondent denied saying that the original hoax was posted by the applicant in the PSNN. It also contends that it was the applicant herself who put the story as an update in the PSNN. This, really, was the gist of the defence.
[3] In his Ruling of 23 March 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed the applicant’s complaint, and she now seeks leave to appeal the Ruling to the Appeals Panel. For the application to succeed, the applicant must show that she has reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel, in the event the application is granted. To answer this question, I must consider the complaint, the response and the reasons given by the Ombudsman in his Ruling.
[4] It appears that the original hoax story was posted by one Beer in the public space; at least, this is common cause, or cannot be disputed.
[5] Regarding posting the story in the PSNN, the applicant says she has no “problem with the Herald reporting on my comment but I do have a problem with the Herald creating an impression with the readers that I posted the original hoax on the PSNN page …”. The applicant’s complaint is based on the following statement by the respondent in its article. “In addition a further 65000 followers of the PSNN page received the false report. The Humewood Community Policing Forum’s Annelize Jerling, a Herald GM Citizen of the Year Finalist – put the report on PSNN.” She construes the words “put the report” as tantamount to saying she posted the initial hoax; she would have preferred the applicant rather said that she “commented” (on the original hoax). As the Ombudsman correctly puts it, the “gist of Jerling’s complaint is that the story portrayed her as initiator of the hoax, while she says that she merely responded to it.” Such an impression cannot arise because the article clearly says she put the report on PSNN after Beer’s initial post, as the Ombudsman points out. The mentioning of her name was not to create or bolster an impression that she was the poster. Reference to her name was merely to show that she was linked with the fighting of the crime as a member of the Policing Community Forum, and as someone who had been recognized for her services.
[6] For the reasons given above, as also for those by the Ombudsman, the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success, and the application is dismissed.
Dated 11 April 2015
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
