Sagren Moodley vs. Sunday Times
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Sagren Moodley, an artist who featured in an advertisement, and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.
Complaint
Moodley is complaining about two articles in the Sunday Times of 22 November 2015, headlined From ad to worse – The retail duds that make SA cringe, and Five campaigns that caused a stink.
He complains that the journalist wrongly stated as fact that the McDonald’s advertisement was a dud and a retail flop, that it had backfired, that it was racist, and that the artist who featured in the ad was “foul mouthed”.
The texts
The first article, written by Suthentira Govender, cited examples of advertising campaigns “that have backfired for using ethnic profiling, being sexually explicit, offensive or downright racist in the eyes of South Africans”.
The second one listed five (other) campaigns that were criticized, for several reasons. McDonald’s was one of these.
The newspaper’s response
Smuts replies that:
· Moodley was both the artist and the agent;
· the journalist did not label the campaign a dud or a retail flop, said that it had backfired, and called the character “foul-mouthed”; and
· the article stated that some members of the Indian community had been offended – this was not presented as the opinion of the journalist.
Analysis
The first story cited criticism against advertisements by Woolworths, BIC, the Swedish fashion brand H&M and Cell C – and did not contain a single word about McDonald’s. The statements of a “dud and a retail flop, that it had backfired, that it was racist, and that the artist who featured in the ad was foul mouthed” can therefore not be ascribed to McDonald’s.
The second article, which clearly featured as a separate text, mentioned McDonald’s as one example of a company that had been criticized for an advertisement.
The full text regarding McDonald’s read, “McDonald’s McFeast Spicy burger advert, which features comedian Karou Charou talking in his ‘thick Indian accent’, offended some members of the Indian community, who regarded it as offensive and stereotypical.”
A caption stated, “OFFENSIVE AND ALL: Some Indian people complained about McDonald’s McFeast Spicy burger.”
I note that the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (the ASA) has received complaints about this advertisement. It has ruled (on 17 November 2015) as follows: “The respondent confirmed that the commercial had been withdrawn and would not be used again in future. As the permanent removal of this commercial appears to address the complainants’ concerns, there is no need to consider the merits of the dispute at this time. The undertaking is accepted on condition that the commercial at issue is not used again in future.”
This means the ASA did receive complaints about McDonald’s advertisement, which is in fact all that the text in dispute was stating – nothing more, and nothing less.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
Appeal
Our 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 [email protected].
Johan Retief
Press Ombudsman
