Appeal Decision: Cape Times vs Katz Anthony

Cape Times                                                                                     APPLICANT

VERSUS

[1]     Mr Anthony Katz (“respondent”) complained against the Cape Times(“applicant”) about a story published by the applicant on 19 February 2016, with the headline “Getting to the bottom of water symposium’s cancellation”.  The story was reporting on the cancellation of a water symposium which had been organized by the Mail & Guardian, and was to be addressed by the Deputy Ambassador of Israel.  A Non Governmental Organization (NGO) known as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS-SA), a local branch of a USA NGO lobbying against Israel, claimed that the Mail & Guardian had cancelled as a result of the participation of the Deputy Ambassador.  Correspondence was exchanged between the Deputy Ambassador, and the respondent, a Jewish reporter, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the applicant’s journalists, especially the Editor and the deputy editor.  In the course of these exchanges, names and contact details of the respondent were disclosed by the respondent.  The gist of the correspondence was the Deputy Ambassador’s and/or the respondent’s insistence that the BDS’s claim was false, resulting in the applicant’s request for written proof that the claim was indeed false.

[2]     The respondent’s complaints, as summarized by the Ombudsman in his Ruling of 3 April 2016, were that the applicant did not:

“?    respect his (and a child’s) privacy;

?  ensure that the personal information under its control was protected from misuse

?  protect personal information that could put him and others at risk; and

?  verify its information”.

The applicant published part of the Deputy Ambassador’s response, but not all of it as it felt that some parts of it were objectionable.  Also, respondent’s comments were also published.  There was an argument about whether or not the proof referred to above was submitted: according to the respondent it was, at least by reference; whereas according to the applicant it was not.

[3]     The applicant contended that disclosing contact details of journalists was a standard practice to enable the public to engage with the journalists if need be.  Furthermore, given the pro- and anti-Israeli lobbying, the applicant had to guard against any perceived distortion.  The applicant also insisted that it had verified its information.

[4]     In his Ruling, the Ombudsmen held that the applicant had violated the Code by publishing the cell number of the respondent.  It is important in this respect to note that the issue of pro- and anti-Israeli lobbying was a heated issue.  As the respondent points out, some people (the pro group) have in the past been threatened.  While the publication of a journalist’s contact details may in other cases be acceptable, the Ombudsman’s view was that on the facts of this case, that should not have been done.  I do not think that it can be said the Ombudsmen was so wrong that his Ruling may be overturned.  The respondent says he furnished his cell number as a journalist to other journalists; not for publication.

[5]     The Ombudsman also held that the applicant failed to verify its information. He says:

“The fact that (the Deputy Ambassador) referred Cape Times to (respondent) did not dissolve (sic) the newspaper from its duty to contact the primary source as well (which was the M&G).  The newspaper, by its own admission, tried to verify the cancellation of the symposium …. Well, it should have asked the primary source about it”.

It is obvious, that the M & G was not contacted.  I find no fault with the Ombudsman’s findings.  The rest of the complaints were dismissed.

[6]     As sanction, the applicant was directed to send an official letter of apology to the respondent for publishing his cell number without his permission, and also for failing to verify its information.

[7]     For the reasons given above, I see no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.

Dated at Pretoria this 9^th day of May 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel