Mike Lee vs. Cape Times

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Govt k…rs, blacks f-ing c…s (published on 2 May 2016).

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

 

The story was about a Noordhoek resident’s Facebook post, in which he commented on Sports and Recreation Minister Fikile Mbalula’s “ban” on some sporting codes hosting international tournaments. The article said, “Matthew Theunissen’s early morning post on Facebook was screengrabbed and quickly went viral on Twitter, where it was shared, and propelled #MattTheunissen to the number one position among the social network’s trending topics. Theunissen posted on Facebook: ‘So no more sporting events for South Africa… I’ve never been more proud than to say our government are a bunch of KAFFIRS … yes, I said it so go and fuck yourselves you black fucking cunts’.”

Mike Lee complained about the use of obscene language.

Retief said that, while the Press Code was the same for all the publications ascribing to it, the readership of a publication also played a part when the media decide what to publish and what not – the nature of a publication had also to be considered.

He noted that there was no provision in the Code prohibiting the use of obscene language – it was left up to the editor to decide what kind of language was suitable for her or his publication. “The boundaries set by the Code for the use of language start and finish with the prohibition of hate speech and discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, etc.,” he said.

The Ombud opined that, even if the use of the words in dispute was inconsistent with the kind of publication that the Cape Times was or purported to be, that could not constitute a breach of the Code.

Dismissing the complaint, Reties said that the publication of this story was newsworthy and in the public interest, as it showed how racist some people still were two decades into the country’s democracy.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Mike Lee and those of Aneez Salie, editor of the Cape Times newspaper.

Complaint

Lee complains about a front-page lead in the Cape Times on 2 May 2016, headlined Govt k…rs, blacks f-ing c…s.

He complains about the use of obscene language.

The text

The story, written by Quinton Mtyala, was about a Noordhoek resident’s Facebook post, in which he commented on Sports and Recreation Minister Fikile Mbalula’s “ban” on some sporting codes hosting international tournaments.

Mtyala wrote, “Matthew Theunissen’s early morning post on Facebook was screengrabbed and quickly went viral on Twitter, where it was shared, and propelled #MattTheunissen to the number one position among the social network’s trending topics. Theunissen posted on Facebook: ‘So no more sporting events for South Africa… I’ve never been more proud than to say our government are a bunch of KAFFIRS … yes, I said it so go and fuck yourselves you black fucking cunts’.”

The arguments

Lee says he takes exception to the verbatim use of the obscene language.

He argues, “As this is a major daily newspaper, it is read by readers of all ages and this language is certainly not the kind I would want primary school kids exposed to… I would expect an apology from the editor – failing which I for one will certainly NOT be buying/reading his newspaper in the future!”

This is the editor’s official response to Public Advocate Latiefa Mobara:

“Hi Latiefa, this one is rather easy. No, we are not prepared to apologise, so if the person wants to stop reading the paper, that’s his choice. But tell me, why do you entertain this? Surely it is everyone’s democratic right to buy the paper or not. For this chap to want you to get me to apologise is nonsense, surely. And it wastes our time. Really.”

Analysis

I have stated this many times before, but let me repeat it again: While the Code of Ethics and Conduct is the same for all the publications ascribing to it, the readership of a publication also plays a part when deciding what to publish and what not. For example: If a picture of a bare-breasted woman is published in a tabloid magazine, one may argue that readers expect that kind of picture (and therefore buy it, for that reason); however, the publication of the same picture would be offensive if published in a religious magazine, or in one aimed at children.

For example, I have recently found in favour of a tabloid that used the words “punanis” and “kak” – for the reason mentioned above.

I need to add there is no provision in the Code prohibiting the use of obscene language – it is up to the editor to decide just what kind of language is suitable for her or his publication. The boundaries set by the Code for the use of language start and finish with the prohibition of hate speech and discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, etc.

The prohibition of obscene language and a reference to the “existing moral climate” used in the Code until the end of 2015 were omitted deliberately in the current one. This was done to ensure the country’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

Therefore, if an editor decides the kind of language questioned here is permissible, it really is up to her or him to do so. As Salie correctly says, if Lee wants to stop reading the Cape Times, it is his choice.

I also fully agree with Lee, though – the Cape Times is a major daily, a respected newspaper, and a publication that certainly is read by many children. If the editor tells his audience that the Cape Times has lowered its standards, and that such language is what they should expect in future, well then, so be it – but while the public holds this publication in high esteem, as I certainly do, it needs to live up to the (rightful) expectations of the public.

In short, I find the choice of words inconsistent with the kind of publication that the Cape Times is or purported to be.

But again, that in itself does not constitute a breach of the Code.

I agree that the publication of this story was newsworthy and in the public interest, as it shows just how racist some people still are two decades into our democracy.

It follows that I am satisfied that the headline was justified.

It is unfortunate that the editor thinks the Public Advocate has wasted his time – she has acted on behalf of the complainant, and in the interests of ethical journalism.

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 Ombud