Appeal Decision: Dlamini Minenhle vs. Sunday World

DLAMINI MIVENHLE                                                                                  APPLICANT

VERSUS

[1]     In its edition of 27 March 2016 Sunday Word (“respondent”) published, on its front page, the following teaser: “MINNIE’S COKE PROBLEM”. The story appeared on page 5 with the following headline “Minnie caught between Coke and a juice”, and the sub-heading read: “Presenter must choose one of the two competitors”.  It is common cause that the person referred to was Ms Minenhle Dlamini, (“applicant”).

The content of the story was that the applicant had to choose between being a presenter for “Tropica Island Treasure” or the hostess of Coke music show, the problem being that in terms of her association with Coke, she would not be allowed to associate with any another beverage.

[2]     The applicant lodged a complaint against the teaser.  It is clear from her complaint that she understood the word “COKE” in the teaser to mean cocaine.  It is also clear from several social media reactions that a number of readers understood it the same way.  In response, the respondent disputed the interpretation given to the word “COKE” by the applicant, but conceded that it could have a dual meaning.  Respondent contended that the content of the story on page 5 would show that reference was to coco-cola.

[3]     In his Ruling dated 23 May 2016, the Pres Ombud dismissed the complaint.  He said: “If the disputed words on page 1 had used a small letter (Coke as noun), I certainly would have found in Dlamini’s favour, as many readers would have seen only the ‘coke’ on the front page, and it was reasonable for many of them to interpret that word as referring to cocaine.  However, the whole teaser was in capital letters, which means that the word ‘COKE’ did not necessarily denote cocaine”. I agree with the Ombud. But, given the reality that many readers would not go beyond the teaser to read the story itself, the impact of the ambiguity must have been patent to the respondent; even “COKE” (in capitals) is defined in some sources as also meaning “cocaine;” eg Internetslang.com and of course in ordinary parlance. Some observations are, therefore, apposite.  It must have been clear to the respondent as to what first hand interpretation was going to be given by the reader to the teaser; in fact, it is not far-fetched that the capital letters were used to prepare for a defence against a complaint that was expected to come. This particular case once more shows the weaknesses or limitations of the Press Code; namely, how to deal effectively with issues of journalistic ethics. No wonder some members of the public are sceptical about the effectiveness of the press’s self-regulation. Respondent’s use of capital letters might have worked for it; but, judging from the social platform reactions, some harm was done to the applicant, a young person working hard to build her career where reputation matters.  No wonder the Ombud, while dismissing the complaint, felt constrained to express the hope that respondent would nonetheless take it upon itself to clarify the matter. While recognizing that this is a matter entirely within respondent’s discretion, I also express the same hope, if the clarification has not been done already.

[4] For the same reasons given by the Ombud, the application is dismissed, albeit with a heavy heart.

Dated at Pretoria this 30^th day of June 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel