Gun Owners SA vs. Daily Voice

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Richard Best, spokesman of Gun Owners SA (GOSA), and those of Taariq Halim, the editor of the Daily Voice newspaper.

Complaint

GOSA is complaining about a story on the front page of Daily Voice of 28 June 2016, headlined Ex-cop sparks outrage for training kids to use guns.

The gist of the complaint is that the newspaper has:

·         allowed a so-called expert to voice an opinion suiting her own agenda, while the opinion was neither accurate nor fair as the “expert” was inexperienced in the field and unable to present an objective view on the matter; and

·         reflected only one side of the debate.

The text

The story, written by Genevieve Serra, was about a former policeman, Randall Petersen, who had “come under fire” for posting a picture of his niece holding a shotgun. The girl had been photographed in a house.

The story reflected Petersen’s motivation (which centered on rising levels of crime in the country) quite extensively, as well as his statement that the gun had not been loaded when the picture was taken.

Reportedly, this was published against the background of Facebook users criticizing Petersen for allowing a child to handle a firearm.

Towards the end of the article, Gun Free South Africa’s Adele Kirsten was reported as saying that Petersen had placed his niece at risk of injury. Serra also published several other statements by Kirsten in this regard (see below).

The arguments

GOSA complains about the following reported statements by Ms Adele Kirsten of Gun Free South Africa (GFSA) “under the pretense that she is an expert in the field of defensive weapons”:

·         “[Kirsten] said Petersen placed his niece at risk of injury”;

·         “Shotguns are not defence weapons and should not even be kept in a house”;

·         “Children should not be allowed to handle guns”; and

·         “Why teach a child to shoot? It is not the job of the child to defend himself against violence”.

Best says Kirsten was inexperienced in the field, yet she professed to be an expert – and the newspaper quoted her as if she was knowledgeable on this subject, which revealed that the newspaper was driving an agenda without regard for the accuracy or the quality of the reporting.

He argues that “[the] print media should stop trying to use GFSA as their experts on this subject…”

Best adds that Kirsten was not present at the time of training and therefore could not possibly know whether or not the man put his niece at risk. “I believe that on this basis, the reporting on this is unfair and inaccurate.” He also says there is nothing in the law prohibiting children from handling guns under the correct supervision, “and it is in fact recommended by advocates of education”. He submits that Kirsten was not entitled or qualified to comment on what other people’s children should and should not be allowed to do. “She has no right to judge him. I believe that on this basis, the reporting on this is unfair and inaccurate.”

He also criticizes Kirsten’s view that children should not protect themselves from violence either as a child or later in life (as the training from childhood will affect their ability as adults later on). He calls this argument “absurd, unrealistic and irresponsible”.

Best also complains about the following sentence: “Police spokesperson, Lieutenant colonel Andre Traut referred the Daily Voice to the Firearms Control Act of 2000, in which it states that a person who is able to possess a firearm must be 18 years and older, and that firearms at home must be kept in a safe at all times.”

He says he believes that the use of this quote underscored the anti-gun stance that was prevalent in the article. He does not contest the accuracy of the statement, but does say it was irrelevant in the context of the article.

Best refers to Section 22 of the Act, where no specific age is mentioned regarding people who are allowed to use a firearm when they are under the supervision of a licence holder. Again, he argues that this indicates unfair and inaccurate reportage.

His conclusion adequately summarises his complaint: “So in essence what we have in this particular article is more anti-gun press which is completely biased and based on a distinct lack of education, experience or training in these respects which has now been aimed at a man who has done civil service in law enforcement, is an ordained minister and is an accredited risk assessment officer. I see an article which is aimed at a family man doing his best within the bounds of our legal system to keep his family educated and safe.”

Halim says the article raised issues about gun safety (within the context of gun violence in the country) and whether children should be able to handle guns. He submits that GFSA is the only organisation in the country focusing specifically on reducing and preventing gun violence through legislative reform and social mobilization. It also lobbied during the drafting of the SA Constitution to ensure that gun ownership was a privilege and not a constitutional right – and “rightly so”. The editor argues that the text was appropriate, presented in context, in a balanced manner, truthful, accurate and fair, and that the article was in the public interest. Besides: “By publishing GFSA’s statements on the incident … The Daily Voice exercised due care and responsibility with regard to brutality and gun violence.” Halim also notes that the statements quoted by Best were all published in quotation marks, signifying that they were Kirsten’s views – they were not presented as fact. In relation to the Firearms Control Act, the editor says the story merely noted that people under 18 years may not possess a firearm. By reporting on what the law entails, the story was balanced and did not have any “anti-gun stance”, as Best alleges.

Best replies that Daily Voice’s comment of “rightly so” (referring to gun ownership not being a constitutional right) proves that the newspaper does in fact have an agenda “which contravenes the idea of reporting in a fair and unbiased” manner. “This shows that the media house is not open to the possibility of reporting alternative views and reports nothing but its own opinion, it is not backed up with any facts and it has no place in this discussion about unbiased reporting.”

He reiterates that his complaint is not about a gun debate, but rather about the fact that the matter was reported in a biased and unfair manner. “[The] issue at hand is not which side of the debate is right, but rather that there is more than one aspect to this and that the article only displayed one side.”

He admits that the story did reflect Petersen’s views. “But there was no third perspective, which would have been an accredited ‘pro-gun’ forum… Further to this, an anti-gun organisation would not be able to comment objectively on safety, since the overriding premise of the group is to do away with all firearms… So how could GFSA look at the situation and give a balanced answer as regards the safety of the child?”

Regarding the use of quotation marks, Best maintains that the people quoted were labelled as unopposed experts, giving the impression that what they say constitutes the final word on the matter.

He calls Halim’s response to the argument about the law “selective” – choosing only that part of it which fits his narrative.

Analysis

Best’s argument is inconsistent in one aspect: even though he says his complaint is not about a gun debate, but rather about a biased and unfair report (“[The] issue at hand is not which side of the debate is right, but rather that there is more than one aspect to this and that the article only displayed one side”), he nevertheless argues the gun issue itself by arguing that Kirsten’s views are flawed, and why.

That is why he blames Daily Voice for publishing her views in the first place, and why he asks the media not to reflect GFSA’s opinions in future.

This office shall not be party to the silencing of GFSA’s voice, as that organisation has a constitutional right to its opinion – and the media has the same right to report it.

Secondly, regarding the question of whether the article reflected only one side of the debate and whether it should have included the views of at least one pro-gun organisation as well: Again, I cannot agree with Best when he argues that a “third perspective” (in addition to those of GFSA and Petersen) should have been included – the story quite extensively portrayed Petersen’s position, and he was more than capable of voicing the other side of the debate.

For that reason, I believe that the article was fair and balanced.

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