SGB, Carleton Jones High School vs. Carletonville Herald

SUMMARY

The headlines to the stories in dispute read, Alleged racism at school (published on 26 May 2016); and, ‘If we don’t destroy racism, it will destroy us’ (June 9).

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

 

The first story said that anger among learners at Carleton Jones High School was “boiling over” and might “soon be out of control”. This message reportedly came from a group of black learners who had complained to the newspaper about alleged racial tension at the institution. The second article saluted the journalist as well as a group of black learners “who bravely stood up and reported the alleged racial tension” at the school.

The School Governing Body (SGB) complained that several statements regarding racist behaviour involving both learners and teachers were false, unverified, not tested with the school, and that it amounted to incitement to cause harm. The SGB said the second text was in fact presented to the newspaper as a letter to the editor – which it used as an article, without clarifying that it was a letter, or who the writer was, or stating that it did not share the author’s views.

They concluded that the newspaper had deliberately misled the public and incited racial hatred in the community.

Retief said the allegations had been levelled by five disgruntled students which were not tested with other learners. He remarked that his discomfort with the publishing of those allegations was underscored by the outcome of a departmental investigation, which concluded that the statements in question were unfounded.

“The damage caused by this reporting is of such a potentially explosive nature that extreme measures are necessary to try and rectify the harm and any racial conflict that may flow from it. It is the duty of this office to do exactly that,” the Ombud said.

Carletonville Herald was inter alia directed to, on its front page:

• unreservedly retract the first story and to apologiseto the school and its SGB for having published false and unverified information which unnecessarily amounted to incitement to cause harm; and
• apologisefor presenting a letter to the editor as a news report.

Retief added several other directions to minimise the damage caused by the reportage.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of the School Governing Body (SGB) of the Carleton Jones High School, and those of Adele Louw, news editor of the Carletonville Herald newspaper.

Complaint

The SGB is complaining about a story in the Carletonville/Fochville Herald on 26 May 2016 headlined Allegations of Racism at School. The posters read, Alleged racism at school. The complaint includes a follow-up article, published on June 9 and headlined, “If we don’t destroy racism, it will destroy us”.

Regarding the first story, the SGB complains that some statements (details below) were:

·         false;

·         unverified;

·         not tested with the school; and

·         amounting to incitement to cause harm.

The text

The first story, written by Kagiso Segone, said that anger among learners at the school was “boiling over” and might “soon be out of control”. This message, he reported, came from a group of black learners who had complained to the newspaper about alleged racial tension at the institution.

The learners reportedly claimed their right to education had been oppressed and said they did not want to go to school because of the way they had been treated. “They allege favouritism, segregation and unequal treatment.”

They also mentioned policemen searching classes with only black learners, and racism amongst some teachers.

These examples include allegations that only white learners were allowed to colour their hair; when a black learner lost a cell phone nothing was done, but when the same happened to a white learner, an examination was interrupted and learners were searched; black students were not allowed to participate in certain activities; and some classes had only black learners.

The second article was authored by Mr Jerry Ramokgoatedi. He saluted the journalist as well as a group of black learners “who bravely stood up and reported the alleged racial tension at [Carleton Jones High School]”. He said he was “shocked and disturbed” to learn that there were “black only classes” and that the police had searched only black students.

He indicated that he believed those allegations, saying, “There is no sane person who just wakes up to make these types of allegations without substance.”

The complaint in more detail

The first story

The SGB complains about the following sentences:

·         “Anger among the learners is boiling over and may soon be out of control.” The body says this statement amounted to incitement to cause harm. “This has resulted in much turmoil at our school and [we] believe that the slanted reporting of these allegations was deliberate”; and

·         “This is the message from a group of black learners from Carleton Jones High School who recently complained to the newspaper about alleged racial tension there.” The SGB says there was no reference in the story to other learners who have been interviewed, and no effort was made to corroborate the claims with other learners – so, this statement was not verified, and it was unbalanced and therefore unfair. The body adds that its chairman, Mr David Magagula, indicated in his response to the newspaper’s questions that some of the learners’ statements might be considered to be misinterpretations or miscommunications, the majority of which were simply blatantly false and also inflammatory. He told the journalist he should think twice about publishing any of those allegations as many of them might result in litigation – yet, the reporter still did not investigate the matter further, “deliberately” breaking the Code of Ethics and Conduct.

The SGB also singles out the following “untrue” examples of statements in the article:

·         “Black students may not participate in [certain] activities.” The SGB says there were 37 exco members, of whom only four were white, and none of them had been involved in any exclusive such activity;

·         “There are black-only classes”. The SGB says that, as Magagula indicated to the newspaper, there were only 21 white learners amongst the total of 1 021 at the school (approximately 2% of the total number of learners). Besides, the white learners are distributed evenly over all the grades. It notes there is only one white child in grade ten, while grade ten has six register classes. This is misleading reporting, and it was done deliberately – clearly, for reasons of incitement or sensationalism. It adds that the newspaper chose to include the statement about classes with only black learners – whilst knowing (from the previous SGB response) that there simply were not enough white children to have a white learner in every class. Also, the SGB statement did not confirm that the police searched only “black-only classes”. “There were learners from minority groups searched. No investigator has taken the time to ask”; and

·         “Then there are complaints about alleged racist teachers including a top personnel member and the son of another. When a black learner apparently did the same thing as the son, only he was allegedly he was punished” (sic). The SGB points out that there are only two top personnel members at the school – the deputy principal and the principal, who is also the only staff member who has a child at the school. Therefore, it would have been clear to the learners to whom this sentenced referred. “To publish such vague and unfounded allegations without corroboration of any sort, or a reference even to any example, is not only damaging to both [people’s] reputations but [also] inciting and irresponsible,” the body argues.

It adds that the reporter omitted to identify Magagula by name as the chairman of the SGB. This body says this omission was a deliberate attempt to disguise his race “and therefore discredit anything said in his statement”.

The second article

The SGB says that this text was in fact presented to the newspaper as a letter to the editor – which the newspaper used as an article, without clarifying that it was a letter, or who the writer was, or stating that it did not share Ramokgoatedi’s views.

The body notes Ramokgoatedi wrote that he had been “shocked” and “disturbed” to learn that there were “black only classes”, and that the police searched only classes with black students. However, the writer presented these statements as facts – which they were not.

The SGB complains it was not given an opportunity to respond to these allegations.

In conclusion

The SGB says the newspaper deliberately misled the public and incited racial hatred in the community. “The actions of the Herald have plunged our school into turmoil and caused a massive racial divide where we did not previously have one.”

The newspaper’s response

Louw replies Segone told her that five learners from the school approached him about racism at that institution and how it made them feel. “According to him, their allegations sounded very genuine as some of the students became very emotional during the interview.”

The journalist then contacted the principal and e-mailed the school for a response. A former SGB chairman, Mr Mike Robinson, phoned him later that evening, telling him not to publish the article because it was politically motivated; he also threatened him with litigation.

She says the newspaper published Ramokgoatedi’s letter, as he was a man of good standing and integrity.

The news editor says she learned later that Robinson was unhappy with the reportage, and indicates that the story might have been different if he had given her his information prior to publication.

Louw adds she told both Robinson and the principal that the school was welcome to send a response, indicating that there had been a departmental investigation at the school which had found nothing untoward – but the school never responded to her offer.

She says it was never the newspaper’s intention to harm the school with its reportage.

She concludes, “It is my opinion that we did not act unfairly against the school as we did contact them to respond to the allegations. Without the extra off the record information (which Robinson and the principal provided to her after the story was published), the students’ complaints also seemed genuine. If the school had contacted me immediately after the article appeared with all the off the record information, we might have reconsidered publishing Ramokwatedi’s (sic) letter.”

Louw says the newspaper’s failure to identify Ramokgoatedi’s letter for what it was, was a “genuine oversight” – the layout artist accidentally did not use the strapline to indicate that it was an opinion piece. “We acknowledge that this could have cause confusion amongst some readers… I do think that most readers, however, will know that Ramokwatedi is not a normal staff member of the newspaper as he has, as far as I could remember, never officially written something to us… Readers with knowledge about our area would have also known that Ramokwatedi is a prominent municipal councillor who is not employed by the newspaper.”

Analysis

If I have said this once, I have said it a thousand times: The media are not entitled to publish an allegation just because someone has made it – there has to be some justification for the allegation to be published.

Let me be blunt: What we have here, are allegations levelled by five disgruntled students which were not tested with other learners; and we have a journalist who believed the students based on their emotion (they seemed genuine to him, as some of them started to cry).

As emotion took over, facts seemed to fly out of the door.

My discomfort with the publishing of those allegations is underscored by the outcome of a departmental investigation, which concluded that the statements in question were unfounded.

What adds insult to injury, is that the allegations were of an extremely serious nature. This is evidenced by:

·         the school’s complaint that the actions of the newspaper:

o   have plunged it into turmoil and have caused a massive racial divide where previously it was not the case;

o   unnecessarily tarnished its reputation, which may lead to all sorts of negative outcomes for the institution; and

·         Ramokgoatedi’s letter (for which I do not blame him for a second).

But more is to come: The newspaper has caused racial tension with its irresponsible reporting.

As if that is not enough, this (either new, or at least heightened tension) did not come in a vacuum – it erupted within a society which used to be divided on racial lines, and which now (at least the reasonable members of society) tries to heal the wounds of the past.

The Preamble to the Code of Ethics and Conduct states as follows: “As journalists we commit ourselves to the highest standards, to maintain credibility and keep the trust of the public. This means always…avoiding unnecessary harm… (Emphasis added.)

The last thing the media should do, is to unnecessarily add to the racial tensions which are still prevalent in this country – which is exactly what the Carletonville Herald succeeded in doing.

I accept this was not its intention, but that does not deter from the massive harm that it has unnecessarily caused.

I also accept Louw’s explanation that it was a “genuine oversight” to publish Ramokgoatedi’s letter in the form of a news article. Yet, the only thing that matters is the end-product – the public is (rightly) not concerned with processes preceding publication. The Code is clear on this issue as well, as I shall outline under “Findings” below.

The damage caused by this reporting is of such a potentially explosive nature that extreme measures are necessary to try and rectify the harm and any racial conflict that may flow from it. It is the duty of this office to do exactly that.

In our Complaints Procedures, where orders against a publication are stipulated, Section 7.2.4 states that the Ombud may “[Make] any supplementary or ancillary orders or issue directives that are considered necessary for carrying into effect the orders or directives made in terms of this clause and, more particularly, issue directives as to the publication of the findings of the Ombud…”

This is what I intend to do.

Finding

First story

Carletonville Herald is in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for having published false (according to the outcome of a departmental investigation) and unverified information which unnecessarily amounted to incitement to cause harm (even though this was not intentional):

·         1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;

·         1.2: “News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner…”;

·         1.7: “Where there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a … source and it is practicable to verify the accuracy thereof, it shall be verified…”;

·         3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving … reputation” (as none of the exceptions to this clause, as described in 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 has been adhered to); and

·         5.2: “The media have the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to … incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”

Second text

Having presented a letter in the form of a news article, Carletonville Herald is in breach of Section 6.1.1 of the Code that stipulates, “Members are justified in strongly advocating their own views on controversial topics, provided that they treat their constituencies fairly by making fact and opinion clearly distinguishable.”

Seriousness of breaches

Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).

First story

The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are of such a serious nature, with such potential for racial tension and even violence, that I have no hesitation to describe them as Tier 3 offences.

Second text

The breach of the Code is a Tier 2 offence.

Sanction

First sanction

Carletonville Herald is directed to, on its front page:

·         unreservedly retract the first story and to apologise to Carleton Jones High School in general and to its SGB in particular for having published false and unverified information which unnecessarily amounted to incitement to cause harm; and

·         apologise for presenting Ramokgoatedi’s letter as a news report.

More specifically, the newspaper should retract and apologise for the following statements:

·         “Anger among the learners is boiling over and may soon be out of control”;

·         “This is the message from a group of black learners from Carleton Jones High School who recently complained to the newspaper about alleged racial tension there”;

·         “Black students may not participate in RCL activities”;

·         “There are black-only classes”; and

·         “Then there are complaints about alleged racist teachers including a top personnel member and the son of another. When a black learner apparently did the same thing as the son, only he was allegedly he was punished” (sic).

The text, which should be approved by me, should:

• start with the apology; and
• end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”.

The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.

If the offending article appeared on the newspaper’s website, the correction should appear there as well.

Second sanction

Under the sub-headline “Tier 3”, Section 8.1 of our Complaints Procedures states, “In addition to the sanctions from Tier 2, the Ombud … may impose a ‘space sanction’ ranging from a few centimetres to a full page for the complainant or the Press Council to use as determined by the Ombud or the Chair of Appeals.”

The newspaper is directed to publish in full the text above which appears under the sub-headlines “Analysis”, “Finding”, “Seriousness of breaches” and “Sanction”, with the exception of references to Ramokgoatedi’s letter (as the breach in this regard was not a Tier 3 offence), as a space sanction on an inside page. The front page should refer to this text.

Third sanction

The editor or the news editor is also directed to personally read what is written in this finding under the sub-headlines “Analysis”, “Finding”, “Seriousness of breaches” and “Sanction” (in full) to a gathering of the whole school, which should be followed by a reading of the apology that is to be published – that is, of course, if the school agrees to this.

Fourth sanction

The newspaper is directed to invite Ramokgoatedi to the school gathering, should the school agree to this.

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