Amandla Ngudle vs. Sunday Sun

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Amanda Ngudle, publicist for the TV production Muvhango, and those of Johan Vos, deputy editor of the Sunday Sun newspaper.

Ngudle is complaining about a story in Sunday Sun of 24 July 2016, headlined Muvhango actors ‘unhappy’.

Complaint

Ngudle’s main complaint is that the story falsely stated that actors in Muvhango had embarked on a strike for better working conditions – despite proof to the contrary.

She also complains about the:

·         negative consequences of this reportage, saying that the story was bad for the brand and business, and that it has tarnished the image of some actors in the show; and

·         reporter’s conduct (saying she told him the story was false, yet he was relentless in his efforts – to the point that she eventually got so annoyed that she blocked his calls). She adds that, had he mentioned the names of the people he was referring to, she would have given the journalist their numbers to confirm that the story was false.

She also says that the reporter called her again on “Saturday, August 1” – a date that does not exist – and again she was annoyed by his tone.

The text

The story, written by Phumlani Mzila, said that the popular SABC soapie Muvhango had been hit by rumours of a strike.

He wrote that some senior actors, Sindy Dlathu (in the part of Thandaza Mukwevho), Dingaan Mokebe ka Khumalo (James Motsamai), Cynthia Shange (MaNkosi) and Senzokuhle Radebe (Sthembiso Gumede) had allegedly been “unhappy”. A cast member reportedly claimed that these actors had been on strike for three months.

Mzila wrote that one cast member (Dingaan Mokebe ka Khumalo) reportedly denied any knowledge of a strike; another confirmed that they had “been off for three months”; and a third denied it was a strike, but claimed it was an action “to express their unhappiness”.

The source reportedly confirmed that a meeting had taken place with SABC COO Hlaudi Motsoeneng.

The journalist reported that Ngudle had refused to comment, and that some of the actors could not be reached for comment.

The arguments

Mentioning several examples, Vos responds that the newspaper attributed the claims in dispute to its sources, and states that the entire article was presented as allegations.

He adds that the article reported that one of the actors had denied the strike, that it quoted SABC spokesman Kaizer Kganyago’s statement that he had not been aware of such an allegation or of a meeting between Motsoeneng and the actors, and says that the newspaper gave Ngudle a right of reply.

Vos says Mzila denies Ngudle’s allegation that she had given him proof to deny the claims.

He also argues that the article was in the public interest as Muvhango was a popular soapie, and the actors were in the limelight.

Vos concludes, “We have reliable sources…and therefore decided that the article is reasonably true and went ahead to print” – adding that I may contact these sources for corroboration, on condition of anonymity.

Ngudle replies that Sunday Sun, in its response, has:

·         ignored the issue of defamation;

·         sent links to prove the public interest – one of which came from a hoax site; and

·         disregarded the journalist’s behaviour.

She adds that she doubts the credibility of the sources – and categorically states that the story was “an obviously false one”.

Analysis

The main complaint is twofold – that the story falsely stated that some actors in Muvhango had embarked on a strike while, secondly, the journalist had proof to the contrary.

My first observation is that none of the actors mentioned in the article themselves made the allegation about a strike – one denied any knowledge of a strike; another confirmed that they had “been off for three months” (which did not, by default, amount to a strike); a third denied that it was a strike, instead claiming that it was an action “to express their unhappiness”; and the rest could not be contacted for comment.

This means that Mzila has relied on secondary sources to publish the allegation of a strike.

Vos’s assumption that the sources were “reliable” may or may not be true – but the fact remains that they were secondary ones – and that no primary source (of which there should have been quite a few) has confirmed the allegation in question.

I have said this so many times before, but it seems that I need to repeat it again: A newspaper is not allowed to publish an allegation just because someone has made it – there has to be some reasonable degree of truth to it.

The reasons for this are simple: An allegation may be defamatory, and the repetition of defamation is also defamation; and, inter alia, the sources may have ulterior motives.

Note that it is not enough to state an allegation as an allegation – in the absence of any concrete evidence, or of some sort of confirmation (read: verification) by a primary source, the mere mentioning of the word “allegedly” does not by definition indemnify a publication from breaching the Code of Ethics and Conduct – and neither does the recording of a denial of the allegation.

I do not believe that such reportage is fair to the subjects of an article.

In the absence of any proof that there had been a strike, or no strike, I cannot determine whether the reportage was accurate or not.

Having said that, I also need to point out the factors that are in Sunday Sun’s favour:

·         The matter was indeed in the public interest;

·         There really was no evidence to disprove claims of a strike (there was no proof of a strike either, as I have pointed out above);

·         Ngudle should not blame a journalist for being eager to get his story either confirmed or denied; and

·         The journalist’s actions after publication fall outside the scope of this adjudication.

Lastly, the possible unnecessary harm that any reportage may have caused a subject always plays a major role in determining the sanction.

In this case, I am not convinced that the allegation of a strike may have seriously damaged Muvhango’s reputation, or that it could have had hugely negative consequences for its brand and business, or that it had necessarily tarnished the image of some actors in the show – a strike, as such, is not necessarily illegal or unethical.

This observation will reflect in the rather “soft” sanction that will follow.

Finding

Sunday Sun is in breach of the following sections of the Code:

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

·         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. Where it has not been practicable to verify the accuracy of a report, this shall be stated in such a report”.

The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

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).

The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are Tier 2 offences.

Sanction

Sunday Sun is cautioned for:

·         unfairly publishing the allegation of a strike (having relied on secondary sources only); and

·         not properly verifying its information.

The text to be published should:

·         start with the caution:

·         appear under the same page number as the offending report; 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 apology should appear there as well.

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