Appeal Decision: Sunday Times vs Altaaf Kazi

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, ‘CSA not playing ball with Zimbabwe’ (published on 12 June 2016).

This ruling by Philip van der Merwe, a member of the Panel of Adjudicators, was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The article quoted well-known former Protea cricketer Makhaya Ntini as saying that Cricket South Africa (CSA) had turned a blind eye to their struggling neighbours (Zimbabwe, where he had been the national coach), as he had been told that they did not want much to do with Zimbabwe.

CSA complained that the:

• story falsely stated that it was unwilling to assist Zimbabwean cricket;
• headline and posters were misleading and that it set out to portray CSA in a negative light, while nothing in the article illustrated that it did not want to help Zimbabwean Cricket; and
• newspaper did not ask CSA for comment, which resulted in a one-sided and unverified article.

Sunday Times was:

• reprimanded for not asking CSA for its opinion on Ntini’s allegations against that body;
• reminded of the obligation to use a source’s exact words when quoting that person, and to be careful not to put its own interpretation into a source’s mouth; and
• directed to include CSA’s views on Ntini’s allegations,

Sunday Times then applied for leave to appeal.

It relied heavily on its contention that Section 1.8 of the Press  Code applied only to news and not to comment. However, Van der Merwe pointed out that Section 1.10 of the Code referred directly to the presentation of “inaccurate information and comment” (emphasis added), and went on to require the media to make amends for such a breach by communicating promptly and with appropriate prominence so as to readily attract attention, a retraction, correction or explanation.

Van der Merwe dismissed the application, mainly because:

• of the above;
• he agreed with the Ombud’s ruling;
• a specialist cricket writer would surely have had reason to doubt the accuracy’ of Ntini’s comments; and
• Section 7.2.4 of the Press Code stipulated that “Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced” as long as … it had taken fair account of all material facts that were substantially true.

THE RULING ITSELF

SUNDAY TIMES                                                                                                                   APPELLANT

AND

ALTAAF KAZI                                                                                                                      RESPONDENT

                                                                                                                                                MATTER NO: 1782/06/2016

DECISION

The Applicant in this matter, the Sunday Times (ST) interviewed Makhaya Ntini, the former South African cricket player and now the coach of Zimbabwe, and in the story, which it published on 12 june 2016, the latter expressed some remarks which were highly critical  of Cricket South African (CSA) without approaching CSA for its reply.

In its response to the complaint, and especially in its later application for leave to appeal the Ombudsman’s ruling, the ST relied heavily on its contention that ss.1.8 of the Code applies only to news and not to comment, because the sub-heading of the whole of s 1 of the Code reads ‘Gathering and reporting of News (my emphasis)’, and not comment. But another subsection, ss1.10, refers directly to the presentation of ‘inaccurate information and comment’ (my emphasis), and goes on to require the media to make amends for such a breach by communicating promptly and with appropriate prominence… so as to readily attract attention, a retraction, correction or explanation.

S 1.7 requires that ’Where there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a report or a source (my emphasis), and it is practical to verify the accuracy thereof it shall be verified.’ A specialist cricket writer would surely have had reason to doubt the accuracy’ of Ntini’s comments

Furthermore, section 7 of the Code which is sub-headed ‘Protected comment’, provides in ss 7.2 , that ‘Comment or criticism is  protected even if  extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced’ as long as … it:has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true (ss7.2.4) .

Therefore, whether or not the reporting of Ntini’s views constituted news or comment, there is no way out for the Sunday times

There is no possibility of an Appeals Panel coming to a different conclusion than the Ombudsman. The application is accordingly dismissed.

11/09/2016

Philip van der Merwe,

Member, Panel of Adjudicators, Press Council