Luzuko Jacobs vs. The Times
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Luzuko Jacobs, spokesperson for the SA Parliament and Dianne Hawker, news editor of The Times.
Mr Jacobs is complaining about The Times story, “Parliament faces staff revolt”, by Babalo Ndenze published online on July 11, 2016, (http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/07/11/Parliament-faces-staff-revolt). A version of the story also appeared on the Rand Daily Mail website under the heading, “Mass exodus of senior staff from Parliament”. RDM editor Ray Hartley referred the complaint to The Times response.
Complaint
Jacobs complains that the article:
– incorrectly states that a former unit manager in Parliament’s committee section resigned after he was told to submit a list of more than 30 staff who reported to him so that their salaries could be docked for going on strike;
– that the article was not presented in context and in a balanced way;
– that the writer was biased against Parliament.
Jacobs is seeking a correction and apology to Parliament
The text
The story says conflict over bad management in Parliament has seen a “mass exodus of senior staff” who have resigned due to their deteriorating relationship with the head of the institution, Gengezi Mgidlana. It says six staff resigned in June while 10 have resigned since January. The story says that the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union accuses the manager of running Parliament like his “personal fiefdom”.
The story contained the specific statement, namely:“Mzolisi Fukula, a unit manager in parliament’s committee section, resigned in December after he was told to submit a list of more than 30 staff who reported to him that their salaries could be docked for going on strike. He refused.”
The story quotes Parliament spokesman Luzuko Jacobs as disputing claims of an “exodus” of skilled staff.
The arguments
Jacobs says that Fukula resigned for reasons unrelated to those in the story and that he (Fukula) was not approached for comment. The Times is therefore in breach of Section 1.1 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African print and online media that states that the media should take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.
Jacobs says Parliament noted in its response to the writer that while organisational turnover is generally around 8%, Parliament’s staff turnover was 2%. The response also noted that “none of the ex-colleagues in your lists cited as reasons for their departure anything specified in your SMS-ed inquiry”. Jacobs also noted that those who resigned would not have interacted with the Secretary to Parliament. These issues, said Jacobs, were not included or summarised in the report. The Times is therefore in breach of Section 1.2 of the Code which states that news should be presented in context and in a balanced manner without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions or summarisation.
Finally, Jacobs says he has previously written to the reporter expressing concern about his reporting on Parliament. Jacobs says the reporter has a close relationship with Nehawu members as evidenced by his social media updates and access to Nehawu. Jacobs says the reporter’s consistent conduct brings into question his independence and professionalism.
This, he says, is in breach of sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.
In her response, Hawker says The Times had noted the inaccuracies regarding Fukula’s resignation and had corrected these with the following correction: CORRECTION NOTE: In a previous version of the article we incorrectly stated that Mzolisi (Mzo) Fukula had resigned from Parliament’s employ after he refused to submit a list of more than 30 staff who reported to him so that their salaries could be docked for going on strike, and that his resignation was related to such refusal. Both these statements are incorrect and were not checked with Fukula. The error occurred in the editing process. We sincerely regret the error and any discomfort or reputational damage caused to Fukula.
The Times undertook to carry a correction in print once the present complaint was finalised.
In the second aspect regarding a breach of Section 1.2, Hawker says that she believed that there are no grounds for this complaint. She says the comment from Parliament contained in the story, while short, encapsulated Parliament’s reply. She added that The Times also carried a letter to the editor in a later issue that allowed Mr Jacobs to ventilate his viewpoint further.
In response to the allegation of bias against the reporter, Hawker says that the reporter has freedom of association.
“There doesn’t appear to be any specific evidence of wrongdoing, only speculation from Mr Jacobs,” said Hawker. “Journalists often meet sources and Mr Ndenze was in no way secretive about his meeting with Nehawu members. Mr Jacobs has not said what was discussed in this meeting and how, if at all, it relates to his complaint. I cannot see how this is proof of any prejudice against Parliament.”
Jacobs says the online apology does not deal with the harm done to Parliament and does not correct the impression given by the headline: “If such a critical statement falls as “incorrect and unchecked”, it is not possible for the headline and the lead paragraph, which are the essence of the story informed by “incorrect and unchecked” evidence, to stand in their present malicious form,” says Jacobs.
Jacobs says it is not the length but the content of the comment which underpins their complaint and was adamant that the evidence “suggests undue influence on his conduct and his consistently pro-Nehawu and anti-Parliament coverage of the developments at Parliament”.
Analysis
The issue of Mzolisi Fukula’s resignation from Parliament form the basis of the headline and lead paragraph. This is a serious allegation which, when withdrawn, calls into question the entire story. Seven resignations out of the hundreds of employees cannot be deemed an exodus or staff revolt.
It is possible to edit someone’s substantive comment into a succinct submission. It is therefore not the length of the comment but whether the comments adequately reflect the key issues. Jacob’s published comments that people leave for various reasons suggests a flippant response to a serious issue. It does not reflect the breadth of his statement that Parliament’s staff turnover is below average and that those who have left have neither interacted with the Secretary to Parliament nor given such reasons in their exit interviews.
Indeed, if these remarks were considered, it would have negated the headline and introductory paragraph of “staff exodus”.
Reporters generally have a range of contacts and build extensive relationships in the course of their work. The reporter’s social media updates alone cannot therefore be used to determine whether or not he has shown bias.
Journalists, by the nature of their work, need to engage with a range of people who are not necessarily their friends. We need to review such allegations of bias only through the content of the journalist’s work. Even so, checks and balances within the newsroom from ideas generation to information gathering to story writing, editing and finally placement should all provide adequate checks against individual biases. It is for this reason that it is the publication, not the journalist, who accounts before the Press Council. Section 2.1 says the media shall not allow … “political or other non-professional consideration to influence or slant reporting”.
At issue here is whether the resulting story is due to bias or a failure to adhere to tenets of the Code.
Findings
1. The information in the story relating to Mzolisi Fukula is in breach of Section 1.1 of the code as it is inaccurate. This complaint is upheld.
2. Jacobs’ comments relating to staff turnover, reporting lines and reasons for dismissal are significant enough to warrant inclusion in the story. This complaint is upheld as The Times is in breach of Section 1.2 of the Code.
3. A relationship with various sources cannot be seen as evidence of bias. The newspaper itself should take responsibility that all parties are fairly represented within the story. This 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 a Tier 2 offence.
Sanction
The Times and RDM are directed to place a correction and apology for Parliament. The correction needs to note that staff turnover was below turnover and therefore could not provide evidence of either a staff revolt or exodus.
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].
Paula Fray
Deputy Press Ombud
