Jane Sussens vs. Mail & Guardian
SUMMARY
The headline to the column in dispute read, A truer reflection on the winelands (published on 12 – 16 August 2016).
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The column was about farm workers who allegedly were paid with wine.
An apology had already been published about the article in dispute. The issue on the Ombud’s table was whether that text was adequate.
The basic difference between the M&G’s apology and the text that Jane Sussens preferred were the insertion of the word “unsubstantiated” (allegation).
Finding for the newspaper, Retief mainly said:
- he could not expect the M&G to state that the allegation (about paying with wine) was “unsubstantiated”, for there was no way in which the newspaper could have verified such a bland statement; and
- the text was an opinion piece.
THE RULING ITSELF
An apology has already been published about an article, pubished in the August 12 to 18 2016 edition of the Mail & Guardian, and headlined A truer reflection on the winelands.
The issue is whether that text was adequate.
The basic differences between the M&G’s apology and the text that Ms Sussens prefers are as follows:
| The M&G | Sussens |
| The article should have clarified that the statement about paying workers with wine was an allegation according to persistent reports on the matter, and relates to a small number of farms. It should also have clarified that the article was a comment piece. | The article should have clarified that the statement about paying workers with wine was based on unsubstantiated allegations in four reports since 2011 and that there was not one proven case of any farmer paying their workers with liquor. |
A report that the M&G refers to, was not of its making – the journalist merely used that report as background for the statement that the paying of farm workers with wine was still ongoing on some farms.
Also, the journalist never said, or implied, that this practice was common, or that it happened in the majority of cases.
Even more importantly, I cannot expect the M&G to say these allegations were “unsubstantiated”, as asked by Sussens – for there is no way in which the newspaper can verify such a bland statement.
Secondly, from the outset it was clear to me that the text was an opinion piece. I agree, though, that the newspaper should have made this clearer.
Sussens also wants to know if the reporter ever worked on a farm (as a labourer). That question could easily be reversed.
The journalist had a right to voice her opinion, even though it it might have been seen as “extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced” (quote from Section 7.2 of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct); likewise, the newspaper had a right to pubish it.
I am therefore satisfied with the newspaper’s apology, and in fact commend it for having done so.
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