Office of the Presidency vs. Mail & Guardian

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Dr Bongani Ngqulunga, Deputy Director-General in the private office of the President of the Republic of South Africa and also acting spokesman for the President, and those of Verashni Pillay, acting spokesperson of the Mail & Guardian newspaper (M&G).

The Presidency is complaining about a front-page headline and picture in the Mail & Guardian of 16 to 22 September 2016 (Zuma pals score first nuke deal – When debate still rages about the nuclear build programme, a tender has already been awarded to a close family friend of the president).

The story itself was published on page 2 and was headlined Zuma pals clinch nuke deal – What appears to be the first contract for SA’s mooted nuclear build has been quietly inked.

Complaint                                            

Pres Jacob Zuma’s office complains that the:

·         headlines (with reference to the word “pals”) as well as the front-page picture were misleading and malicious and suggested corruption on his part, as they falsely and misleadingly implied that the President was somehow involved in the awarding of a tender to (billionaire Vivian) Reddy’s son in an underhand or untoward manner, or that the latter had been awarded a tender because of his father’s supposed friendship with Zuma;

·         newspaper did not ask it for comment, and also did not state its side of the story; and

·         tweet by the editor promoting the story was malicious.

Ngqulunga concludes that the President felt aggrieved by this false reporting and unwarranted damage to his name and integrity.

The text

The introductory sentence to the story, written by Jessica Bezuidenhout, stated, “Shantan Reddy, the son of Pres Jacob Zuma’s friend Vivian Reddy, has clinched what appears to be a landmark deal for the country’s controversial multibillion-rand nuclear programme.”

She added that, although there was no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of Reddy or his company, the contract set off alarm bells because the government continued to deny that it had entered into any nuclear deal.

The complaint in more detail

Ngqulunga says the headline was misleading and malicious as the reference to Zuma’s “pals” was used to cast aspersions on him and to imply that he might have influenced the awarding of the tender to the Reddy family.

He states that, in fact, Zuma denies that he knows Reddy’s son, “and therefore the link with him in this manner is untruthful and malicious”; and that Zuma also does not regard himself as a “pal” of Reddy senior.

The spokesman adds the newspaper published the story despite the fact that Zuma’s office indicated to both the editor and the journalist that the President had nothing to do with the tender (which was handled by the Department of Energy).

The M&G responds

As background, Pillay says the contract awarded to Shantan Reddy’s company was the first awarded by the Department of Energy since cabinet approval paved the way for the initial phase of the nuclear build programme in December 2015.

She argues that the nuclear programme is of clear and enormous public interest.

Headlines, picture

Pillay says that the Presidency, in two instances, incorrectly claimed that the M&G had reported on a friendship between Shantan Reddy and Zuma – while the article made it clear that the historic relationship was between Reddy’s father (Vivian) and Zuma.

She argues that the relationship in question was an established and undisputed fact due to:

·         several statements to that effect in interviews by Vivian Reddy; and

·         the documented instance of the latter assisting Zuma with a loan to fund the development of his Nkandla homestead.

Pillay says the photograph accurately illustrated an important thrust of the article, which was the relationship between the two men, adding that photographs should be considered in context and not in isolation, “in exactly the way that headlines are judged”.

She points out that:

·         the front page picture was accompanied by a headline that in no way implied that Zuma was involved in the contract or had benefitted from it;

·         the blurb on the front page (which read, “While debate still rages about the nuclear build programme, a tender has already been awarded to a close family friend of the president”) was accurate, and made the photograph germane;

·         further copy on the front page (stating, “Zuma benefactor Vivian Reddy’s son is the director of the company awarded a tender for the nuclear build programme management system”) was also accurate, made the picture germane, and implied no wrongdoing on Zuma’s part.

She submits, “Our investigation showed that the company in question is associated with Mr Shantan Reddy, the son of Mr Vivian Reddy. Mr Vivian Reddy is a well-known ANC benefactor of long standing, and his close relationship with President Jacob Zuma is extensively documented. He has also readily admitted to that relationship.”

Pillay notes that the Presidency has not challenged the facts of the article. Instead its complaints relate to framing and comment prior to publication.

No comment sought

Pillay says initially the Mail & Guardian did not seek comment from Zuma as he was not implicated in any critical way – for the purposes of the article Zuma was a bystander, not the subject of reportage.

She elaborates, “No allegations are made against President Zuma, nor are any of his actions examined. There is no suggestion in the article that the President was linked to the contract in questions (sic) or any implication that the contract was awarded because of the link between Mr Vivian Reddy and the President.”

Therefore, she argues, the only relevant question was whether a relationship existed between Zuma and Vivian Reddy. However, “[A]s this is an established, documented fact that had to that point never been denied, this seemed entirely superfluous.”

However, she adds that the office of the President did have an opportunity to comment. She says, “Shortly before 5PM on the day before publication, the Presidency was apparently alerted to the upcoming article by way of promotional tweet. Dr Bongani Majola from the Presidency called our political editor. Dr Majola indicated his displeasure at the president being drawn into the article. The reporter explained the context of the article, asked Dr Majola if he wishes to deny the friendship on the record. He declined.  So the presidency took a deliberate decision not to have this version recorded.”

The reporter then also took a call from Mr William Baloyi, another Zuma spokesman, who asked about the gist of the story. He was provided with the content over the phone, as well as in a follow-up e-mail so that he could decide if it warranted a response from Zuma or the Presidency. He acknowledged receipt of the e-mail and subsequently sent the following message: “Let me not delay you, proceed! I am grateful for how we handled this, looking forward to a harmonious relationship.”

In conclusion, Pillay says the M&G did not have a duty to request comment from Zuma – and when, through their own initiative, representatives acting for him were given the opportunity to comment, they declined to do so.

Tweeting

Pillay says the newspaper is of the understanding that tweets by editors are not regulated by this office.  “Please let us know if we are mistaken.  We reserve our right to deal with this in due course,” she adds.

Ngqulunga again

Maintaining his position that Zuma has been treated unfairly and in a malicious manner, Ngqulunga replies that the complaint has indeed never been about the substance of the article. “Our complaint concerns the use of the President’s name and image in a manner that insinuates wrongdoing and corruption, while the story had absolutely nothing to do with him,” he says.

He says he is happy that M&G concedes that the story had nothing to do with Zuma, which is why it did not seek his comment – yet, the newspaper continued to use the President’s name and image in the story.

Ngqulunga adds, “It justifies using the President’s name by claiming that it was fair because President Zuma is supposedly Mr Vivian Reddy’s friend. And yet, no evidence has been provided by the newspaper which suggests that the supposed friendship extends to Mr Reddy’s son, the subject of the story. Even if such a relationship includes the son and the whole Reddy clan, the Mail and Guardian admits that President Zuma played no role in the awarding of the tender to Mr Reddy’s son or that his supposed friendship with Mr Reddy played a part in his son being awarded the tender.”

He says that, even while that was the case, the editor-in-chief (Pillay) still tweeted the following message two days before publishing the story: “Breaking news from team-M&G in the paper this week. You won’t believe what Zuma and pals are up to next. Be sure to get a copy on Friday”. The paper clearly needed the President’s name and face to elevate the story and grab attention, he argues.

He continues, “This tweet was thus unmistakable: President Zuma and his ‘pals’ had done something wrong, which her newspaper team had uncovered and would be published the following Friday.

“Despite clearly mentioning the President in her tweet advertising the story, the Presidency was not asked for comment until the Presidency called [the reporter, Bezuidenhout] on Thursday afternoon to ask what the story was about and why the Presidency had not been asked to comment. Her answer was that ‘the story had nothing to do with the President’. And she was asked why the story had been advertised as if it was about the President was involved, her answer was that it was only Ms Verashni Pillay who could answer that question because she wrote the headlines.”

When the Presidency phoned Pillay, she explained that she had decided to include Zuma in the headline because Reddy was his friend – she conceded that the President played no role in the tender but insisted that the friendship with Reddy alone was enough to include his name in the story.

He argues that, not only did the M&G use Zuma’s name, the sensational presentation of the story would no doubt have made readers believe there was some wrongdoing there – and the President was part of it, if not the architect.

Ngqulunga reiterates his conclusion, namely that the headline and picture falsely and misleadingly suggested that Zuma was somehow involved in the awarding of the tender to Reddy’s son in an underhand or untoward manner, or (again falsely and misleadingly) that Reddy’s son was awarded a tender because of his father’s supposed friendship with Zuma.

Analysis

Headlines, picture

The primary question is whether the M&G was justified in featuring Zuma (prominently, at that) in a story that, by the spokesperson’s own admission, had nothing to do with him. The secondary question is whether it was reasonable for the newspaper to involve Zuma in the story merely on the basis of his alleged friendship with Vivian Reddy, the subject’s father.

Before dealing with those questions, let me first mention the tweet. I shall comment below on the question whether or not the tweet itself falls within this office’s jurisdiction, at this stage I note its contents – clearly, the intention was to entice the public to read what Zuma (and his “pals”) had been “up to”.

By her own “admission” in the tweet, the story was indeed about the President and his “involvement” – notwithstanding her argument (in her defence against this complaint) that Zuma had nothing to do with the matter.

This inconsistency leaves me with some unease.

So then, how justified was the M&G to involve Zuma in the story?

Let me begin with some examples, before explaining my conclusion: If Reddy senior was friends with any other (influential) political figure (be that person inside or outside the country), would that have been enough to involve that particular politician in the story?

Looking at the same question from the other side: Surely, Reddy senior has influential friends other than Zuma. So, why not involve them in the story a

I leave a response to this question to the imagination of the reader…

The M&G would have been more than justified to mention Zuma if there was any possibility that he might have been involved in the story – but then the newspaper should admit it, and put some sort of evidence on the table to substantiate its reporting. In its response to the complaint, it did the opposite.

This is the point: Context is as important as text.

Let me explain again (and please note, I am not preaching!). In Ps. 14:1 the Bible says, “There is no God”. It is a fact that such a statement is made in the Bible, and it is accurate to report it as such. However, the words preceding the statement about God provide the context. The full sentence reads, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’.”

The conclusion is: One may be accurate, as the reportage was on many (maybe even all of the) issues, but without the proper context, or indeed within the wrong context, accurate statements can become misleading and false.

Applying this principle to the case at hand: Even if it was accurate that Zuma and Reddy senior were friends, and even if the reportage did not say that Zuma was involved in the contract or had benefitted from it, the context in which the story was clothed (read: the headlines and the picture) suggested that the President was in some way involved, and that this involvement might have pointed to some wrongdoing on his part.

(Based on the newspaper’s argument, I accept that Zuma and Vivian Reddy were friends – or friendly with each other, at the very least; I also note that the story itself did not suggest any friendship between the two men.)

I am indeed considering the photograph (as well as the headline) in context and not in isolation, as Pillay asked me to do.

In summary, I believe that the M&G was not justified (read: unfair) in publishing its headlines and the picture, and that the result must have caused the President unnecessary reputational damage.

Again, this would have been in order if the newspaper had any reasonable ground for doing so. If, at a later stage, the M&G finds such “reasonable ground” it is more than welcome to publish such information.

No comment sought

Pillay’s argument that the Mail & Guardian did not seek comment from Zuma as he was not implicated in any critical way again rests uneasy with me (for if he was not implicated “in any critical way”, why use his picture and mention him in the headlines in the first place?

I submit that the context of the reportage was indeed critical of Zuma (as admitted in Pillay’s tweet), and that the M&G should therefore have asked him or his office for comment.

However, I also note that – by chance – the Presidency did have an opportunity to comment; also, that the newspaper asked Reddy junior for comment.

Tweeting

I need to make a clear distinction here, as to some extent this is breaking some new ground:

Personal tweets by journalists clearly fall outside the jurisdiction of this office, as we have nothing to do with their personal activities or behaviour. Therefore, if a reader complains about a journalist’s tweet, I consider that to be an internal matter and refer it to the editor.

Another consideration is that, while journalists should adhere to the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct – in their professional capacity, that is – it is indeed their publications which ascribe to it. That is exactly why, when this offices finds that there has been a breach of the Code, it consistently asks the publication, and not the individual journalist, to correct or to apologise for the mistake.

As far as the work of this office is concerned, a breach of the Code is not in the first place about a journalist – it is about the publication. We hold the latter accountable; it is up to the publication to engage with the individual journalist.

For these very reasons Pillay’s tweet does not fall in the category as described above, as she herself calls her message a “promotional tweet”. This means that the message was official (read: not in her personal capacity), and was sent on behalf of the publication.

Indeed, there is no substantial difference between such a promotional tweet and a street poster – both are intended to entice the public to read the relevant text. Therefore, if posters are covered by the Code (as they are), then – by necessity – official, promotional tweets are also included. To my mind, a promotional tweet is nothing else than an electronic poster.

This makes the M&G accountable for the words, “You won’t believe what Zuma and pals are up to next” in Pillay’s tweet.

Because Pillay has indicated it to be the newspaper’s understanding that tweets by editors are not regulated by this office – and has asked me to let her know if she was mistaken (she reserved her right to deal with this in due course) – I gave the newspaper an opportunity to respond (providing her with my argument, as documented above).

The M&G responded as follows:

“At no point did we call Pillay’s tweet a “promotional tweet”. In our original submission we noted, in the context of the presidency’s response: ‘On the day before publication, the Presidency was apparently alerted to the upcoming article by way of promotional tweet.’ “However this aspect of our response does not reference a promotional tweet by the editor but by the publication’s official twitter account, which you can see below. Pillay’s tweet remains one that was sent in her personal capacity and not on behalf of the publication. “We therefore argue the M&G is not accountable for the words, ‘You won’t believe what Zuma and pals are up to next’ in Pillay’s tweet.”

After asking for clarity in this regard, it appears there was a misunderstanding regarding the tweet. In fact, there were two tweets – one was “promotional” (done through the newspaper’s official twitter account”), and the other was by Pillay.

The official tweet read, “EXCLUSIVE: The first nuke tender has already been awarded – to the son of old #Zuma family friend Vivian Reddy. In the M&G tomorrow.”

There is nothing wrong with that message.

As for Pillay, I accept that she wrote her message in her personal capacity, as it would make little sense to have two promotional tweets.

For that reason, I leave it up to the publication itself to handle this tweet – which was rather unfortunate, but which is not within my mandate to handle.

Finding

Headlines, picture

The M&G has unfairly and without the necessary substantiation involved Pres Jacob Zuma in its story via its headlines and the publication of the front-page picture, thereby raising concerns about corruption without any proper grounds – and causing unnecessary harm to his reputation in this process.

This was in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:

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

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

·         3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving … reputation.”

No comment sought

This part of the complaint is dismissed.

Tweeting

This part 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 all Tier 2 offences.

Sanction

The M&G is directed to apologise to Pres Jacob Zuma for unfairly and without the necessary substantiation involving him in its story via its headlines and the publication of the front-page picture, thereby raising concerns about corruption without any proper grounds – and causing unnecessary harm to his reputation in this process.

The text should:

·         be announced on its front page, including the words “apology” or “apologises” and “Zuma”;

·         be published on page 2 as well as on its website;

• start with the apology;
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”; and
• be approved by me.

The headline on page 2 should also contain the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Zuma” or “President”.

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