Zukiswa Vutela vs. Move!

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Uzalo’s Kay Sibiya in bitter DNA fight with sugarmama (published on 1 February 2017).

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

The story said that “SABC 1 Uzalo star and heart throb Khumbulani ‘Kay’ Sibiya (29)” was on a mission to challenge the DNA results that had proven him to be the father of the baby of his “ex- sugar mama Zukiswa ‘Zookey Zarling’ Vuthela (sic) (40)”.

Vutela complained that the reference to her as a sugarmama was insulting, derogatory and discriminatory (regarding her age), that her ex-partner received preferential treatment (as his full name and surname was used), and that the reportage amounted to hate speech – and as such, it was an attack on her dignity and reputation. She added that her surname was misspelt (she was “Vutela”, not “Vuthela”), and that the article also inaccurately stated that she was hosting a show on Gagazi FM (she said she had left the station in 2015).

Retief dismissed the bulk of the complaint, mainly because:

• Move!’s “preferential treatment” was not so serious as to have warranted a finding that the magazine was in breach of the Press Code – even though Vutela found this insulting and even if some people might have found it to be in bad taste; and
• the use of the word “sugarmama” was not targeting women in general and was not likely to evoke violent responses – which meant that the text could not have amounted to hate speech.

The Ombud noted that the editor, in her response to a letter from Vutela (complaining about the word “sugarmama”), inter alia said, “It was not in any way meant to offend you but since it did, Move! would like to profusely apologise for this…” This response, Retief said, was more than sufficient to address the matter.

Move! was reprimanded for misspelling Vutela’s surname as well as for getting her occupation wrong. The magazine was directed to correct these mistakes.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Zukiswa Vutela and those of Nonzwakazi Cekete, editor of Move! magazine.

Vutela is complaining about a headline on the front page of Move! magazine of 1 February 2017 which read, Uzalo’s Kay Sibiya in bitter DNA fight with sugarmama.

Complaint                                            

The gist of Vutela’s complaint is that the reference to her as a sugarmama was insulting, derogatory and discriminatory (regarding her age), that her ex-partner received preferential treatment (as his full name and surname was used), and that it amounted to hate speech – and as such, that it was an attack on her dignity and reputation.

She adds that her surname was misspelt (she is “Vutela”, not “Vuthela”), and that the article also inaccurately stated that she was hosting a show on Gagazi FM (she left the station in 2015).

The text

The following sentences adequately summarise the content of the article:

“SABC 1 Uzalo star and heart throb Khumbulani ‘Kay’ Sibiya (29) is said to be on a mission to challenge the DNA results that have proven him to be the father of the baby of his ex- sugar mama Zukiswa ‘Zookey Zarling’ Vuthela (sic) (40). This comes after Zookey, who hosts iGagasi FM’s Teatime to Lunchtime show, headed to the courts to clear her name. Trouble started in 2014 when Kay denied fathering Zookey’s baby girl. The results have vindicated Zookey who was humiliated on social media.”

Move! responds

Cekete denies that the word “sugarmama” is offensive, derogatory or discriminatory – she says it is widely used in townships across South Africa and refers to a woman who is five years or more older than her partner. As such, the magazine used the word (as readers were familiar with it).

Conversely, if a man is older, he is called a sugar daddy, she argues.

The editor adds, “To show that the story was not intended to be malicious, we in fact were highlighting Zukiswa’s plight since her ex-boyfriend was denying paternity.”

She offers to apologise for misspelling Vutela’s name, and for getting her occupation wrong.

Vutela replies

Vutela maintains that the word “sugar mama” is offensive to her and says she does not live in a township. If Move! is aimed at township readership, the magazine should only be sold there and should concentrate on people living there, she argues.

She adds that the use of the word was sexist and implied hatred and disrespect towards her as a woman as it was only used to denote her, and not her ex-partner.

Vutela also argues that, if the story had been sensitive to her plight, it would have used her name and surname and not just those of the man. “The man in this instance was being made a hero (or a victim) and the woman [was scorned].”

Analysis

If Move! carefully considered this matter prior to publication, the magazine might have decided to treat both Vutela and her ex-partner on the same footing – either by identifying them both by their names, or by calling her “sugarmama” (because she was ten years older than her partner), and her ex-partner “Ben 10” (which denotes a male substantially younger than his partner).

However, unlike Vutela, I do not believe that this discrepancy is of such a serious nature that it can be depicted as a breach of the Code – even though she finds this insulting and even if some people might find it in bad taste.

I need to focus particularly on hate speech, as presently the question of what constitutes such speech is being hotly debated in this country.

Section 5 of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct, headlined Discrimination and Hate Speech, reads as follows:

5.1. Except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported and it is in the public interest to do so, the media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, nor shall it refer to people’s status in a prejudicial or pejorative context. 5.2. The media has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

I find the contribution of Mercy Muendo of the Mount Kenya University (theconversation.com) in this regard quite helpful.

I have amended her criteria slightly to boil down to the following questions for identifying hate speech:

·         Is the speech likely to be inflammatory, discriminatory, hostile, and targeting a particular group?

·         How influential is the speaker?

·         Is the audience likely to react violently?

·         Have similar statements led to violence?

While in this case the “speaker” probably is influential, I do not believe that the use of the word “sugarmama” was targeting women or that it was likely to evoke violent responses.

I note that the editor, in her response to a letter from Vutela (complaining about the word “sugarmama”), said inter alia, “It was not in any way meant to offend you but since it did, Move! would like to profusely apologise for this…”

This response, I submit, was more than sufficient to address the matter.

Finding

Move! got the spelling of Vutela’s surname as well as her occupation wrong. This is in breach of Section 1.1 of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct which reads, “The media shall take care to report news … accurately…”

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 both Tier 1 offences.

Sanction

Move! is reprimanded for misspelling Vutela’s surname as well as for getting her occupation wrong.

The magazine is directed to correct these mistakes, the text of which should be approved by me.

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