Renaldo Gouws vs. The Daily Vox
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Renaldo Gouws took his twar with Sibu Mpanza too far (published on 6 April 2017).
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The article was about a “pretty intense” Twitter feud between “well-known” South African YouTubers Ronaldo Gouws and Sibu Mpanza – the former apparently sub-tweeted the latter in a video, calling him inter alia a “fame chaser” and a “liar”. Mpanza reportedly took offence and called Gouws out on Twitter, who claimed the video was not about Mpanza. The latter reportedly called Gouws a “salty white male” – which started the feud.
Gouws complained that the:
- article falsely reported that he:
- was a mediocre white YouTube vlogger with 30 000-odd subscribers;
- sub-tweeted Sibu Mpanza, calling him a fame chaser and a liar;
- was a “low-key” racist for stating that some “small” vloggers could not even afford to buy Oros at the end of the month;
- following tweets regarding him were unacceptable:
- “Now whether Mpanza was subbed or not, there’s an issue here. A white male vlogger, encased in his privilege, is publicly destroying the image of a smaller black vlogger” – he said this wrongly painted him as guilty; and
- “Hey, he has his white privilege and a job as a DA councillor to fall back on. It’s all good” – he called this “insensitive” and asked if such a comment was acceptable.
He added that the headline was incorrect, and that the journalist did not contact him for comment prior to publication.
Retief said the fact that The Daily Vox failed to distinguish between news and comment greatly complicated his adjudication of the complaint.
In the end, the Daily Vox was directed to apologise to Gouws for stating that he had sub-tweeted Mpanza, calling him a “fame chaser” and a “liar”, and for reporting that he was a mediocre vlogger. The publication was also reprimanded for not clearly distinguishing between comment and news.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Renaldo Gouws and those of Benazir Cassim, acting managing editor of The Daily Vox online publication.
Gouws is complaining about an article in The Daily Vox of 6 April 2017, headlined Renaldo Gouws took his twar with Sibu Mpanza too far.
Complaint
Gouws complains that the:
· article falsely reported that he:
o was a mediocre white YouTube vlogger with 30 000-odd subscribers;
o sub-tweeted Mr Sibu Mpanza, calling him a fame chaser and a liar;
o was a “low-key” racist for stating that some “small” vloggers could not even afford to buy Oros at the end of the month;
· following tweets regarding him were unacceptable:
o “Now whether Mpanza was subbed or not, there’s an issue here. A white male vlogger, encased in his privilege, is publicly destroying the image of a smaller black vlogger” – he says this wrongly painted him as guilty; and
o “Hey, he has his white privilege and a job as a DA councillor to fall back on. It’s all good” – he calls this “insensitive” and asks if such a comment is acceptable.
He also complains that the:
· headline was incorrect;
· journalist did not contact him for comment prior to publication.
The text
The article was about a “pretty intense” Twitter feud between “well-known” South African YouTubers Gouws and Mpanza – the former apparently sub-tweeted the latter in a video, calling him inter alia a “fame chaser” and a “liar”. Mpanza reportedly took offence and called Gouws out on Twitter, who claimed the video was not about Mpanza. The latter reportedly called Gouws a “salty white male” – which started the feud.
The story called Gouws a mediocre white YouTube vlogger with 30 000-odd subscribers and said he was a DA councillor in Port Elizabeth. He was reportedly one of the top 100 YouTubers in the country in terms of subscribers, comments, likes and watch time.
Mpanza was described as a lesser-known YouTube vlogger with under 4 000 subscribers; young, black, vocal and “doing the things”. “Despite Gouws being a higher ranking vlogger, he isn’t endorsed by any brands whereas Mpanza is working with Takealot and Standard Bank. He also previously worked with Jameson. Shame, neh?”
Gouws reportedly made a video titled “Being a South African YouTuber…” where, among other things, he “threw shade on” smaller South African vloggers who claim to have quit their jobs and studies because they are “rolling in the dough”. He said small SA vloggers were blatantly lying about how much they earn, “when in actual fact they can’t even afford to buy Oros at the end of the month” – which is low-key racist by the way, the writer added.
Gouws reportedly claimed the smaller vloggers were wannabe celebrities who were “pretentious” and would “say or do anything” to be famous. As a “top YouTuber”, Gouws claimed to know the realities of vlogging in South Africa, where it is impossible to make a living solely off YouTube and he just wished “these fame-chasers with 4 000 subscribers or less in South Africa would also realise that”. For Gouws, it was disingenuous to claim otherwise because this created a false sense of security among local vloggers.
The article ended thus: “It was obvious for Mpanza and everyone else that Gouws had just subtweeted him.”
Gouws: the background
As background, Gouws says he uploaded a video on being a South African YouTuber. “It was not aimed at anyone specific and no mention of names were listed in the video. A day later I was informed that an individual named Sibu Mpanza … was posting tweets about me and insulting me… It was only at this time that I responded to him.”
He says he then made another video to showcase what had transpired – which invoked the article.
He adds it is not clear whether the text was an article or a column.
The Daily Vox responds
News, opinion
Cassim says the text was not marked as “news” or “opinion” and adds, “We do not have these categories at the Daily Vox. But, if you need demarcation, then this is ‘news commentary’.”
‘Mediocre’, ‘white’
The managing editor states that, according to Social Blade (which tracks social media data) Gouws was not one of the top 100 most viewed South African YouTube vloggers. She argues, “We therefore think it’s reasonable to describe him as a mediocre vlogger. [Also,] Gouws is white, which we think is relevant because this twar played out along racial lines. Tweets on the issue that day made reference to white privilege and entitlement and our piece commented on the way it played out.”
Sub-tweeting
Cassim says the article was a roundup of tweets, with some comment on a discussion that was happening online at the time. “These kinds of articles, commenting on social media happenings, are very common for online publications,” she retorts.
She explains that sub-tweeting refers to a post dealing with a particular user without directly mentioning that person, “typically as a form of furtive mockery or criticism”, and adds that Gouws’s video was itself a sub-tweet.
In this regard, she says Twitter users inferred that Mpanza was the target in Gouws’s video. “Even if, as he claims, Gouws wasn’t referring explicitly to Mpanza, he was referring to people exactly like Mpanza, who admits he dropped out of varsity to pursue YouTube full-time to earn money,” she adds.
She admits that Gouws might not have used the exact terms “fame chaser” and “liar’ – but says that in his video he speaks of “the most pretentious people who would say or do anything to be famous” (i.e. a “fame chaser”) and, “they are bullshitting thousands of up-and-coming South African YouTubers” (i.e. they were lying).
Low-key racism
Cassim defends the accusation of low-key racism, arguing that someone who is saying another person is unable to afford Oros “can be interpreted as borderline racist”. She calls this a dog-whistle statement “with clear racial undertones”, similar to other food or activities which are used to stereotype certain race groups. She cites the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which describes a dog-whistle statement as “a coded message communicated through words or phrases commonly understood by a particular group of people, but not by others”.
DA councillor
The managing editor says it was “demonstrably true” that Gouws, as a white man, benefited from white privilege, and that he has a job as a DA councillor to fall back on.
Headline
Cassim says the headline was an expressed opinion and part of the publication’s commentary. She justifies the headline by saying that Gouws approached Mpanza’s sponsors, asking if they wanted to be associated with him. “This informs our headline. Since Gouws has a day job and Mpanza vlogs full time, we believe it’s fair to comment he took matters too far,” she argues.
The managing editor adds Gouws did take the matter to a “whole new level” by bringing Mpanza’s sponsors to the spat and potentially interfering with his livelihood. She adds that Gouws said in his video he was not vlogging for money, while Mpanza was doing that full-time. She calls an approach to sponsors to drop a vlogger because of dislike for his or her opinions “economic sabotage”.
Gouws replies
Gouws says his major concerns with the publication’s reaction is that he is still made out as a:
· a low-key racist, based on his Oros statement; and
· white male who has “privilege and power”, with the implication that he should not argue with a person of colour.
For the rest, he responds as follows:
· If the text was commentary, why was no heading provided to indicate if it was news or comment;
· No effort was made to get comment from him;
· The publication’s statement that he indeed was a white, privileged person showed bias towards him;
· He was talking in general in his video, but The Daily Vox (inaccurately) assumed that he had been sub-tweeting one individual;
· The Daily Vox fails to mention that it was Mpanza, not Gouws, who brought race into the picture – yet the headline portrayed him (Gouws) as taking the matter too far;
· He was not racist – instead, “racism was showing towards” him; and
· Is joblessness an excuse for racist behaviour?
He notes that the twitter users were subscribers of Mpanza, and probably believed his version of events and adds that the publication did not include the opinions of “hundreds of twitter users” who disagreed with Mpanza.
Gouws says that, according to Social Blade, he was the 91st most subscribed YouTuber in South Africa. He adds that, given that there were tens of thousands of YouTubers in the country, he could not reasonably be considered to be “mediocre” in this regard – yet Mpanza, who has one-eighth of his subscribers, was painted in a positive light.
He concludes it was not he, but rather Mpanza who was taking the matter to a new level by making racist comments about him. He also asks why The Daily Vox had to mention his race, and why did it assume that he had power and privilege just because he was white and had a job. “It’s insulting and it is very concerning if The Daily Vox assumes that because I am white and have ‘power and privilege’ that I am not allowed to give opinion on topics that affect South Africa. The fact that they accuse me of claiming victimhood also once again shows the bias,” he submits.
Analysis: Room for improvement
Before dealing with the complaint proper, I first need to comment on two aspects where The Daily Vox needs to improve.
These two issues are:
· The distinction between news and comment; and
· A policy governing user-generated content posted on its platform.
Distinction: news, comment
The Daily Vox says it does not indicate whether the content it publishes is news or comment.
However, it should. Not in the first place because the Code requires it to do so, but because of the reasons behind the requirement – the main reason being that opinion is invariably subjective and probably biased. The public has the right to know which is which, because that would influence the way in which texts are interpreted.
An online publication does not have a license to mix news with comment just because it is online – the same guidelines are valid for both online and print, and for the same reasons.
I quote Sections 6 and 7 of the Code in full in this regard. The underlining is mine.
| 6. Advocacy
6.1. Members are justified in strongly advocating their own views on controversial topics, provided that they treat their constituencies fairly by: 6.1.1. making fact and opinion clearly distinguishable; 6.1.2. not misrepresenting or suppressing relevant facts; and 6.1.3. not distorting the facts. 7. Protected Comment 7.1. The media shall be entitled to comment upon or criticise any actions or events of public interest. 7.2. Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it: 7.2.1. expresses an honestly-held opinion, 7.2.2. is without malice, 7.2.3. is on a matter of public interest; 7.2.4. has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true; and 7.2.5. is presented in such manner that it appears clearly to be comment. |
Policy on user-generated content
I have asked the publication, through the Deputy Public Advocate, whether The Daily Vox has any guidelines on user-generated content, as required by the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct. The answer was “no”.
For the sake of convenience, I quote Section 13 of the Code in full, in the hope that Daily Vox puts such a policy in place sooner rather than later.
| 13. Guiding principles
13.1. This section applies where a complaint is brought against a member in respect of comments and content posted by users on all platforms it controls and on which it distributes its content. 13.2. The media is not obliged to moderate all user-generated content in advance. 13.3. All members should have a policy in place governing moderation and/or removal of user-generated content or user profiles posted on the platforms (“UGC Policy”). A member’s UGC Policy must be consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. 13.4. Members may remove any user-generated comment, content or user profile in accordance with their UGC Policy. 13.5. A member’s UGC policy should be publicly available and: 13.5.1. Set out the authorisation process, if any, which users who wish to post comments must follow as well as clearly setting out any terms and conditions and any indemnity clauses during such registration process; 13.5.2. Set out clearly the content which shall be prohibited; 13.5.3. Explain the manner in which the public may inform the member of prohibited content. 13.6. Members should, where practicable, place a notice on the platforms with the aim to discourage the posting of prohibited content. 13.7. The public should be informed that UGC is posted directly by users and does not necessarily reflect the views of the member. 13.8. Users shall be encouraged to report content which they believe violates the provisions of the Member’s UGC Policy. 13.9. Online forums directed at children and the young should be monitored particularly carefully. |
(Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full Code.)
Analysis: The complaint proper
The context
First, I need to comment on what has evoked the “feud” (The Daily Vox’s word) between Gouws and Mpanza.
In his vlog on April 3, Gouws mainly stated that Google SA does not do enough to support local YouTubers. He also said that it was difficult to make a living out of YouTube in South Africa, and argued that small vloggers lie if they pretend to do so.
He did not mention Mpanza, or any other person of colour, for that matter – he made some general statements only.
Mpanza reacted, claiming that this vlog was aimed at him, personally, which led to Gouws’s second video and, in turn, to the “feud”.
I have no idea why Mpanza thought the shoe fitted him, as Gouws gave no indication at all that he had anybody in particular in mind; neither did he mention any race.
Having listened to the first video, I was left with no doubt that Gouws did not sub-tweet Mpanza.
The Daily Vox’s approach to the article was indeed one-sided in that it gave credence to those who found it “obvious” that Gouws had sub-tweeted Mpanza. Examples of this bias, unfortunately, were abundant – the article labelled Gouws as a “mediocre” vlogger, as “white”, and as having made a “low-key racist” statement. In contrast, Mpanza was described as “young, black, vocal and doing the things”.
This bias was problematic as the text was a mixture of comment and news – and The Daily Vox could not reasonably have expected the public to discern which was which.
In Gouws’s second video, made a day later, he explicitly denied that he had sub-tweeted Mpanza, and justified why he had asked sponsors whether they wished to be associated with racist comments made by Mpanza.
My focus now turns to the particulars of the complaint.
The complaint
The article
Not only did the fact that The Daily Vox failed to distinguish between news and comment make it difficult for the public to interpret the text properly, but it also created some unique problems with my adjudication of this complaint (as the Code differentiates between those issues).
It follows that I could not merely treat the text as comment and disregard the news part, or vice versa; I needed to treat each with its own characteristics and requirements.
Comment
Regarding comments / interpretation, I am guided by Section 7 of the Code, as cited above. This section protects The Daily Vox’s comment on / criticism of Gouws’s videos even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced – which in turn suggests it is not relevant whether either I or the publication’s readers agree with it or not.
What is relevant, though, is whether the publication met the requirements set by the Code, as set out in Section 7.2.1 – 7.2.5, which demonstrate that this freedom is not unbridled or absolute.
The following statements about Gouws in the text were comment / interpretation and contentious:
· As a YouTube vlogger he was “mediocre” and “white”;
· He sub-tweeted Mpanza, calling him a fame chaser and a liar; and
· His statement about small vloggers who could not even afford to buy Oros at the end of the month was “low-key racist”.
I have no problem to accept that the opinion was “honestly-held” (7.2.1), or that it was a matter of public interest (7.2.3); I also do not have enough evidence to conclude that the comment was malicious, even though some people would argue that it was (7.2.2).
I have already indicated that the publication should have, but did not, present the text “in such manner that it appears clearly to be comment” (7.2.5).
This leaves me with the question of whether the comment / criticism “has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true” (7.2.4). I shall focus on this requirement when adjudicating the four comments:
‘Mediocre’, ‘white’: Even though the article stated that Gouws was one of the top 100 YouTubers in South Africa in terms of subscribers, comments, likes and watch time, Cassim defends the use of the word “mediocre” (vlogger) in her response to the complaint. She says that, according to Social Blade (which tracks social media data) Gouws was not one of the top 100 most viewed South African YouTube vloggers, arguing, “We therefore think it’s reasonable to describe him as a mediocre vlogger.”
The Deputy Public Advocate clarified this mystery for me. She wrote:
| “They are arguing over different things: Gouws is right: His channel is number 91 on the list of MOST SUBSCRIBED CHANNELS; Cassim is right: Gouws’ channel is not on the list of the MOST VIEWED. Both correctly cite SocialBlade in this regard. As to which one of these contributes more to the label of a ‘valuable vlogger’, remains open to interpretation.” |
Having cleared that up, the fact remains that the article itself stated that Gouws was one of the top 100 YouTubers in South Africa (amongst thousands and thousands of them) – which means that he can only be described as a “mediocre” vlogger if fair account has not been taken of all material facts which were substantially true.
In other words: Calling Gouws a mediocre vlogger was demonstrably false.
The second question is whether the publication was justified in mentioning that Gouws was white. I purposefully include this issue under “comment” (interpretation) and not “news” (fact), even though it is a fact that he is white. In this case, his race became part of the issue (read: comment or interpretation).
I fully understand Gouws’s complaint that his race was needlessly brought into play, as he did not refer to anybody’s race in the first place.
However, having (wrongly, I believe) interpreted a statement by Gouws as “racist”, it follows that the latter’s race became relevant – and it is true that “this twar played out along racial lines”, as Cassim points out.
And in this case, the word in question was not demonstrably false.
I shall return to this (wrong) interpretation below, with the argument that freedom of expression in a real sense gives one the right to be wrong.
‘Sub-tweeting’ Mpanza, calling him a ‘fame-chaser’ and a ‘liar’: If Gouws was sub-tweeting Mpanza, it presupposes that he had the latter in mind when he posted his vlog. He denies it, and the burden of proof in this instance is on The Daily Vox.
But its assumption that Gouws was sub-tweeting Mpanza was unfounded and, dare I say, disingenuous.
I take into account Cassim’s reply, namely that the article merely stated it had been obvious to observers that the latter had been sub-tweeted. (Indeed, the text said that he had “apparently” sub-tweeted Mpanza). However, this is not at all clear from the text; rather, it carried the suggestion that this was the interpretation of The Daily Vox as well – which is consistent with the “bias” that I have described above.
Explaining the so-called sub-tweeting, Cassim treads on even thinner ice when saying, “Even if, as he claims, Gouws wasn’t referring explicitly to Mpanza, he was referring to people exactly like Mpanza…” Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, Gouws could have had any (or all) small vloggers in mind. To pin this on Mpanza was more than just a bit rich.
Therefore, while The Daily Vox was (of course) at liberty to point out that its Twitter users came to that conclusion, there was no need for the publication to contribute to that perception.
Be that as it may, the words which followed the statement that Gouws had sub-tweeted Mpanza exacerbated the issue, as it became personal – and ugly. The story continued, “…calling [Mpanza] a fame chaser and a liar, among other things”.
This is simply not true – Gouws never even referred to anybody, let alone Mpanza. Let me repeat this: He never called Mpanza a fame chaser and a liar.
I accept Cassim’s explanation about the paraphrasing of Gouws’s words – “the most pretentious people who would say or do anything to be famous”, to become a “fame chaser”; and, “bullshitting thousands of up-and-coming South African YouTubers”, to become a “liar”.
However, that does not diminish the severity of the accusation that Gouws was in fact addressing his vlog to Mpanza – which was intrinsically unfair to him.
‘Low-key racist’: I note that the article did not ascribe this statement to Twitter users – it was an allegation made by the publication itself. Again, this was in line with its clear bias in this regard, having made the “feud” into a race issue (and having sided with one side in that process).
How saying someone is unable to afford Oros can be seen as racist, is beyond me – “borderline” / “dog-whistle statement”, or not. If this was a “dog-whistle” statement meant for me not to understand the message, it has succeeded in its goal.
Also, based on Cassim’s argument that such a statement is “a coded message communicated through words or phrases commonly understood by a particular group of people, but not by others”, it has to follow that at least the communicator had to understand the “coded message” – which Gouws clearly did not. He seems to be as baffled by this argument as I am.
The argument of a “dog-whistle statement” is nothing but a fata morgana.
Having said that, though, I need to state that The Daily Vox had the right to be wrong. Freedom of expression does not mean that you have to be right all the time. And as the saying goes (usually ascribed to the French philosopher Voltaire): “I disagree with you, but I shall defend your right to say it with my life” – even if the accusation was extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced.
News
The only part of the complaint touching on a news element in the text is the statement describing Gouws as a DA councillor in Port Elizabeth.
Tweets
It is unfortunate that The Daily Vox does not have a policy in place to regulate its user-generated content.
Having said that, I do not find anything in any of the tweets that could be in breach of the Code.
Headline
Section 10.1 of the Code reads, “Headlines … shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question.” This the headline did.
The implication is that the headline, like the text, was biased.
One can argue that Gouws should not have contacted Mpanza’s sponsors, and that he therefore indeed took matters too far. However, by accusing him of racism, both Mpanza and the publication did the same.
Not asked for comment
Save for the mentioning of Gouws as a DA councillor, all the complaints centered on The Daily Vox’s interpretation. It is not normal journalistic practice to ask a subject for comment on your comments as a journalist.
Analysis: General comment
To the untrained eye this finding may seem to be arbitrary – some parts of the complaint were dismissed and others not, while both were comment.
This was hopefully not the case. The complaint was indeed an extremely difficult one to adjudicate, seen from a media ethical point of view. On the one hand, people have the right to be wrong (in general), and this office should not hold that against them; on the other hand, the Code does limit that right in certain instances.
In this particular case, I have drawn the line between what I believe to be false (which I have allowed in the name of freedom of expression) and that which is demonstrably false (which I have found against).
Finding
The complaint
The article
The Daily Vox is in breach of Section 7.2.5 of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct for not clearly distinguishing between comment and news.
Comment
‘Mediocre’, ‘white’
The description of Gouws as a “mediocre” vlogger was demonstrably false as it did not take the essential truth into account that he was one of the top 100 YouTubers in South Africa in terms of subscribers, comments, likes and watch time. This was in breach of Section 7.2.4 of the Code which states, “[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.”
The complaint about the reference to “white” is dismissed.
‘Sub-tweeting’ Mpanza, calling him a ‘fame-chaser’ and a ‘liar’
The Daily Vox has contributed to the false perception that Gouws had been sub-tweeting Mpanza, and it was unfair to Gouws to have created the impression that he had called Mpanza a “fame-chaser” and a “liar”. This was in breach of Section 1.1 of the Code which says, “The media shall take care to report news … fairly.”
‘Low-key racist’ statement
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Tweets
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
It is a pity, though, that The Daily Vox did not have a policy in place which regulates user-generated content. I am going to be lenient here, taking into account that it is a relatively new publication (it was launched on 16 June 2014) – and especially that it just recently joined the Press Council and has not yet been tested on these issues. I do not expect publications to comply overnight; however, I do expect the publication to act on this finding and to start working towards this goal.
Headline
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Not asked for comment
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 breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are all Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
The Daily Vox is:
· directed to apologise to Gouws for stating that he:
o sub-tweeted Mpanza, calling him a “fame chaser” and a “liar”;
o was a mediocre vlogger;
· reprimanded for not clearly distinguishing between comment and news.
The text should:
· be published in the same space as that used for the offending article;
- 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 headlines should contain the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Gouws”.
Appeal
The 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