Mike Hampton vs. Knysna-Plett Herald

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Municipal manager suspension continues (published on 26 April 2017).

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

 

The story reported that municipal budget office manager Avitha Sunkar’s disciplinary process was set to continue on a certain date after she had been suspended. Knysna’s acting municipal manager, Johnny Douglas, reportedly said that, until the hearing was finalised, the municipality was not at liberty to discuss the matter.                        

Activist Mike Hampton complained that the newspaper:

• was biased in its reporting – making Sunkar look bad, while not having questioned Douglas’s “hypocrisy”;
• omitted material information, such was why Sunkar had been suspended; and
• did not give the latter a right of reply.

Retief dismissed the complaint, because:

• the main aim of the article was to report that Sunkar’s disciplinary process was set to continue on a certain date – nothing more, and nothing less;
• the newspaper could therefore not have been expected to give a detailed report on Sunkar’s achievements, or on reasons for her suspension;
• the charges against Sunkar were reportedly still unclear, which made it impossible for the journalist to report on the reasons for her suspension; and
• Sunkar was not a subject of critical reportage in this specific story.

The Ombud concluded: “In short, there is nothing wrong with the story, as published. Not even close.”

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of the activist, Mr Mike Hampton, and those of Elaine King, editor of the Knysna-Plett Herald newspaper.

Hampton is complaining about a story in the Knysna-Plett Herald of 26 April 2017, headlined Municipal manager suspension continues.

He also complains about a story which was published in 2016 – much too late for me to entertain.

Complaint                                            

Hampton complains that the newspaper:

·         was biased in its reporting – making Ms Avitha Sunkar look bad, while not having questioned Mr Johnny Douglas’s “hypocrisy”;

·         omitted material information, such as why Sunkar was suspended; and

·         did not give her a right of reply.

The text

The story, penned by Yolandé Stander, said that municipal budget office manager Avitha Sunkar’s disciplinary process was set to continue on May 23 and 24 after her suspension, with salary, last year.

Knysna’s acting municipal manager, Johnny Douglas, reportedly said that until the hearing was finalised, the municipality was not at liberty to discuss the matter.

Douglas was quoted as saying, “I wish to point out that Sunkar referred her case to the bargaining council for arbitration, stating that her suspension was an unfair labour process. The arbitration award was in favour of the Knysna municipality and the arbitrator found that the suspension was fair and did not constitute unfair labour practice.”

Arguments

Hampton refers in detail to an article of his, which painted a different picture of Sunkar. He also provided me with other perspectives, e.g. about journalist Yolandé Stander’s alleged political bias, about Fran Kirsten, who formerly worked for the Knysna-Plett Herald, but then (“illegally”) became the municipality’s head of communications, about municipal manager Grant Eaton who was “responsible for the undue, long-term suspension of Sunkar”, etc.

He says that the newspaper twice denied Sunkar a right of reply to her “vilification” by the Knysna Municipality via the newspaper – and argues that this is a “simple matter” for me to rule on.

King says Sunkar’s comments were not included because the disciplinary hearing was still under way (May 23) and she was not available for an interview. “Talking to her under these circumstances could also jeopardise the proceedings,” she argues.

The editor says the story merely stated facts provided by the municipality and could not possibly have been construed as biased.

She adds that, because Hampton’s other complaints fell outside the mandated 21 days for lodging a complaint with this office, she would not respond to those.

Analysis

Nobody should expect met to become involved in the intricacies of matters which are none of my business, such as Douglas’s alleged “hypocrisy”, a journalist’s alleged political bias, the “vilification” of Sunkar by the municipality, etc.

Similarly, my mandate does not extend to an investigation of the newspaper which would cover months or years of reportage with a view to establish a possible bias.

Of course earlier related reporting may serve as necessary background to the complaint at hand, but that is all it can provide – context.

Wrestling through the myriad of arguments proffered by Hampton, it seems to emerge that he is especially concerned about the fact that Sunkar did not get a right of reply. He also raises the point that the story did not report a reason for Sunkar’s suspension, and presumably is also perturbed because it did not reflect Sunkar’s good and positive contributions to the municipality.

Firstly, I need to consider the purpose of the article. It consisted of a mere 200 words and its main aim was to report that Sunkar’s disciplinary process was set to continue on May 23 and 24 – nothing more, nothing less.

With these confines in mind, I certainly do not expect the newspaper to give a detailed report on Sunkar’s achievements, or on reasons for her suspension.

I also note Stander quoted Douglas as stating that the charges against Sunkar were still unclear, making it impossible for the journalist to report on the reasons for her suspension.

Turning to the crux of the complaint: Section 1.8 of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct says, “The media shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication…”

Even though Sunkar might have been the subject of critical reportage in earlier stories, she certainly was not in the article in dispute. The only point which this story made, is that her disciplinary process was set to continue on May 23 and 24 – which does not constitute “critical reportage”.

This expression is used to denote reporting which contains the possibility of unnecessarily harming someone’s dignity and reputation. If Stander had to ask Sunkar for her response, the only question could have been whether it was true that the disciplinary process was set to continue on May 23 and 24 – which would have been pointless, as the information came from the municipality.

In short, there is nothing wrong with the story, as published. Not even close.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

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