Colin Slessor vs. Die Son
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Meshou oor snoek eis vrou (published on 13 July 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 the murder of a woman during an altercation at or near a fish shop in Hoop Street, Robertson.
Colin Slessor, the owner of the shop, mainly complained that the story inaccurately stated that the incident had occurred in or near his shop; that some disagreement arose over a fish parcel (it was about some dried snoek, which had not been purchased in his shop); and that the reportage had harmed his business.
Retief dismissed the complaint mainly because, even if the deceased woman did buy some fish at Slessor’s shop, and even if the murder did take place right outside his front door, it still would not implicate either him or his business in the matter – at least, not any more so than if the incident occurred a few metres away. “I fail to see what difference a few metres make – it simply cannot make any material difference,” he argued.
The Ombud said he could not decide whether the purchased food was dried or smoked fish, as it boiled down to Slessor’s version against that of the newspaper’s source. “To my mind, though, this is … not material,” he concluded.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Colin Slessor and those of Neil Scott, news editor of Die Son newspaper.
Slessor, the owner of two fish shops in Robertson, is complaining about a story on page 7 of Die Son of 13 July 2017, headlined ? Meshou oor snoek eis vrou.
Complaint
Slessor complains the story:
· inaccurately stated that the:
o incident, in which a woman was killed, had occurred in or near his shop;
o disagreement arose over a fish parcel – it was about some dried snoek, which was not purchased in his shop;
o the woman was 47; and
· has harmed his business.
The text
The article, written by Basil Davids, was about the murder of a woman during the course of an altercation at or near a fish shop in Hoop Street, Robertson.
The arguments
At his shop
The story said the incident happened “by die viswinkel in Hoopstraat” (“at the fish shop in Hoop Street”).
Slessor complains this is not correct. He says the incident occurred on the veranda of a nearby shop called Check-In, which is some 20 metres or more from his shop.
| Scott says whether the incident took place some 30 metres from Slessor’s shop, as he stated in his correspondence with the newspaper, or 20 metres (the figure he gives in his complaint to this office), “it is … close enough to be defined as nearby”. He says the article did not state that the incident occurred in the shop or in the doorway of the shop.
Scott says the Afrikaans “by die viswinkel in Hoopstraat” could be translated as meaning “anything from close by or in the vicinity of the shop”. He adds that, according to an eyewitness and source (Mr Christo Jansen, who was the victim’s boyfriend) the deceased collapsed and died somewhere between the fish shop and the Check-In shop (after she bought the fish at the fish shop) – she was moving away from the fish shop in the direction of Check-In, not the other way. She was never inside Check-In, according to Jansen. |
Slessor replies the incident occurred 30 metres from one of his shops, and 20 metres from the other.
He says video cameras in both his shops prove that the deceased did not enter either of his shops on the day of her death.
He submits that some people were sitting on a bench at Check-In’s veranda when the argument commenced. According to him, witnesses can verify this.
He adds that “significant” drinking took place, and that Check-In sells liquor.
Fish parcel
The story reported that the woman was stabbed to death on account of a “fish parcel”.
Slessor complains this is not true – he says the disagreement arose over some dried snoek and not over a fish parcel. He says his staff can attest to the fact that the deceased (36 and not 47, as reported) did not purchase anything in his shop that morning.
| Scott says whether the disagreement arose over a fish parcel or not is not the issue; the fact is the victim bought fish and according to Jansen she bought a fish parcel at Slessor’s shop. He adds that Slessor’s shop also sells dried and smoked snoek.
He says the source told the journalist the victim was 47 and since the article appeared it had had no complaints in this regard from any next-of-kin. |
Slessor replies that the deceased’s age is relevant as it is evidence of the lack of diligence on the reporter’s side, as well as the unreliability of the contents.
He confirms “beyond doubt” that the deceased did not buy a fish parcel at his shop. He adds that his shop occasionally sells smoked snoek, but not dried snoek.
Harm to business
Slessor says Robertson is a small town and his fish shop is well known, adding that there are no other fisheries on Hoop Street. He argues that readers would have known that his shop was “involved”, even though the story did not name the business.
He complains the story had a negative and direct impact on his business. For example, a local “hoodlum” threatened his staff, demanding cheap fish, intimating there had already been one stabbing and he was going to ensure they had plenty more if his demands were not met. Numerous customers then fled the premises.
He wants to know why the journalist involved his business at all.
| Scott denies it was Die Son’s intention to harm Slessor’s business. He says, “We merely reported on a murder, a crime which was committed because the victim refused to give the alleged perpetrator food…”
He argues that it was not important where the deceased had bought the fish, which is why the story did not mention the shop’s name. |
Slessor replies that the newspaper’s intent not to harm his shop is irrelevant. He says that Die Son knows the incident took place on Check-In’s veranda, and maintains that the story had an adverse effect on his business.
Analysis
Firstly, even if the deceased woman did buy some fish at Slessor’s shop, and even if the murder took place right outside his front door, it still would not implicate either him or his business in the matter – at least, not any more so that if the incident occurred a few metres away.
I fail to see what difference a few metres make – it simply cannot make any material difference.
Also, his argument about the “hoodlum” is built on an assumption, namely that the man threatened his staff based on the newspaper report, rather than on what had in fact happened nearby. This may be a case of blaming the messenger.
If Slessor’s business has suffered because of the event, Die Son is not to blame.
One wonders, though: why not pin-point the exact place of the incident? One of the crucial aspects of good journalism is attention to detail. However, this omission cannot constitute a breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
I have nevertheless asked the journalist to confirm with the police exactly where the incident took place, but the answer was not satisfactory. It read (unedited), “This office can confirm that the incident occurred on 2017-07-11 at about 15:30 where a 35 year old woman was fatally wounded by a 41 year old suspects. The suspect was arrested the same day at the crime scene. She already appeared in court next court appearance will be Robertson Magistrate court on 2017-09-13. Regards, Captain FC Van Wyk, SAPS Western Cape Media Centre.”
I also note from the above that the police have the deceased’s age as 35 and not 36 (as alleged by Slessor).
I cannot decide whether the purchased food was dried or smoked fish, as again it boils down to Slessor’s version against that of the newspaper’s source. To my mind, though, this is also not material.
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