Lindiwe Sisulu vs. News24
SUMMARY
The headlines to the stories in dispute read, Sisulu must explain dept’s R10m bill for flowers and gifts – DA (published on 16 July 2017); and, Spat continues over government R10m flowers and gifts bill (July 23).
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The first article quoted DA MP Solly Malatsi as saying that Minister Lindiwe Sisulu had revealed that her department had spent more than R10m on flowers and gifts for employees in the 2013-14 financial year. He reportedly added that Sisulu had to make public the full list of people who had benefitted. The second story reported the DA had dismissed the department’s explanation of the above as a “smoke screen”.
In general, Sisulu complained that:
- the story / stories:
- did not carry her Parliamentary reply, but rather the DA’s interpretation of that reply, rendering the reportage inaccurate, out of context and misleading;
- presented the DA’s information as fact, while disregarding her subsequent response;
- News24 had failed to afford her an opportunity to respond to the “critical reportage” regarding both stories.
In particular, she complained that:
- the statement that her department had spent more than R10-million on flowers and gifts alone was incorrect and misleading; and
- News24 failed to report the gist of her media release, in which she had distanced herself from the spending as she was not the political head of the department at that time.
Retief said the crux of Sisulu’s complaint was that News24 erroneously and misleadingly reported that her department had spent more than R10-million on flowers and gifts, as the expenditure extended to matters other than those items. He agreed with Sisulu on this issue – the story neglected to say that the awards programme cost R10-million, and that the payment for flowers and gifts formed a part of that amount. News24 was directed to apologise to Sisulu for this breach of the Press Code.
As the second story indeed reflected the essence of Sisulu’s statement and the first one was merely based on a Parliamentary reply, the complaint that Sisulu did not get a right of reply was dismissed.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of the firm Harris, Nupen and Molebatsi, on behalf of the Minister of Human Settlements, Ms Lindiwe Sisulu, and those of Ahmed Areff of News24.
Sisulu is complaining about the following stories in News24:
· Sisulu must explain dept’s R10m bill for flowers and gifts – DA (published on 16 July 2017), and;
· Spat continues over government R10m flowers and gifts bill (July 23).
Complaint
In general, Sisulu complains that:
· the story / stories:
o did not carry her Parliamentary reply, but rather the DA’s interpretation of that reply, rendering the reportage inaccurate, out of context and misleading;
o presented the DA information as fact, while disregarding her subsequent response;
· News24 has failed to afford her an opportunity to respond to the “critical reportage” regarding both stories in order to verify its information.
In particular, she complains that:
· the statement that her department had spent more than R10-million on flowers and gifts was incorrect and misleading. She says she did indicate that the department spent a total of R10 241 089.23 on gifts, donations and sponsorships “which include[d] purchases of flowers for staff members … which does not necessarily qualify to be regarded as gifts”; and
· News24 failed to report the gist of her media release, in which she had distanced herself from the spending as she was not the political head of the department at that time.
She also explains that she delayed her complaint to this office because she anticipated that News24 would “retract, correct or explain” the reports.
I am not dealing with this part of the correspondence, as the Public Advocate has accepted the complaint (out of time) and I do not have sufficient reason to overturn her decision.
The texts
The first article quoted DA MP Solly Malatsi as saying Sisulu had revealed that her department had spent more than R10m on flowers and gifts for employees in the 2013-14 financial year. He reportedly added that Sisulu had to make public the full list of people who benefitted.
The second story reported the DA had dismissed the department’s explanation as a “smoke screen”.
The journalist wrote that the department issued a statement on its website declaring the report that millions had been spent on flowers and gifts for employees as being “devoid of truth”.
The reporter quoted as follows from this statement: “We would like to put it record that during the 2013/2014 Government Awards, the Department of Human Settlements came up with a special award for the best performing institutions in the sector. These awards were cash amounts given to winners to be used for human settlements development.”
According to the statement, the department also said:
· the “special awards with monetary value” given at the annual Govan Mbeki awards had since been discontinued; and
· it was “unfortunate that [Malatsi] mischievously chose to change his question when engaging with the media by deciding to focus on flowers and gifts instead of sticking to his original question which deals with gifts, donations and sponsorships”.
This story also referred to another statement by the ministry in which Sisulu had distanced herself from the R10-million spending as she was not its political head at the time.
The arguments
R10-million spent on flowers, gifts
Sisulu complains that the statement about the expenditure of R10-million was incorrect and misleading.
Areff replies that there was no substantive difference between the Minister’s reply and the DA’s comments on it.
He quotes Sisulu’s reply in Parliament inter alia as follows: “… we include purchases of flowers for staff members who are hospitalised and their bereaved families, which does not necessarily qualify as gifts. The Department also purchases gifts when the Minister meets with foreign delegations or her counterparts.”
Areff adds that a table following this information stated that the department had spent R10 241 089.23 – without breaking down that figure. He notes the story did not state that the flowers were gifts – it said R10-m was spent on flowers “and” gifts.
He argues, “The fact is that the minister acknowledged that the money was spent on gifts and flowers. Those two items were implicit in her reply and in the DA’s comment on her reply. Hence there is no material difference, and the information stated is in fact correct.”
Areff says when a substantial difference between the reply and its interpretation does exist, the reporters always double-check the information with the relevant department or minister. “There was no substantive difference in her reply. The fact still remains that the department spent R10m on items including gifts and flowers – and our story stated it as such,” he concludes.
Analysis
The crux of Sisulu’s complaint charges that News24 erroneously and misleadingly reported that the department had spent more than R10-million on flowers and gifts, as the expenditure extended to matters other than those items.
The first story quoted Malatsi as saying Sisulu had said her department had spent more than R10-million “on flowers and gifts for employees in the 2013-14 financial year”.
Sisulu does not challenge the fact that Malatsi made this statement. Given the huge public interest in this matter, News24 was justified to report what he said – even if he had misrepresented Sisulu on this issue.
But the matter cannot end there. It would be a sad day for South African journalism if a politician’s misrepresentation of an opponent is taken as the gospel truth and goes unchallenged – especially if it has the potential of causing huge unnecessary harm. Surely, that cannot be in the public interest either.
Having quoted Malatsi on this issue, News24 was then obliged to verify whether Sisulu did in fact make that statement – otherwise, a political party could misrepresent an opponent and get away with it, which in turn would make a mockery of the Preamble to the Press Code where it states, “The media exist to serve society. Their freedom … enables citizens to make informed judgments on the issues of the day…”
Ideally, the journalist should have verified Malatsi’s statement before publishing the first story. The reporter did not do that – which can be forgiven, on condition that this was done without undue delay for a follow-up article.
My attention therefore shifts to the second article.
Its introductory sentence reads as follows: “The Department of Human Settlements’ explanation that it spent R10m in flowers and gifts as part of an awards programme has been dismissed as a ‘smoke screen’ by the DA…”
In essence, this sentence made the following statements:
· The department has spent R10-million on flowers and gifts (a statement which is not denied, but in fact taken as a given which was merely “explained”);
· This expenditure formed part of an awards programme; and
· The DA dismissed this explanation as a “smoke screen”.
What the sentence did not say, or imply, is equally important. It namely did not say that the awards programme cost R10-million, and that the payment for flowers and gifts formed a part of that amount – it stated, as fact, that the department had spent R10-million on flowers and gifts. That is how a reasonable reader would have interpreted this sentence, I submit – not only did it perpetuate Malatsi’s allegation of the first story, without the necessary verification, but in fact it now turned that allegation into a statement of fact. The already poor reporting (read: no verification in the first story) has now become worse.
However, the story carried more that only this one sentence on the issue. It also stated:
| Earlier this week, the department issued a statement on its website in which it declared that it was “devoid of truth” that millions were spend on flowers and gifts for employees.
“We would like to put it record that during the 2013/2014 Government Awards, the Department of Human Settlements came up with a special award for the best performing institutions in the sector,” read the statement. “These awards were cash amounts given to winners to be used for human settlements development.” The department said that the “special awards with monetary value” given at the annual Govan Mbeki awards had since been “discontinued”. It also said that it was “unfortunate that the honourable member mischievously chose to change his question when engaging with the media by deciding to focus on flowers and gifts instead of sticking to his original question which deals with gifts, donations and sponsorships.” |
I appreciate the story’s inclusion of Sisulu’s denial that a million had been spent on flowers and gifts. The question, though, is how the reasonable reader would have interpreted this reportage.
From News24’s perspective, it may be argued that a story should be read in its totality and be interpreted in its full context – in which case there is nothing wrong with the story. From Sisulu’s point of view, though, it may be argued that it is risky to phrase a statement in such a way that it can be interpreted wrongly, especially if an allegation is turned into a statement of fact (which, from her perspective, was wrong in the first place).
If the opening sentence presented Malatsi’s allegation as an allegation – duly refuted by Sisulu in her statement – there would have been no problem. However, it was stated as fact, which could have led, unfairly, to doubts in readers’ minds as to the veracity of her statement.
If there is any doubt as to what the first sentence meant (not in my mind, though), the headline (Spat continues over government R10m flowers and gifts bill) presented the “bill” of R10-million for “flowers and gifts” as fact, so exacerbating the matter. I also do not believe that the headline was a fair and reasonable reflection of the content of the story, as required by the Press Code, as it only reflected the opening sentence and not the rest of the article.
So, these are my considerations:
· The opening sentence, on its own, cannot stand the test of truthfulness, accuracy and fairness, as it presented Malatsi’s allegation as fact;
· The headline exacerbated this impression; and
· Together, the first sentence and the headline could have placed some unnecessary doubt in readers’ minds as to the veracity of Sisulu’s statement.
Not the political head, at the time
Sisulu complains that the second story failed to report the gist of her media release, in which she had distanced herself from the spending as she was not the political head of the department at that time.
However, in later correspondence she indicated that she did not wish to pursue this part of the complaint.
Analysis
As the second story indeed did carry the message that Sisulu was not involved in the spending of the R10-million, her decision not to pursue this matter any further is justified.
No right of reply
Regarding both stories, Sisulu complains that News24 failed to afford her an opportunity to respond to the “critical reportage”.
Areff replies that the second story devoted the majority of its text to Sisulu’s response to the DA, including her clarification of the matter.
He also says it is common cause to write stories based on Parliamentary replies and argues that, as there was no substantial difference between Sisulu’s reply and the interpretation of her reply, there was no need for News24 to double-check the information.
He argues, “The fact remains that R10m was spent on flowers, gifts and awards, and the essence of her parliamentary reply was carried in the first story, while the second story carried extensive coverage of her subsequent comments. The rule of right of reply for the first story cannot be applied, since the story is based around an actual public reply from the minister, and there is no material difference between the DA’s quote of the reply and the Minister’s actual reply.”
Analysis
As the second story indeed reflected the essence of Sisulu’s statement; and the first one was merely based on a Parliamentary reply, this part of the complaint has no leg to stand on.
Finding
R10-million spent on flowers, gifts
Both the opening sentence to the story and the headline stated as fact the allegation that the department had spent R10-million on flowers and gifts. This was in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; and
· 10.1: “Headlines … shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question.”
Not the political head, at the time
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
No right of reply
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 – minor errors which do not change the thrust of the story), serious breaches (Tier 2), and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Press Code as indicated above are all Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
News24 is directed to apologise to Sisulu for stating as fact the allegation that her department had spent R10-million on flowers and gifts.
The newspaper is requested to publish the apology at the top of the page which carried the second article, with a headline containing the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Sisulu”.
The text should:
· be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed;
· 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 prepared by the newspaper and approved by me.
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