Stained Glass Pictures vs. Daily Sun

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Uzalo angers Albinos! (published on 12 October 2018).

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

 

The story was about a popular Stained Glass Pictures (SGP) Mzansi TV programme, Uzalo, that was about a father living with albinism and his daughter, who were being targeted for muthi (obtained from their body parts). The journalist quoted several people living with albinism who were angered when the father in the TV show ended up being killed for muthi.

SGP complained that the newspaper had not afforded it adequate opportunity to respond to allegations prior to publication (through its PR agency Dreamcatcher Multimedia).

Retief said it was not true that Daily Sun gave Marang Setshwaelo, co-founder of Dreamcatcher Multimedia, only 15 minutes to respond (as the complaint went). Also, after she had asked the journalist for some clarification, he did email her a response as well.

He argued that, given these (and other) circumstances, Setshwaelo should not blame the newspaper for not giving her enough time to respond. It was odd, he said, that she had focused on “fifteen minutes”, but conveniently forgot about other relevant correspondence by the journalist – which she had ample time to respond to.

The complaint was dismissed.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

Lodged by: Ms Marang Setshwaelo, publicist at the PR company Dreamcatcher Multimedia (acting for SABC1’s soapie Uzalo)

Date of article: 12 October 2018

Headline: Uzalo angers Albinos!

Page: Front-page lead

Online: Yes

Author of article: Bongani Mthimunye

Respondent: Johan Vos, deputy editor

Complaint                                            

Stained Glass Pictures complains that the newspaper has not afforded it adequate opportunity to respond to allegations prior to publication (through its PR agency Dreamcatcher).

The text

The story was about a popular Mzansi TV programme Uzalo that was about a father living with albinism and his daughter, who were being targeted for muthi (obtained from their body parts). The journalist quoted several people living with albinism who were angered when the father in the TV show ended up being killed for muthi. They reportedly mainly complained the way the characters were portrayed made people living with the condition feel discriminated against, and also that it made them feel uncomfortable and scared.

This has reportedly led to people making nasty comments on social media.

The story ended thus: “Late yesterday afternoon Dreamcatcher Multimedia, who produce Uzalo for the SABC, responded by saying it needed more detail about the complaints in order to comment.”

The arguments

As background, SETSHWAELO says the SAPS approached Uzalo’s production house, Stained Glass Pictures, requesting that the show craft an awareness campaign to dispel harmful myths around people living with albinism that led to ritual murders.  The storyline was accompanied by a social media campaign denouncing such acts and communicating messages dispelling various myths about people living with albinism.

Setshwaelo says Mthimunye texted her on October 11 at 16:45, requesting a response to the allegation that the story had angered people living with albinism, and to a similar comment allegedly made by the Mpumalanga MEC for CoGTA.

She says she immediately requested the journalist to send her an email, along with a source for the MEC’s comment. At 17:03, the reporter emailed her with additional detail of where and when the MEC had made these comments.

A minute later, she continues, Daily Sun Mpumalanga Bureau Chief Thokozile Mnguni phoned her, essentially making the same query as Mthimunye, with the additional allegation that there had been social media posts denouncing the storyline of people living with albinism.

She says she requested him at 17:30 that the query to be sent in writing via email, along with a clarification of who exactly the complainants were, and a request for a link or screenshots of the social media posts in question.

She says at no point did either of the journalists indicate that they intended running the story the following day, or that they required a response as a matter of urgency. She says she left the office at 17:30, thinking she could address the queries the following day (once she was able to review the responses from the journalists).

However, the next morning she discovered that the Daily Sun’s deputy editor, Keith Henderson, had emailed her at 17:49 the previous evening, clarifying details of who had made the complaints, and stating that they required an urgent response, as the paper was 15 minutes from deadline.

She says: “Despite having access to [my] phone number, no attempt had been made to contact [me] to alert her to this urgency (despite the story not being a time-sensitive one).  In effect, Daily Sun ran the article without comment from Dreamcatcher, and advertised it boldly on their street pole posters that morning…”

In conclusion, Setshwaelo says:

• Both Mthimunye and Mnguni had her cell phone number, and knew from experience that she was immediately accessible by phone – she says can only regard their decision not to alert her to the time restrictions as deliberate and mischievous;
• As a PR firm, Dreamcatcher is in regular contact with Daily Sun, whose journalists are well aware that they manage communications for Uzalo and that they represented the show – and that they have cell phone numbers for all the publicists who work on the show, including hers;
• Despite the fact that Dreamcatcher consistently responded in good faith to the Daily Sun, and made reasonable requests for clarifications in order to appropriately respond to the queries, the paper did not reciprocate in kind by affording her the basic courtesy of disclosing its deadline;
• There was no reason for the paper to rush this article, as the story had been broadcast from August 24 until October 4 – there was little reason, beyond creating a media sensation, to have pushed the story to go to print on October 12 without comment from Uzalo, especially with the accompanying attention-grabbing street posters; and
• The paper conspired to deny Uzalo a right to comment in order to produce a one-sided and imbalanced article that unfairly depicted the show in a negative light.

VOS denies that Daily Sun gave Dreamcatcher 15 minutes to respond, and says it was never the Daily Sun’s intention to put undue pressure on the company.

He says that Mnguni finally established contact with Setshwaelo and subsequently sent her an e-mail at 17:04 after managing to get hold of her on Friday.

He adds that the questions Thokozile sent to Marang were reasonable and not vague or reactionary. He says half hour later Setshwaelo responded with a series of questions.

At this point, knowing the paper was on deadline, Henderson responded at 17:49 to at least some of Setshwaelo’s questions. He concedes that this might have been late in the day, but adds the newspaper was surprised that she had decided not to wait for its response. “We are a daily newspaper which regularly receives comment late in the day from many spokespersons in the country. Henderson also pointed out to Marang that we were in fact close to deadline but were prepared to wait for her response but did encourage haste,” he adds.

The deputy editor says Henderson:

• instructed his production team to wait for a response from Dreamcatcher and were prepared to slip the content, which he waited for until 21:00 that evening;
• phoned Dreamcatcher’s office in the meantime, but the call went unanswered; and
• did not have Setshwaelo’s direct number as it was not included in the email correspondence between herself and Mnguni.

Vos concludes: “We submit that we were not unreasonable in our expectations and it isn’t correct to say that we gave Dreamcatcher a mere 15 minutes to respond.  We would like to settle this matter and are more than happy to give Dreamcatcher a full right of reply in a follow-up article.”

SETSHWAELO replies that:

• at no time, despite repeated interactions, did the journalists indicate that they intended running the story the following day, and that they were on a strict deadline; and
• once they realised, post close of business, that she was no longer responding via email, they neglected to phone her on her cell to inform her of their deadline and to urge her to send in a response – while two of the Daily Sun staffers had her cell phone number.

Regarding the alleged 15 minutes, Setshwaelo notes that Henderson emailed the following message to her at 17:49: “Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of time on our hands and as I’m sure  you would appreciate. We would love to include your response… Unfortunately  we are literally now 15 minutes away from deadline so I would suggest haste as we are prepared to wait for your response but cannot hold for much longer.”  

She says it is strange that, despite having access to her cell phone numbers through his two colleagues, Henderson instead located her land line number.

Setshwaelo concludes it was rational to have assumed that she would be given at least 24 hours to peruse the newspaper’s responses to her queries, and fashion an appropriate response, in light of the fact that Daily Sun:

•  initiated contact at 16:45 – 15 minutes before close of business, on a story that was in no way time sensitive;
• at no point indicated that this was an urgent matter that required immediate response; and
• had her cell phone number to alert her to the urgency, once they realised that she had become non-responsive on email.

She concludes that the paper preferred to run the story without her input, which was unfair.

Analysis

It is not true that Daily Sun gave Setshwaelo only 15 minutes to respond – Mthimunye already communicated with her at 16:45. Also, after she had asked the journalist for some clarification, he did email her a response at 17:03. Although the communication with Mnguni came too late for her (she closed office at 17:30), she still had received Mthimunye’s request for comment as well as his response to the request a full 27 minutes before she decided to leave office.

Setshwalo’s argument that the reporters did not inform her of the urgency of their enquiries has no leg to stand on – when a newspaper makes an enquiry, a spokesperson should anticipate that it is urgent.

According to her own testimony, she sent Mnguni a request for clarification – after which she immediately left office (at 17:30). The fact that she did not wait for his response is not the newspaper’s fault.

Given these circumstances, Setshwaelo should not blame the newspaper. It is odd that she focuses on the fifteen minutes that Mnguni referred to, but conveniently forgets about Mthimunye’s earlier correspondence – which she had the time to respond to.

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