Motshidisi Sefako vs. Daily Sun
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Save lives, disclose your status (in print); and, My colleague gave me corona (online). It was published on 30 November 2020.
This ruling by Acting Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
Motshidisi Sefako complained the story falsely stated that she had contracted Covid-19 from a colleague while at work.
Retief said this was a case of one party saying “yes”, the other party saying “no”, with no reasonable prospect of getting to the truth – not even if he held a hearing on this matter.
He remarked that he had two seemingly contradictory pieces of communication on his desk. The first was the journalist’s notes of his conversation with Sefako. He was satisfied that the latter were not fabricated. These notes indeed referred to “someone at work”. That left him with no reason to find against the newspaper.
On the other hand, though, the Acting Ombud was also hesitant to find against Sefako. Her immediate reaction to seeing a relevant screenshot did count in her favour. This was the second piece of evidence. “This leaves me with the real possibility that this issue can be put down to a bona fide misunderstanding,” he remarked.
“Given that I have no reasonable ground to either uphold or dismiss the complaint, there is no finding,” he concluded.
As such, he could not sanction the newspaper. However, he did recommend that Daily Sun publish Sefako’s side of the story.
THE RULING ITSELF
Complaint number: 8459
Date of article: 30 November 2020
Headlines: Save lives, disclose your status (in print)
: ‘My colleague gave me corona’ (online)
Author of article: Masego Sendsi
Respondent: Johan Vos, deputy editor
- Complaint
1.1 Ms Motshidisi Sefako complains the story falsely stated that she had contracted Covid-19 from a colleague while at work.
1.2 Section 1.1 of the Press Code is relevant. It reads, “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”.
- The text
The article quoted Sefako as saying she had contracted Covid-19 at work. She reportedly also said this person had not disclosed her or his status, adding that she feared going back to work (either to be infected again, or to infect others).
- The arguments
3.1 Motshidisi Sefako denies she told the journalist that she had had contracted Covid-19 at work from a colleague who was Covid-positive (but did not disclose that fact). Instead, she says she got the disease while in quarantine with a woman who had tested positive, but had kept quiet about it.
3.2 After the complainant saw a screenshot of the article (sent to her by Rapula Mancai, the photographer), she immediately replied with a WhatsApp message, denying that the story was accurate and emphasising that she had not said that she had been infected at work. Mancai then sent her a message saying that it was no problem as the article did not mention the name of the company.
| 3.3 Johan Vos stands by the story. He refers to the journalist’s notes, which inter alia read: “Someone at work never disclosed their (sic) status, she showed no symptoms.”
3.4 The deputy editor also submits that the photographer did not interview Sefako – the journalist did. He adds, “The photographer correctly pointed out that the company’s name is not mentioned. There is no damage done and the article is positive.” |
3.5 Reiterating her complaint, Sefako adds that she responded to Mancai as he had been the one who sent her the article in a WhatsApp message.
- Analysis
4.1 This is a case of one party saying “yes”, the other party saying “no”, with no reasonable prospect of getting to the truth – not even if I hold a hearing on this matter.
4.2 Therefore, the best I can do is to work with probabilities and with the little evidence that I have at my disposal – and see where that gets me.
4.3 The first piece of evidence I have, then, is the journalist’s notes of his conversation with Sefako. Vos sent me a copy of those notes, and I am satisfied that the latter were not fabricated (I have had such an instance before). These notes indeed referred to “someone at work”. If the notes said someone from (not at) work”, it could have been interpreted that it in fact did not take place in the workplace. But that is not what the notes said.
- This leaves me with no reason to find against the newspaper.
- On the other hand, though, I am also hesitant to find against Sefako. Her immediate reaction to seeing the screenshot does count in her favour. This is the second piece of evidence.
- This leaves me with the real possibility that this issue can be put down to a bona fide misunderstanding.
- Given this, it would be a sad day if Sefako’s management disciplines her in any way – I believe there is enough ground to give her the benefit of the doubt.
- Finding
Given that I have no reasonable ground to either uphold or dismiss the complaint, there is no finding.
- Recommendation
6.1 As I cannot find that Daily Sun has breached the Press Code, I cannot sanction the newspaper.
6.2 I can, though, recommend that Daily Sun publishes her side of the story (not mentioning the name of her company, though). That, I reckon, would be fair to Sefako – and at the same time, the newspaper is not losing any credibility.
6.3 I also recommend that, if the newspaper indeed is willing to publish her denial, such publication be cleared with Sefako prior to publication.
- 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
Acting Press Ombud
