Tim Edwards vs YOU, Huisgenoot and News24

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Heartbroken Centurion parents: ‘We want answers about our son’s fatal shooting’ (published online on 26 April 2021 and in print on 29 April 2021).

This ruling by Deputy Press Ombud Herman Scholtz was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

The article was about the Edward family’s 16-year-old son, Josh, who had died because of a shot from a firearm at his friend’s home in a room in which apparently it had only been the two of them.

Edwards complained that the article was inaccurate and unfair, and that the clause in the Press Code that catered for the protection of children was also breached. One of the complaints was that the article referred to the incident as an “accident”, which implied, according to Edwards, absence of fault on the part of anybody in relation to the shooting.

The latter formed the crux of the complaint. According to Edwards, neither he nor his wife had uttered the word “accident”, and argued that the journalist rather should have used the word “incident”. Edwards also said that the journalist should have reported that the matter was under investigation.

Scholtz dismissed this complaint. He pointed out that, according to the article, the police investigation had been continuing. The article did not state as a fact that it was an accident – it said it “pointed to” an accident, he explained.

The Deputy Ombud inter alia held that the publications had misstated/misquoted:

• the child’s age (as 17 instead of 16);
• that the Edwards family slept in the same bed, as opposed to in the same room;
• the Grade they had been in (Grade 11 had not started yet);
• Josh’s condition (that he had bled from his ears); and
• Julie Edwards (the mother) as saying Josh’s friend looked like a corpse.

He imposed a reprimand for these breaches of the Press Code.

Scholtz dismissed several other aspects of the complaint. This included the statement about the door, which was reportedly closed moments before the tragedy, and the boy, who was reported to be “too traumatised to speak”.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

Complaint 8939                                                                                                        

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of articles:                     26 April 2021 (online); 29 April 2021 (print)

Complainant:                         Tim Edwards

Respondent:                          YOU, Huisgenoot and News 24

Headlines of publication:     “Heartbroken Centurion parents: ‘We want answers about our

son’s fatal shooting’”

Author:                                   Cyril Blackburn

Particulars

1. This complaint has meandered through various processes. It was initially rejected by the Public Advocate but accepted for adjudication by the Ombud.
2. The Ombud distilled 12 complaints and requested the parties to file their submissions on those issues.
3. The matter was then handed to me for adjudication.
4. I do so with the benefit of succinct representations by the complainant (“Edwards”) and Yvonne Beyers (“Beyers”), editor of Huisgenoot, for which I am grateful.

Background

5.  On 5 January 2021, the Edwards family’s lives changed forever when their beloved Joshua (Josh) was shot dead in a friend’s home in Centurion. This was allegedly at the hand of a 17-year-old fellow schoolmate.

6.  The articles, which appeared in Huisgenoot (in Afrikaans), YOU and on News24 (English), took the angle of ‘a tragedy that’s torn two families apart’. It is an apt summary.

7.  Tim Edwards, Josh’s father and complainant in this matter, granted an interview to the respondent publications.

8.  It is convenient to address the complaint in the structure already provided by the Ombud.

Dispute 1: ‘The closed door’

9.  The articles start out with a so-called ‘scene setter’. They paint a picture of two schoolboys being behind closed doors, only moments before the tragedy.

10. Edwards says neither he nor his wife mentioned anything about the door being closed.

11. Beyers says this statement was not attributed to Edwards or his wife. ‘It was in fact the mother of the other boy that was with Joshua in the room who informed (the journalist) that the door was closed.’

12. According to Edwards, this is not possible, as the other boy’s mother told them she was not even there. The journalist should have reported it as such, as ‘it comes across as if Julie or I said that’.

13. I don’t have reason to second-guess the journalist on this score. I also cannot agree that the sentence comes across as something the Edwards family said.

14. I find no merit in this complaint.

Dispute 2: Josh’s age

15. The articles state Josh was 17. He was, in fact, 16.

16. The publication ascribes the error to a possible misunderstanding, but Edwards says it is ‘a very poor excuse’ as the journalist had a photo with Josh’s date of birth on it.

17. Journalists must aim for perfection. It is true that any mistake is one too many. The Press Code does not demand ‘substantial accuracy’, but ‘accuracy’.

18. With that said, not all mistakes are equal. I do not find this particular mistake to be material or grossly negligent.

19. The mistake is still an inaccuracy and therefore a breach of Clause 1.1. which requires the media to report accurately.

Dispute 3: Grade 10 or 11?

20. The publications wrote the two boys in question were in Grade 11 together. Edwards complains that this is incorrect. They had been in Grade 10 together the previous year, but the new school year had not yet started at the time of the incident.

21. The submissions on this aspect do not take the matter further.

22. Assuming both boys passed grade 10 (there is no indication to the contrary) in 2020, it is in my view correct to state they were both Grade 11 learners in 2021 – regardless of the fact that the incident occurred on 5 January 2021.

23. I do not find any breach of the Press Code but request the publications to consider clarifying this aspect on its online versions.

Dispute 4: Incident or accident?

24. Edwards objects to the journalist writing that ‘everything points to a tragic accident’. According to Edwards, neither he nor his wife had said this and the journalist should have used the word ‘incident’ rather than accident. Edwards also says that the journalist should have written that the matter ‘was under investigation’.

25. Beyers says they were informed, off the record, that the police could not find any indication yet that the shot was fired intentionally. It was thus reported that ‘everything points to a tragic accident’. She lists four instances in the articles where it is stated that the matter is still under police investigation.

26. Dissatisfied with the response, Edwards says there is an ongoing investigation, and the journalist is not the detective, prosecutor or judge. It doesn’t matter that the articles record an on-going investigation later on, as the damage has already been done by reporting that “everything points to a tragic accident”.

27. It appears as if Edwards’ true gripe is his perspective that ‘accident’ is more innocent sounding. This is not correct.

28. Nothing hinges on the description of the shooting as an ‘accident’ or ‘incident’. ‘Accidents’ often lead to criminal prosecution and the reasonable reader knows this.

29. The sentence reads: ‘While the police investigation continues, everything points to a tragic accident.’

30. The publications do not state as fact that it was an accident. The articles state everything points to a tragic accident. This is the version of the other boy, as reported, and the information from authorities provided off the record.

31. It in no way means there will not be consequences for the other boy or that authorities may not later discover that it was an intentional act, rather than an accident.

32. This complaint stands to be dismissed.

Dispute 5: The unanswered questions

33. In a pre-publication WhatsApp message, the journalist told Edwards he had asked certain questions of the other boy’s parents and that they did not want to respond. Edward complains that the article does not say that YOU had put these questions to the other parents.

34. Beyers says it was included in the Huisgenoot article that the other boy’s parents were advised by their lawyers not to respond to questions of how their son had access to a shotgun and why it was loaded. ‘This statement was not repeated in the YOU article as it was not regarded necessary in the circumstances.’

35. Edwards: ‘I think it was extremely necessary to repeat what was put in the Huisgenoot into the You magazine. In the You magazine it does not say these questions were put to the other family.’

36. I can imagine that Edwards would have wanted this fact to appear in all articles. They are, after all, part of his family’s burning questions, and it highlights the frustration of the Edwards family at not knowing what happened to Josh. However, it remains just that: unanswered questions.

37. The omission of material facts is regulated by Clause 1.2. of the Press Code requiring the presentation of news in context and in a balanced manner, ‘without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization’.

38. If the other boy’s parents actually provided an answer, I might have been persuaded that it was a material omission.

39. But these questions are indeed posed in the YOU article for the reader to take note:

‘Now the family is desperately trying to get answers to their many questions. Why was a loaded shotgun in a boy’s room? Why was it pointed at Josh? Why was the trigger pulled?’

40. The fact that the parents of the other boy did not answer those questions on legal advice (that is, of course, on the assumption that they actually have the answers), is not a material omission.

41. This complaint is dismissed.

Dispute 6: Was the other boy ‘too traumatised to speak’?

42. The article states that the other boy was ‘too traumatised to speak’. Edwards says he did not say this to the journalist.

43. Beyers again says this statement was not attributed to Edwards or his wife. It was the other boy’s mother who informed the journalist that her son was unable to speak directly after the incident. The sentence is contained in the ‘scene setter’ describing what happened immediately after the shot went off.

44. According to Edwards, the journalist should then have attributed it to the other mother, as it now appears as if the Edwards parents said so.

45. I do not think the reasonable reader would think those were the words of the Edwards couple.

46. In any event, it appears to be a simple statement of fact, supported by the version of the boy’s mother.

47. This complaint should also be rejected.

Dispute 7: Patio or pavement?

48. Edwards disputes whether the boy’s father was sitting on the ‘patio’ or the ‘pavement’. The article quotes Julie Edwards as saying the other father was ‘sitting on the pavement’. ‘No one mentioned pavement,’ Edwards says.

49. The journalist maintains that he heard ‘pavement’.

50. Edwards says the journalist ‘fabricated’ this. ‘I said the father of the boy was sitting at the patio table playing with what appeared to be a radio-controlled boat. The property is on a plot, the house if far from any pavement.’

51. I frankly don’t have enough evidence to make a finding either way and decline to do so as it is also immaterial, in my opinion.

52. Although I do not make any finding of a breach of the Press Code, I request the publications to consider changing the word ‘pavement’ to ‘patio’ in the online versions, stating it was at the request of the Edwards family. This is not a binding request.

Dispute 8: Bed or bedroom?

53. The journalist quoted Julie, describing the nightmare and confusion of the first days after Josh was shot, as saying that ‘Tim and I and the girls all slept in one bed’. Edwards says this is untrue: ‘we said that we all stayed in our bedroom and had put a mattress on the floor for the girls’.

54. The journalist says he cannot recall being told about a mattress in their bedroom. Julie Edwards told him ‘We all slept in one bedroom’. He therefore assumed that the whole family slept in one bed.

55. Assumption is, of course, a journalist’s worst enemy. There is a difference between a bed and a bedroom.

56. On the journalist’s own admission, it is an inaccurate quotation and therefore a breach of Clause 1.1. of the Press Code.

57. Again, I do not view the inaccuracy to be material.

Dispute 9: The injuries

58. The article quotes Edwards as saying, ‘Blood starting pouring out of (Josh’s) ears and I knew he was gone’. Edwards says: ‘I never said blood came out his ears, I said blood came out of his mouth and nose and the wounds on his chest.’

59. According to Beyers, the journalist’s notes only states ‘blood was pouring…he was cold’. The journalist does not dispute Edwards’ version of what he had said in this regard.

60. The journalist therefore concedes an inaccurate quotation, and therefore a breach of Clause 1.1. of the Press Code.

Dispute 10: Were the other parents in shock?

61. Edwards was quoted, using direct speech, as saying that the parents of the other boy were ‘clearly in shock’ and had not spoken to the Edwards couple at all. Edwards says he said the opposite: ‘We said they appeared not to be in shock.’

62. Here, Beyers refused to acknowledge a misquote. ‘(The journalist) got a clear impression from what they told him, that the parents were in shock.’

63. In reply, Edwards elaborates on why he formed the impression the other parents were not in shock. I do not repeat those assertions, as I think it adds unnecessary sting to an abundantly tragic situation. Regardless of what Edwards’ perceptions of the other parents were, it is unfathomable that parents who just learnt that their 17-year-old son’s friend died in their house through a shotgun wound, were not in shock.

64. I have two conflicting versions with no way to establish the truth. I therefore decline to do so.

Dispute 11: The use of the word ‘corpse’

65. Edwards strongly objects to Julie being quoted as saying that the other son ‘was like a corpse’. According to Edwards, neither he nor his wife referred to the other boy as ‘looking like a corpse’.

66. Beyers starts by referring to the Huisgenoot article, where the quote was: ‘Ook hul seun was soos ’n dooie’. This, she says, was translated to the words ‘Their son was like a corpse’. She states: ‘The intention was to convey the impression that (the journalist) gained from Mr. and Mrs. Edwards’ version of what they saw when they entered the house. He understood them to indicate that the other boy was “amper leweloos”– “lifeless”.’

67. Edwards says the interview was conducted in English and the Afrikaans quote is therefore also inaccurate. He denies that the word ‘lifeless’ was used. Edwards is affronted by the use of the word ‘corpse’ within the context of the story and says it is insensitive.

68. The challenge the respondent has, is that the words were again reported as direct speech. Beyers’ response – regardless of how plausible or innocent the explanation is – falls short of alleging that the words attributed to Julie Edwards were used.

69. In the premises, it is an inaccuracy and a breach of Code 1.1. of the Code.

Dispute 12: The use of a picture containing the minor siblings

70. Edwards complains that a photograph of the Edwards family, including Josh’s siblings, were taken from Julie’s Facebook page. These pictures containing minors were used without parental permission.

71. The lack of pre-publication consent is not disputed.

72. Beyers says the photograph was obtained from the official #J4J Facebook page where it is accessible to anyone with a Facebook account. “We accepted that it was not necessary to obtain the permission of Mr and Mrs Edwards, because the photographs were published by them on a platform accessible to the public and we were reporting on a news matter in the public interest.”

73. She proceeds to say: ‘there were no circumstances, requirements or obligations that prohibited us from publishing a photograph that included Joshua’s siblings.’

74. Nevertheless, the picture was removed, as a courtesy, from the YOU online version when Edwards complained.

75. In reply, Edwards says the picture was never placed on the official #J4J Facebook page.

76. Nothing turns around this. Where the picture was found could only be relevant in an enquiry into privacy issues and perhaps copyright.

77. It is also correct that there is no legal prohibition on the publication of the photograph. Josh’s siblings are not, in a legal sense, victims of any crime. Clause 8.3. of the Press Code deals, broadly speaking, with the legal position.

78. The prescripts of the Press Code are, however, not as straightforward as the respondent publications seems to suggest. This is even more so given this office’s ruling against them in Jason Rohde v YOU (15 May 2017).

79.  In that case, YOU published a picture containing the minor children of Jason Rohde. The then Ombud held:

‘YOU’s argument that the picture was on Mrs Rohde’s Facebook page and therefore accessible to the public, and that Mrs Rhode had waived the children’s right to privacy is poor – the fact that a picture is accessible does not by default mean that it may be published. If it does, then (Clause) 8.1 is not worth the paper it is written on.’

80. I am in agreement that the mere fact that a picture was publicly accessible, does not by default mean there can be no restrictions on its use.

81. The true enquiry is whether there was a breach of Clause 8.1. of the Press Code, which states:

‘In the spirit of Section 28.2 of the Bill of Rights the media shall:

8.1    exercise exceptional care and consideration when reporting about children. If there is any chance that coverage might cause harm of any kind to a child, he or she shall not be interviewed, photographed or identified without the consent of a legal guardian or of a similarly responsible adult and the child (taking into consideration the evolving capacity of the child); and a public interest is evident.’

82. The Clause is coached in wide terms. It is exceptional care that is required. Not only when there is a likelihood of harm, but even if there is any chance that the coverage might cause harm of any kind. The Clause requires the consent not only by an adult, but by the child him/herself (if appropriate) and there must be public interest present in the identification of the child.

83. The Clause is triggered when ‘there is any chance that coverage might cause harm of any kind to a child’. It seems clear that, if this Clause was triggered in the current case, YOU magazine (as the only publication which used the picture with the siblings) would be in breach of the Press Code.

84. But how should ‘any chance’ of harm be interpreted?

85. A proper interpretation of Clause 8.1 requires a brief excursus into the rationale behind the clause.

86. In my view, Clause 8.1 should be interpreted to balance the protection of children from harm with the need to increase coverage of children. In its research report into best practices for the media when portraying children[1], Media Monitoring Africa made several recommendations, including treating children as central sources in stories and to give them an identity and voice when it is in their best interest to do so.

87. In line with these best practices, Clause 8.1 requires age-appropriate consent from the minor him/herself to realise the autonomous voice of children as far as possible.

88. The above-mentioned background is necessary to explain that the Press Code does not, in my view, seek to limit exposure of children. Quite the contrary. The caveat is that it must be in the best interest of the child to be exposed.

89. An overbroad interpretation of Clause 8.1 will effectively lead to a blanket ban on the identification of minors – something which I do not think the Press Code envisaged. If a journalist is required to explore every possible avenue of possible harm to a child due to known and unknown factors, the default position will become not to identify any child.

90. The only acceptable interpretation of the words “any chance”, is in my view ‘any reasonable chance’ of harm.

91.  If a publication was to cover a big school sporting event and consider publishing a photograph to celebrate a rising star, it would not be unreasonable for the publication not to anticipate any harm for the child and to publish the picture without prior consent.

92. A reasonable consideration of harm is the crux of Clause 8.1.

93. In some cases, it would be easy to identify a reasonable chance of harm to the child. In the Rohde matter cited above, the fact that the children’s father was charged with (and eventually convicted) of their mother’s murder, should raise alarm bells for any journalist.

94. The current matter is, however, less clear. The matter is distinguishable from Rohde. There is no suggestion that the Edwards family did anything wrong or that they face any type of public judgment. There is no unnecessary focus on the siblings apart from a sentence that the entire family slept in the same bedroom after the shooting to support each other. The siblings are not even named in the articles.

95. Edwards says: ‘We did not want any pictures of (Josh’s) sisters published in any news articles so that they would not be questioned.’

96. I am not convinced that the risk of being questioned – presumably by their peers – constitute a ‘reasonable chance’ of harm to the minors. The fact that their brother died in tragic circumstances is known to everyone in their lives, regardless of whether they were depicted in a family portrait or not.

97. Clause 8.1 was therefore not triggered and there cannot be a breach of the Press Code.

98. I do, however, commend YOU for removing the picture out of sensitivity for the parents’ wishes. The case is a reminder of the extraordinary care needed when dealing with children.

Findings

99. In summary, the respondent publications breached Clause 1.1. of the Press Code by:

Misstating the age of Josh (16) as 17.

1. Misstating that the Edwards family slept in the same bed as opposed to the           same bedroom.
2. Misstating that Josh bled from his ears; and
3. Misquoting Julie Edwards as saying the other boy ‘looked like a corpse’.

100. In my view, these breaches are Tier 1 infringements of the Press Code. The respondents are reprimanded and directed to correct the inaccuracies in the online versions and in the print editions. The editors are also requested to consider the other amendments highlighted in this ruling.

101. The remainder of the complaints are 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].

Herman Scholtz

Deputy Press Ombud

26 August 2021