Kaizer Chiefs vs Sunday World

SUMMARY

The stories in dispute were headlined, Racial tension, alcohol problems hit Kaizer Chiefs (26 November 2023); and, Kaizer Chiefs launch witch-hunt against racism whistleblowers (4 December 2023).

This ruling by Deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger was based on the Press Code that became effective on 30 September 2022.

 

The essence of Kaizer Chiefs’ (KC) complaint was that the articles reflected unverified or uncorroborated claims of a single source in the club – they were untrue, exaggerated, misleading, and they presented the informant’s claims as fact, the club said. KC also complained that it had not been given a right of reply.

The first article said African players felt their coloured colleagues were treated better than they were in disciplinary matters. The second report said the club had tried to establish who spoke to the newspaper.

The central question was whether Sunday World had enough evidence to support the claim of racism.

Krüger said the newspaper was justified to report the fact that there was some unhappiness at the club.

Moreover, the Deputy Ombud said he could find no basis to rule that Sunday World did not speak to players. He accepted that sources in the club insisted on anonymity for fear of victimisation; he also dismissed the accusation that the reports were improperly based on unverified information from a single anonymous source.

Krüger upheld the following complaints:

• Sunday World did not ask KC about the specific, damning claim that coloured players were allowed to watch the Rugby World Cup final, but not the black players;
• The use of words such as “racial turmoil”, a “plague” of “racial tension”, and a “witch hunt” were unjustified and exaggerated;
• The juxtaposition of pictures of a coloured and a black player mentioned in the story suggested racial tension between the two individuals, which was misleading; and
• The articles repeatedly reported claims as fact – both in the body of the report, as well as in headlines, kickers and elsewhere.

Krüger directed the newspaper to publish a correction of the report, both in print and online.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Dates of publication:

26 November 2023 & 4 December 2024

Headlines of publication:

Racial tension, alcohol problems hit Kaizer Chiefs (26 November)

Kaizer Chiefs launch witch-hunt against racism whistleblowers (4 December)

Authors: Kgomotso Mokoena (26 November) & Bongani Madakane (4 December)

Particulars

1. The complainants are the Kaizer Chiefs Football Club.
2. The complainant is against the Sunday World and was lodged on 8 December 2023, being filed on behalf of the soccer club by their attorney, Rupert Candy.
3. After some delays, a response was received from Sunday World’s acting editor Ngwako Malatji on 5 March 2024.
4. The complainants supplied a rejoinder on 22 March 2024.
5. I considered the complaint, the original reports, the newspaper’s response and the complainant’s rejoinder.

The report

6. The first article reports on allegations of racism at Kaizer Chiefs, with claims that African players feel their Coloured colleagues are treated better than they are in disciplinary matters. In addition, it is reported that two players – captain Itumeleng Khune and midfielder Mduduzi Mdantsane – were suspended for drinking on duty (though further on the report says that Mdantsane’s disciplinary process is still ahead). The article quotes the club’s spokesperson Vina Mathosa as confirming one suspension, but refusing to comment on another disciplinary matter. He also says that tensions between groups are common in workplaces but adds that there is no racism at the club.
7. The second report says that the club questioned senior players about the first report, trying to establish who spoke to the newspaper.  The report also quotes the team’s caretaker coach, Cavin Johnson, to the effect that there is no issue with racism in the team as the leadership knows how to deal with issues of race.

The complaint

8. The complaint is essentially that the reports reflect the unverified claims of a single source in the club. The reports, as well as their headlines, front-page kickers, a poster and social media posts, are accused of breaching

8.1 clause 1.1 of the Press Code as they are untrue;

8.2 clause 1.2 of the Press Code as the claims are exaggerated;

8.3 clause 11.2 of the Press Code as they are based on the statement of one anonymous source;

8.4 clause 1.7 of the Press Code as the reported claims have not been verified;

8.5 clause 1.3 of the Press Code, as they present one informant’s claims as fact.

8.6 In addition, the report breaches clause 1.8 of the Press Code as claims about discrimination in who was allowed to watch the Rugby World Cup Final was not put to the Club.

8.7 Headlines and the juxtaposition of two pictures also breach clauses 10.1 and 10.2 of the Press Code by being misleading.

9. I will discuss the complaint under its key elements.

Uncorroborated information

Arguments

10. Kaizer Chiefs argue that several key elements are presented without sufficient evidence, and that they are in fact untrue.  They say though they are aware of “rumours” that some players are aggrieved by allegedly inequitable treatment, they do not believe this is racial in nature, and that it certainly does not justify the use of terms like “racial turmoil”.
11. In addition, the complaint denies that only coloured players were allowed to leave a hotel to watch the Rugby World Cup – which the article mentioned as an example of discrimination – saying all were allowed to do so.
12. With respect to the second report, the complaint denies that there is a witch hunt, saying no players were questioned about possible leaks leading to the first report.
13. Also, the complaint is that the newspaper relied only on the statements of a single anonymous source without presenting supporting evidence.
14. The newspaper’s response spends a great deal of time repeating the essential elements of the report. In defence of the decision to publish, Sunday World says the source was highly placed, that they had no reason to doubt the information and that racism is an important matter that needs to be exposed when it arises. There is nothing in the code preventing the publication of claims on the basis of a single source, the paper says, adding that the claims were reported as such. In any event, the club spokesperson confirmed the existence of racial tensions, and the fact that club management did not know of the existence of tensions – as argued by the complaint – does not prove it did not exist.
15. With regard to the second report, the newspaper denies its sources were second-hand – therefore that the players themselves spoke to the reporter.
16. The newspaper also says it kept the sources anonymous to ensure they were not victimized.
17. The paper also says posters are no longer produced. This is mystifying, since the complaint has a copy of a poster attached. The matter is not resolved, but it is also not material to the complaint.
18. The complainant’s rejoinder argues that the position of the source of the initial story does not remove the need for corroborating evidence. The club also says that the spokesperson’s comments deny the existence of racial tension rather than confirm it and says there is a discrepancy at various points about whether the paper spoke to one or several sources for the first article. At some stages, the paper refers to a single insider, elsewhere in its response it claims several.

Discussion

19. Racism is a serious matter in South Africa, and Sunday World is right to assert the media’s obligation to report on allegations of racism wherever they may emerge.  Racial discrimination has caused great pain to many people and continues to do so.   At the same time, serious matters need serious attention. The more important an issue, the greater the need to ensure that claims have sufficient basis to be reported.
20. The question at the heart of this dispute is whether the newspaper had enough evidence to support the claims of racism at the club, or more precisely the claim that some players feel there is racism, as were made in the two reports.
21. The first report attributes several claims of discriminatory treatment to unnamed “black players”, and attributes the information to “an insider”.  The report does not quote or refer to any players directly, and the report leaves the impression that it is indeed based on information from one person.  In its response, the newspaper refers to “sources” in the plural but provides no further information.
22. It is not clear whether the paper had evidence from anyone but its single inside source or made any effort to check the claims made.
23. At the same time, the paper did request comment from the club, which was reflected extensively.  Vina Mathosa’s response is an important element in the report and in the dispute before me.  He first deals with the disciplinary cases against two players, and then makes the following comment: “About the cliques in the camp, it has been bandied about and I think there are always those kinds of dynamics at every workplace where there are different races and different ethnic groups. As far as Chiefs are concerned, we do not discriminate according to race, if there’s such in our system we will root it out and we will be very scathing about it. All our players are treated the same and all our employees are equal.”
24. What to make of the statement? The newspaper reads it as confirmation of tensions, while the complaint argues it is a direct denial.
25. The statement is unfortunately not completely clear. On the one hand, Mathosa says he is aware of talk of cliques and says this is common in workplaces with different racial and ethnic groups. On the other, he unequivocally denies official racism.  In effect, he does acknowledge the existence of some tension, though he downplays it and argues there is no basis for an accusation of discrimination.
26. Overall, the newspaper’s evidence for unhappiness then consists of fairly general information from an unnamed source, including illustrations from disciplinary matters, and a kind of confirmation from the spokesperson.
27. Though the evidence is not very strong, I find it is sufficient to report the existence of some unhappiness at the club. The fact that somebody came forward to talk about the issue indicates there is some tension, and the spokesperson’s response indicates an awareness of issues.  Even the complaint confirms talk of unhappiness.
28. The second report says “senior players” were spoken to by management, but attributes that information to “sources close to” the club.  In responding to the complaint, the newspaper claims that players themselves spoke to the reporter. The caretaker coach is quoted but does not respond to the claim that players have been questioned, simply asserting an ability to deal with racial tensions. Later in the report there is reference to “the source”, in relation to the previously reported allegation of racism in the handling of disciplinary matters.
29. Though its responses are not always clear, I can find no basis to rule that the newspaper did not speak to players.   I also accept that sources in the club insisted on anonymity as there was a fear of victimisation.
30. Accordingly, the accusation that the reports were improperly based on information from a single anonymous source cannot be sustained.
31. I will return to the question of whether the information was presented in an exaggerated way.

Ruling

32. The complaint that the reports breached the Press Code by publishing unverified information and made improper use of an anonymous source is dismissed.

Failure to request comment

Arguments

33. The complaint is that the club was not asked to comment on the specific claim that coloured players were allowed to watch the Rugby World Cup final but not the black players, in breach of clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
34. The newspaper has not presented any specific response to this element of the complaint.

Discussion

35. The Press Code clearly provides that the subject of critical reportage has the right to respond to claims against them. Several Press Ombud rulings have stressed the need for a full opportunity to respond.  In Moti vs amaBhungane, the Press Ombud set out three requirements for a right of reply to be effective:  the inquiry must be effective, in other words it must be correctly addressed and allow enough time for a response; the contents of the inquiry must be effective, in other words the recipient must understand what he or she is expected to respond to; and the reply must be fairly reflected in the article.  “It has been repeatedly emphasised that each critical allegation to be made ought to be put to the subject of critical reportage,” he writes (par 34.2).
36. The allegation of discrimination in the treatment of players in this context represented an important claim supporting the central tenet of the reports. As such, the club should have been given a proper opportunity to respond.

Ruling

37. This element of the complaint is upheld.

Exaggeration and distortion

Arguments

38. The complaint is that even if the claims of unhappiness are true, they do not justify the use of terms like “racial turmoil” and a “plague” of “racial tension”.  In the second article, the claim that players were asked about the source of the information previously reported does not justify the use of the term “witch hunt”.
39. Also, the complainant argues that the juxtaposition of the pictures of a coloured and a black player mentioned in the story suggests racial tension between the two individuals, which is misleading.
40. The newspaper says only that its source did not complain of the way they reported the story, indicating there was no exaggeration or distortion.
41. In their rejoinder, the complainant argues Sunday World has not rebutted the complaint.

Discussion

42. The fact that the source for the story did not complain about it does not prove the absence of exaggeration or distortion.
43. The question remains whether the claims presented can be summarised by the terms used.
44. With regard to the term “plague”, the report actually talks of “plagued by”, not “a plague of”.  Though the difference may appear minor, “plagued by” simply means troubled, which seems a fair description.
45. But some of the other terms are over the top, even allowing for tabloid style.  Some unhappiness is not the same as turmoil, and asking questions does not add up to a witch hunt.
46. However, the juxtaposition of pictures does not necessarily imply tensions between the two individual players.

Ruling

47. To the extent discussed above, this aspect of the complaint is upheld.

Presenting claims as fact

Arguments

48. The complaint is that the reports are misleading as they repeatedly state the claims reported as fact, in the body of the report, as well as in headlines, kickers and elsewhere.
49. The opening paragraph of the first story presents the claims of the source as factual,
50. The newspaper says its reporting presents the claims as made by various sources, but does not address the complaint in respect of headlines, kickers etc.
51. In their rejoinder, the complainant says the newspaper did not respond to the argument.

Discussion

52. The first headline and related material is justified, given the confirmation of tension, though oblique, from the club spokesperson.
53. The body of the report makes it clear that it is reflecting claims passed on to the newspaper. Though not every individual statement is explicit in this regard, sufficient reference is made to claims for readers to understand that these are allegations.
54. However, the headline and related material of the second article elevate a claim unduly.  In particular, the reference is to “racism whistle-blowers” goes further than claiming tensions and makes a strong assumption that the claims are now established fact. There is insufficient indication that these are claims, contested by the club.
55. The body of the report, on the other hand, make it sufficiently clear that it is reflecting claims.

Ruling

56. I uphold this aspect of the complaint, to the extent discussed above.

Rulings

57. I uphold the complaint that the first report breached clause 1.8 of the Press Code by failing to request comment on the claim of discrimination in who was allowed to watch the Rugby World Cup Final.
58. I uphold the complaint that both reports breached clause 1.2 by exaggerating the matter.
59. I uphold the complaint that the second headline and related matter breached clauses 10.1 of the Press Code by presenting claims as fact.
60. Other elements of the complaint are dismissed.
61. I direct the newspaper to publish a correction of the report, both in print and online.  The correction should

61.1 Be published in the next print edition of the newspaper.

61.2 Be published at the foot of both online articles, with a line inserted high up in the report referring readers to the correction.

61.3 Provide a brief summary of this ruling.

61.4 Make it clear it is in line with a ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud, Franz Krüger, and link to the full text of this ruling on the Press Council of SA website.

61.5 Be published with the PCSA logo.

61.6 The headline should include the terms “correction” and “Kaizer Chiefs”.

61.7 A draft of the correction should be provided for approval by the Deputy Press Ombud before publication.

Appeal

62. 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]

Franz Krüger
Deputy Press Ombud
21 April 2024