News24 and Others vs IOL
13 November 2024
Finding: Complaint 30771
Headline:
Sekunjalo rejects the disinformation campaign and fake news by News24 and its journalists
Date of publication: 12 March 2024
Author of article: Staff Reporter
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by News24 and three of its journalists, Mr Nick Wilson, Mr Jan Cronje and Mr Jeff Wicks; a written response on behalf of IOL by its Editor, Mr Lance Witten; and a written response by News24, Mr Wilson, Mr Cronje and Mr Wicks.
Complaint
The complainants submit that the article transgresses Clause 1.8 of the Press Code:
“The media shall:
“1.8 seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated; …”
- Summary of article
1.1. The article is a report on a statement issued by Sekunjalo in response to an article published by News24, “Inside Iqbal Survé’s glitchy propaganda machine: Goebbels, AI and slippery writers”.[1]
1.1.1. Sekunjalo regards the News24 article as “yet another attempt to smear and undermine Sekunjalo, Independent Media and its Chairman, Dr Iqbal Survé”. The company suggests that the article relies on innuendo and lacks any concrete evidence.
1.2. In particular, Sekunjalo rejects News24’s claim that Independent Media opinion writers are part of a public relations campaign for the company or Survé. It describes this allegation as “part of a long-standing disinformation and smear campaign” that News24 and Sekunjalo’s competitors have been running against the company.
1.2.1. If News24’s accusation were true, according to the article, Sekunjalo should assume that News24’s holding company, Naspers, is also using its opinion writers as public relations agents. However, Sekunjalo adds, it does not engage in such unethical conduct.
1.3. The article goes on to state that – apart from having a common executive chairperson and being a shareholder in Independent Media – Sekunjalo is not involved in Independent Media’s editorial decisions.
1.3.1. It adds that, conversely, Independent Media does not have any involvement in Sekunjalo’s “communication-related activities”.
1.4. The article further states that Sekunjalo rejects “the unsubstantiated and unproven allegation that a former staffer claimed Dr Survé has established a supposed ‘communications war room’ tasked with ‘finding dirt’ on the country’s biggest banks”.
1.4.1. Sekunjalo denies this claim by an anonymous source and rejects it as propaganda designed to influence the relationship between the company and those banks which have closed its accounts.
1.4.2. The company also regards the News24 article as a blatant attempt to undermine Sekunjalo by using disinformation to influence ongoing court processes related to its fight to keep its bank accounts open.
1.5. Sekunjalo says that it is unethical to rely on disinformation and fabrication, and that doing so undermines the principles of fair journalism.
1.5.1. The article further states that News24’s attacks on Survé expose it as “an enemy of press freedom and democracy” and rejects the implication in the News24 article that “a chairman of a media conglomerate” controls and runs the editorial process.
- Arguments
News24 and Others
2.1. The complainants submit that the IOL article is a news report – “as opposed to an opinion piece” – and that it consists entirely of extracts and paraphrasing from a press statement issued by Sekunjalo.
2.1.1. They contend that the article is a vicious attack on News24 and its journalists. Among other things, they say, it accuses News24 of publishing disinformation and propaganda, trying “to influence … ongoing court processes”, being unethical and undermining “the principles of fair journalism”.
2.2. The complainants accept that a publication can publish the contents of a press statement “by a person or body that is in the public focus”. But when such a press statement makes critical remarks about someone, they argue, that person has the right to reply.
2.2.1. However, they submit that IOL did not approach News24 or any of its journalists to grant them the right of reply. As a result, they contend, IOL is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
2.2.2. They seek a ruling that IOL publishes an apology and that, in addition, News24 should be given a right of reply “of equal length to the original article”.
IOL
2.3. In response to the complaint, the respondent states that it disagrees that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
2.3.1. It submits that its article is “a storified press statement issued by Sekunjalo in direct
response to allegations made by News24” in its report, “Inside Iqbal Survé’s glitchy propaganda machine: Goebbels, AI and slippery writers”.
2.4. The respondent states that its aim is “always to provide our readers with different perspectives” (emphasis in the original).
2.4.1. It further contends that it published Sekunjalo’s response to a viewpoint that was already in the public domain in order to ensure that its audiences had a balanced view of the criticisms raised in the News24 article.
2.5. The respondent then goes on to specifically address Clause 1.8 of the Press Code and notes that this clause requires that a subject of critical reporting be given the opportunity to respond to such criticism.
2.5.1. However, IOL submits, “the primary content of our article was not IOL’s investigative or critical analysis but a direct response from Sekunjalo addressing criticisms previously published by News24”.
2.5.2. As such, it contends that its article serves as “a counterbalance of viewpoints”, which is in line with “the spirit of Clause 1.8 – that subjects of criticism must have an opportunity to respond”.
2.6. In addition, the respondent argues that, given the public interest in News24’s allegations and the need for an immediate response “to maintain public trust and dialogue”, it was imperative to publish Sekunjalo’s response promptly.
2.6.1. It suggests that seeking further comments from the three News24 writers could have compromised the timeliness and relevance of Sekunjalo’s response in the eyes of the public given the serious nature of the accusations.
2.6.2. It also states that it did not see the need to seek comment from the writers or News24 “as their position on the matter at hand had been made clear in their article”.
2.6.3. It goes on to submit that its decision to publish Sekunjalo’s response was guided by a commitment to fairness and to ensuring that its audience received a more comprehensive understanding of the issues involved.
2.6.4. It argues that the article did not introduce new criticisms against News24, but conveyed Sekunjalo’s rebuttal of the claims in the News24 report.
2.6.5. In view of the above, IOL maintains that its article did not breach Clause 1.8 of the Press Code and that it fully complies with the ethical standards in the Press Code by ensuring that both sides of a critical issue were fairly represented.
News24 and Others
2.7. The complainants submit that a “storified press statement” is not journalism and is, in fact, the reason why News24 complained about the article.
2.7.1. They argue that IOL did not make any effort to present its readers with a balanced view and suggest that this could have been achieved by reporting on the contents of News24’s preceding investigation, interrogating Sekunjalo’s claims or approaching News24 for comment on Sekunjalo’s “new claims”.
2.7.2. However, they submit, IOL did none of these things as required by the Press Code.
2.8. The complainants further maintain that News24 was undeniably the subject of critical reportage and suggest that IOL’s response makes no real effort to dispute this. They again refer to the critical statements in the article (see point 2.1.1 above).
2.8.1. They argue that these statements seek to impugn News24’s credibility and integrity in the eyes of the public.
2.8.2. They state that News24 has always taken its ethical obligations very seriously and that it strives for excellence in public interest journalism – “not for its own benefit but for the benefit of the South African public”.
2.8.3. They regard the accusations in the IOL article as “deeply critical, if not defamatory” (see point 2.1.1 again).
2.9. The complainants suggest that “[t]he highwater mark” of IOL’s reply seems to be that it was not required to seek News24’s comment because its views were already in the public domain and that public interest in Sekunjalo’s views necessitated urgent publication.
2.9.1. They submit that IOL is wrong because News24’s previous article does not contain its views on the “highly injurious statements” in the IOL article, but is a news report based on an investigation.
2.9.2. They suggest that News24’s views on Sekunjalo’s allegations could not have been evident from its previous reporting in light of the fact that these allegations are new. They reiterate that IOL should have interrogated these claims by asking News24 for comment before publication; however, it did not do so.
2.10. The complainants also reject IOL’s claim that that it was imperative to publish Sekunjalo’s statement immediately because of public interest in the matter.
2.10.1. Firstly, they maintain that this does not justify the publication of such serious statements without soliciting the views of the subject of the reportage as this matter was not related to the health or safety of South Africans.
2.10.2. They argue that it was therefore not in the interests of the public to publish those “defamatory statements” urgently, but in the interest of Sekunjalo – “to which IOL is intimately related”.
2.10.3. In fact, they submit, IOL’s relationship to Sekunjalo required it to take exceptional care with its ethical obligations. However, it failed to do so by not approaching News24 for comment.
2.10.4. Secondly, the complainants maintain that, in instances where public interest dictates that a critical story be published immediately, it is common practice for the media to approach the subject of critical reportage after publication and to provide its response.
2.10.5. However, they state, IOL has to date not sought the views of News24 on these allegations. They therefore argue that it is clear that IOL did not have any serious intention of seeking News24’s comment to meet its ethical obligations.
2.11. In conclusion, the complainants submit that News24 was undeniably the subject of critical reportage and that it is common cause that no attempt was made to seek its views. They add that IOL has not relied on any of the exceptions provided in Clause 1.8 of the Press Code. Nor, they argue, do any apply in this matter.
2.11.1. They reiterate their call for an apology and to be given a right of reply (see point 2.2.2).
- Analysis
3.1. The crux of the News24 complaint is that, even though the IOL article is critical of News24 and its three journalists, the respondent did not approach them to grant them the right to reply.
3.1.1. By IOL’s own admission, its article is not based on information that was obtained independently. To quote IOL, it is “a storified press statement issued by Sekunjalo in direct response to allegations made by News24” (see point 2.3.1).
3.1.2. In other words, the IOL article is based solely on information emanating from a single source, namely Sekunjalo. There was no attempt by IOL to interrogate or to verify the information in the Sekunjalo statement.
3.1.3. The result is that a number of claims were published uncritically by IOL in the form of a conventional news report.
3.1.4. Although rewritten press statements are a standard feature in many publications, in this instance the press statement contained critical views of other parties, namely News24 and three of its journalists.
3.1.5. And once any party is the subject of critical reportage, the media are obliged to offer that party a right to reply in terms of the Press Code. IOL cannot disregard this obligation on the grounds that the article is a “storified” press statement.
3.1.6. Clause 1.8 is unequivocal in this regard: the views of a subject of critical reportage must be solicited whenever practicable; this obligation is waived only in certain circumstances which are clearly spelt out.
3.2. Secondly, there is no substance in IOL’s argument that it did not approach the complainants for comment because this “could have compromised the timeliness and relevance of the response in the eyes of the public, especially considering the serious nature of the accusations” (see point 2.6.1).
3.2.1. While matters related to a party’s reputation are indeed of serious import, the complainants rightly argue that these do not necessarily justify treating it with the same urgency as matters involving the health and safety of a party.
3.2.2. Moreover, IOL did not make any attempt to extend the right of reply to the complainants even after it published its article. This brings into question the credibility of its claim that it did not seek comment from the complainants purely on the grounds of timeliness.
3.3. Thirdly, there is little merit in the respondent’s argument that it published a “storified” version of Sekunjalo’s press statement in the interests of providing “different perspectives” (see point 2.4) and a “counterbalance of viewpoints” (point 2.5.2).
3.3.1. In the News24 article at the centre of this dispute, “Inside Iqbal Survé’s glitchy propaganda machine: Goebbels, AI and slippery writers”, the publication did contact Sekunjalo for comment prior to publication and its views on a range of issues were duly reflected.
3.3.2. It is therefore unclear why Sekunjalo deemed it necessary to issue an additional press statement in direct response to the News24 article when it was given an opportunity to comment prior to publication and made use of this opportunity.
3.3.3. It appears, therefore, that the most likely reason for Sekunjalo’s press statement is that it wanted to provide an unfettered response to the News24 article, not subject to any other views or comments. IOL erred in allowing it to do so.
3.3.4. In addition to Sekunjalo, News24 also contacted Independent Media editor-in-chief Adri Senekal de Wet for comment on an article written by its opinion writer Edmond Phiri. News24 further asked her for Phiri’s contact details and expressed concern about whether he does, in fact, exist.
3.3.5. News24 contacted Independent Media opinion writer Feroza Petersen as well for comment. However, she did not respond to its requests for comment.
3.4. Fourthly, the respondent attempts to justify publication of the article on the grounds that it is, in fact, in line with the spirit of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code in that it provides a response to allegations by News24 that were already in the public domain.
3.4.1. However, the complainants rightly point out that the IOL article makes a number of new allegations (see point 2.1.1 for examples). There is, quite obviously, no way that these allegations could have been addressed in the previous News24 article.
3.4.2. In light of the aspersions that these allegations cast on the integrity and ethical conduct of the complainants, IOL’s failure to offer them the right to reply is a glaring oversight.
- Finding
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is upheld for the reasons set out under points 3.1.1 to 3.4.2 of my Analysis.
Firstly, IOL is required to publish an apology to the complainants for breaching Clause 1.8 by failing to give News24 and its journalists an opportunity to respond to various allegations in its article, and should:
- be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
- be published online, on IOL’s landing page for five days, as well as on all platforms where the article was published;
- be published with a headline including the words “apology”, “News24” and “Wilson”, “Cronje” and “Wicks” (or an acceptable reference to the three journalists);
- be published with a link to the updated online article;
- refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
- end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor the full finding”;
- be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
- be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud named below.
Secondly, the updated article should give the complainants the right to reply and publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated after a finding by the Deputy Press Ombud. See EDITOR’S NOTE below.” The “EDITOR’S NOTE: Update and apology to News24, Wilson, Cronje and Wicks” should state when and how the article has been updated.
Thirdly, the final update to the article should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud 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]
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombud
13 November 2024
[1] See https://specialprojects.news24.com/Inside-Iqbal-Surves-glitchy-propaganda-machine/index.html