News24 vs Mr Gayton McKenzie
Before the Appeal Panel of the Press Council of South Africa
Case number: 32077/11/2024
In the matter between:
News24 Appellant
and
Mr Gayton Mckenzie Respondent
Decision on the Application for Leave to Appeal
Background and Context
- On the 14th of October 2024, News24 published an article entitled:- Send me! Mckenzie’s gravy train to Paris Olympics cost taxpayers R 800 000. Mr Gayton Mckenzie is a minister in the Government of National Unity. The complaint was lodged on Minister Mckenzie’s behalf by his special advisor, Mr Charles Cilliers. In essence, Mr Cilliers asserted that the headlines, the contents and the failure to seek the views of the complainant prior to publication amounted to an infringement of a number of provisions of the Code of Ethics and Conduct (the Code). Mr Cilliers submitted that clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 10.1 of the Code were infringed and he requested various remedies. The contents of the article drew heavily from answers submitted by Minister Mckenzie to the parliamentary portfolio committee on Sport, Arts and Culture in response to questions posed.
- The Deputy Press Ombud rejected some of the complaints but upheld four complaints and made orders as to appropriate remedies. Dissatisfied with these findings, News24 has made application for leave to appeal against the adverse findings of the Deputy Press Ombud that pertain to it. There is no application for leave to appeal by or on behalf of Minister Mckenzie in respect of those complaints that were dismissed by the Deputy Press Ombud. Therefore this decision will deal exclusively with the application for leave to appeal submitted by News24 in respect of the four adverse findings against it. Judge Bernard M Ngoepe, the Chair of the Appeals Panel of the Press Council of SA, has requested that I consider this application for leave to appeal on his behalf.
The merits of the application
- The pertinent issue when determining whether leave to appeal should be granted is whether the ‘Chair of Appeals is of the view that there are reasonable prospects that the Appeals Panel may come to a decision different from that of the Ombud.’ [1] I will deal sequentially with the four complaints upheld by the Deputy Press Ombud in respect of which News24 has lodged this application for leave to appeal.
- Findings pertaining to the headlines
- For the reasons stated in his findings, the Deputy Press Ombud found that the headline was problematic and misleading and therefore in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code. Part of the reasoning was that the headline, in the opinion of the Deputy Press Ombud, suggested or implied that Minister Mckenzie had requested to go on the trip. It is not disputed that Minister Mckenzie did not make such a request. Much turns on how the headline is interpreted. It is a matter of interpretation whether the words ‘Send me‘, considered in context, is a mocking reference and comment on the clarion call to service made by President Ramaphosa, in the first SONA address, or whether it refers to a request by Minister Mckenzie to be sent to the Paris Olympics.
- Similarly, the reference to ‘gravy train’ in an article that considers the costs to the taxpayer of a politician attending the Olympics held in Paris may or may not be restricted to the definitions contained in dictionaries. This raises important issues of pertaining to comments in headlines and the interpretation of words and phrases when dealing with political speech. It does appear to me that there is a reasonable prospect that the Appeals Panel may come to a different interpretation and conclusion to that reached by the Deputy Press Ombud on this issue and the application for leave therefore succeeds on finding 1.
- Findings that there was an erroneous reference in the article to R1.8 million spent on Minister McKenzie and his support team and that he was accompanied by eight officials.
- This was the total amount spent on all eight officials, some of whom were in Paris for other activities and did not accompany Minister Mckenzie on the trip. The Deputy Press Ombud found that one support staff member only accompanied Minister Mckenzie. The conclusion was that this misrepresentation of fact, whether intentional or otherwise, was a breach of clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
- A related finding made by the Deputy Press Ombud that as the article implies that as Minister Mckenzie travelled with 8 support staff, it implied that he had breached provisions of the ministerial handbook.
- As the Ministerial Handbook only permits ministers to travel abroad with two support staff, assertions that he travelled with eight support staff would amount to a breach of the relevant provisions. It is for this reason that the Deputy Press Ombud deemed it appropriate to include in the correction a statement that the Minister was not in breach of provisions of the Ministerial Handbook.
- It is apparent that reference in the article to the costs and number of members of the support team are based on answers provided by Minister Mckenzie to questions posed by Parliamentarians. Clause 1.2 obliges the media to ‘present 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 summarisation’. In this context, it is important to determine whether there has been an ‘intentional or negligent departure from the facts’. This would require an assessment, analysis and interpretation of the replies provided by the Minister and his team and then to determine whether the article contained intentional or negligent departures from the facts or whether it was reasonably based on answers provided.
- The extent to which reliance can be placed on answers provided by ministers to questions posed by parliamentarians may also have to be considered. Once again this is an interpretative exercise and different conclusions may be reached. It does appear to me that there is a reasonable prospect that the Appeals Panel may come to a different interpretation and decision to that reached by the Deputy Press Ombud on this issue and the application for leave therefore succeeds on finding 2. As finding 3 is intrinsically linked with the determination on finding 2, application for leave is also granted against this finding.
- Finding that News24’s failure to report that the athletes were accommodated for free in the Olympic Village is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code
- The Deputy Press Ombud found that this omission, whether intentional or through negligence, was a breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code. This finding brings a number of issues into focus. Given the tenor and contents of the article, was this omission material? An answer was provided by Minister Mckenzie in response to a direct question on the costs of sending athletes to the Olympics. With reference to the answers provided by the Minister, the key issue in this context, is whether the omission was an intentional or negligent departure from the facts. Once again this involves an interpretation of the answers provided and the extent to which the media are entitled to rely on the answers in its reportage. It does appear to me that there is a reasonable prospect that the Appeals Panel may come to a different interpretation and conclusion to that reached by the Deputy Press Ombud on this issue and the application for leave therefore succeeds on finding 4.
- As is the practice, I have not dealt with the detailed submissions made by the parties as these would be fully canvassed when the Appeals Panel considers this matter.
Conclusion:
The application for leave to appeal made by the appellant against all four adverse findings made against it by the Deputy Press Ombud in this matter, is granted.
Dated at Durban on the 25th February 2025
—————————–
K Govender
Retired Professor of Law
[1] . Clause 3.10 of the Complaints Procedure