Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Hassen Lorgat vs The Citizen

, ,

Complaint 30707

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of publication:

13 February 2024

Headline of publication:

“Cuban doctors took my job”

Author: Ina Opperman

Particulars

  1. The complainant is Hassan Lorgat of the Bench Marks Foundation, the People’s Media Foundation and the Friends of Cuba Society (Focus). In later correspondence, Lorgat also presented a letter from Focus, mandating him to pursue the matter on their behalf. The complaint was filed on 18 February 2024.
  2. The Public Advocate (PA), initially declined to accept the complaint, but Lorgat appealed the decision.
  3. A response was filed by The Citizen’s deputy editor, Brendan Seery, on July 24.
  4. Lorgat filed a rejoinder on July 30.
  5. I note that the complaint was about the print version of the report, but included only the online version. The print version was different in some material respects. As the newspaper has not disputed the complainant’s description of what was printed, I rely on the complainant’s version of what appeared in print.
  6. I take into account the various submissions, including arguments made in the correspondence around the PA’s decision to refuse the complaint.

The report

  1. The report quotes a recently graduated doctor as saying that he is unable to find employment in the public health sector despite having made many applications for posts and being prepared to work anywhere in the country. The doctor’s name is withheld at his request.
  2. In the online version, one paragraph (the 13th paragraph) refers to his belief that the employment of Cuban doctors is one factor standing in the way of his finding a job. Other factors cited include corruption and excessive negligence payouts by the government, with the argument this money could be used to hire doctors.
  3. In the print version, the headline picks out this element, as indicated above. The online version is headlined differently: Newly qualified doctor: I have to sell my car because I am unemployed.

The complaint

  1. The complainant argues that the article is in breach of clause 10 of the Press Code, which says that headlines should provide a reasonable reflection of the contents of the article.
  2. The complaint is also that the reporting breaches clause 1.1 of the Press Code, which says that reporting must be accurate, truthful and fair.
  3. Other points are made in passing, but these are the only clear references to sections of the code in the complaint.

Acceptance of the complaint

  1. Before dealing with the substance of the complaint, I must deal with the question whether the complaint stands to be adjudicated.
  2. The PA initially turned down the complaint on two grounds. First, he said that Lorgat did not have the right to complain as he lacks standing. In an email, the PA said that Lorgat is not directly affected by the report, nor does he have authority to act on behalf of a group that is directly affected.  Section 1.1 of the PCSA’s complaints procedure lays out who may be a complainant.
  3. The question of what constitutes standing was extensively canvassed in a matter in which Lorgat, this time acting on behalf of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, was a complainant against the SA Jewish Report.
  4. In June 2021, the then Ombud, Carmel Rickard, ruled that the provisions of the Complaints Procedure are wide enough to allow Lorgat to make that complaint. It is worth repeating the relevant section of Clause 1.1 of the procedure, which indicates who may lay a complaint under various categories. One category is “anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons”.  The ruling was later confirmed by the chair of the Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe.
  5. It is clear that Lorgat falls under this provision in the present case also.
  6. Though only supplied later in the process, Focus has also provided a mandate for him to act on their behalf.
  7. In addition, the PA decided there was no prima facie case for the newspaper to answer.
  8. However, Lorgat has insisted on taking the matter further, and full documentation is now available from both sides to assess the complaint.

Complaint 1: Inaccurate headline

Arguments

  1. The complainant argues that the headline reflects a view that is inaccurate and incomplete, failing to take into account important circumstances around the employment of Cuban doctors in the South African public health system. The complaint contains extensive reference to some of these circumstances, but it is not necessary to summarise them here.
  2. The article should also have investigated the specific circumstances of the quoted doctor’s case to see whether he applied for a job given to a Cuban, Lorgat argues.
  3. The complainant points to an editorial in which the NHI is criticised, and to differences between the print and online version, particularly that the online headline omits reference to Cuba. These points show that the newspaper has a political agenda, he says.
  4. In the letter appealing the PA’s decision to decline acceptance, Lorgat argues that even if the headline clearly references the doctor’s views, these are misleading as they are not based on fact.
  5. Lorgat also argues that the reference to Cuba in the article is brief, and so it was wrong to pick this aspect out for the headline.
  6. In a brief response, the newspaper says:
    • The article complained about has nothing to do with the NHI;
    • The newspaper is entitled to its own view;
    • The fact is that a foreign doctor in a job means a South African cannot have that job;
    • The online and print headlines were different for space reasons; and
    • Lorgat does not have standing to file the complaint.
  7. In his rejoinder, Lorgat questions why the focus is on Cuban doctors when so many other foreigners are employed in the public health system.

Discussion

  1. The question here is simply whether the headline accurately reflects the content in the article.
  2. The use of quotation marks indicates that what is reflected is someone’s opinions, as the complainant also acknowledges.
  3. The relevant paragraph of the article does indicate the anonymous doctor’s opinion that the employment of Cuban doctors is one reason for his failure to find a job. The phrase used is that they “hold back posts”.
  4. There is no question that the headline reflects the view of the doctor.
  5. It is irrelevant whether this is a minor point in the overall article. The newspaper has the right to decide where it wants to place emphasis as long as it does not distort the thrust of the report.
  6. The argument based on differences between the print and online versions is also not persuasive.

Ruling

  1. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 2: Inaccurate reporting

Arguments

  1. Much of the complaint rests on the complainant’s view of the contribution being made by Cuban doctors. Lorgat maintains the argument that the doctors are occupying jobs needed by South Africans is prejudiced and based on incomplete and false information, as already summarised in the previous section.
  2. In its response, the newspaper reasserts the view that the jobs held by Cuban doctors should go to South Africans.
  3. In his rejoinder, Lorgat says skills, placement and location must also be taken into account. He also raises the issue of how the articles are labelled.

Discussion

  1. Even if one agrees with the view that blaming Cubans for this doctor’s difficulties is simplistic, the question here is whether the report breached the Press Code’s requirements for accurate reporting.
  2. What is being reported here is an opinion. The views are correctly reflected.
  3. But the argument goes further, making the demand that the publication should have fact-checked the opinion, researching and presenting additional contextual information.
  4. Increasingly, media are building such mechanisms into their processes, particularly when it comes to claims by high-profile politicians.  The recent debate between the contenders for the US presidency comes to mind, where claims made live on air by both were immediately checked and discrepancies highlighted.
  5. However, it cannot be the role of the PCSA to decide for editors when this would be appropriate. There are better tools available to engage news outlets on issues of this kind – the Citizen has suggested a letter to the editor.

Ruling

  1. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

Rulings

  1. I dismiss the complaint.

Appeal

  1. 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
8 November 2024

Related Posts

Back To Top

Contact Us

Address
Building 12, Section B
Burnside Island Office Park
410 Jan Smuts Avenue
Craighall Park
2196

Telephone
011 484 3612

Enquiries and complaints
[email protected]
© 2024 Press Council South Africa. All Rights Reserved. The Press Council of South Africa website was made possible by a donation from the Millennium Trust. The website was conceptualised and designed by ALT Media, a division of ALT Advisory.