Finding Complaint 32077 Gayton McKenzie vs News24
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
16 January 2025
Finding: Complaint 32077
Date of publication: 14 October 2024
Headline:
Send me! McKenzie’s gravy train to Paris Olympics cost taxpayers R800 000
Author: Jan Gerber
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint lodged on behalf of Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie by his Special Adviser, Mr Charles Cilliers, as well as an annexure; a written reply on behalf of News24 by its Parliamentary reporter, Mr Jan Gerber, and its Public Editor, Dr George Claassen, along with an annexure; and a written response by Mr Cilliers.
Complaint
The complainant submits that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 10.1 of the Press Code:
“1. The media shall:
“1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;
“1.2 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; …
“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; …
“10.1 Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question …”
- Summary of article
1.1. According to the article, Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie’s trip to the Olympics in Paris, France, cost more than R800 000.
1.2. It notes that, after his appointment to Cabinet, McKenzie announced on the social media platform X that he would stop so-called superfans from travelling across the world on taxpayers’ money to support South African teams.
1.2.1. He added that this expenditure could not be justified when athletes and artists were struggling to raise money to attend sporting events and exhibitions, and pledged that the money previously spent on such trips would be used where it was most needed.
1.2.2. However, the article states, the Minister’s responses to parliamentary questions reveal that the R1.8 million spent by the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture (DSAC) on the trip by McKenzie and his officials to the Olympics was more than the total of R1.3 million it spent on “superfans”.
1.3. In his parliamentary questions, DA MP Joe McGluwa asked how many athletes and departmental officials attended the Olympics, and how much the costs were “for each”.
1.3.1. McKenzie replied that 146 South African athletes attended the Olympics and that the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc) was unable to quantify the cost per athlete as it was still processing invoices at the time of his response. However, he added, the budget for the support, preparation and delivery of Team SA to the Olympics was R27 892 000.
1.3.2. In response to the part of the question dealing with departmental officials, the Minister said eight officials – including himself – went to the Olympics and that he approved a total estimated budget of R1 805 335.74 for their travel to the Olympics.
1.3.3. According to the article, this means that an average of around R191 000 was budgeted per athlete, including their support staff, compared to the R1.8 million for McKenzie and “his officials”.
1.4. In another parliamentary question, DA MP Liam Jacobs asked what the total costs were that the Minister’s department incurred “for the duration of his attendance of the games”.
1.4.1. McKenzie replied that the total costs incurred for his attendance amounted to R804 590.71 and that his flights cost R215 976.36. Another R 454 005.00 was spent on his “ground transport” (no details were provided of what the latter entails).
1.5. In response to a question from DA MP Tumelo Ramongalo, the Minister said that the cost of the flights of the athletes varied between R18 000 and R30 000.
1.6. In another question, Jacobs asked what the total costs incurred to date were for the attendance of all “superfans” at international sporting events. McKenzie replied that the total costs incurred in this regard were R1 361 232.81 to date.
- Arguments
Minister Gayton McKenzie
2.1. The complainant submits that the News24 article is in breach of a number of clauses of the Press Code, namely Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 10.1.
2.1.1. He starts off by claiming that the headline caused unnecessary harm by describing his official trip to the Olympics as a “gravy train” and notes that the Cambridge Dictionary defines a “gravy train” as “a way of making money quickly, easily, and often dishonestly”.
2.1.1.1. He submits that it is problematic to suggest that being part of an official trip that costs a lot of money means being on a “gravy train” and says that it is unacceptable to “effectively insinuate” that there was something unethical, dishonest and self-serving about the trip.
2.1.1.2. The complainant also takes exception to the words “Send me!” in the headline and denies that he uttered those words. He says the trip was part of government commitments that predated his appointment.
2.2. The complainant further objects to comparing the costs incurred by the “superfans”, who attended a different set of sporting events, to what it cost to fly him to the Olympics. He argues that this implies that he somehow decided to replace the “superfans” with himself.
2.2.1. He contends that it would be as strange for a Sports, Arts and Culture Minister never to engage in any international travel as it would be for an athlete of international standard never to go overseas. He adds that his ministerial portfolio requires international travel and that, for this reason, the Department has an International Relations Unit.
2.2.2. He acknowledges that there is a debate to be had about whether he could have been sent to the Olympics at a lower cost and declares that he would have been willing to engage in such a debate.
2.3. The complainant goes on to argue that the article is incorrect in stating he was in Paris with an eight-person support team at a cost of more than R1.8 million. He points out that
only one support staff member travelled with him during the trip (his private and appointments secretary, Marilise Francis).
2.3.1. He points out that he would have been in breach of the Ministerial Handbook if he had travelled with eight members of his support team as the Handbook allows only two ministerial support team members to travel with him on official trips abroad.
2.4. The complainant states that News24 did not approach the Ministry or the Department for comment or clarity on any of these matters.
2.4.1. He notes that the respondent may reply that it is allowed to report on parliamentary answers without the need to seek clarity. However, he adds, News24 should be held accountable if they misunderstand what those questions are saying and if they wrongly conflated the answers provided to three separate questions.
2.4.1.1. He goes on to argue that the article in question clearly contained “critical reportage”, yet the respondent did not seek his views as the subject of that reportage in advance of publication.
2.4.2. The complainant further says that five of the Department’s officials were, in fact, in Paris on completely independent travel with the task of setting up and managing the Ekhaya Gardens facility at the Olympics. He adds that the decisions around that project predated his term and were signed off by the previous minister.
2.4.2.1. He suggests that it was therefore negligent to conflate two totally separate parliamentary answers – one about the cost of his and his support staff member’s travel, and the other about the number of officials who travelled to Paris and at what cost.
2.4.2.2. He further contends that it was “mischievous” to compare the cost of his and the officials’ travel to Paris with what it cost per athlete when it is common cause that athletes are accommodated at the Olympic Village at no cost. He points out that such allowances are not made for government officials.
2.4.2.3. The complainant goes on to note that an EFF MP laid an ethics complaint against him after the article was published and refers to this as an example of “the harm that News24 has caused”.
2.5. The complainant concludes by stating that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 10.1 of the Press Code.
2.5.1. He requests that the article be updated in the following respects: the headline should be updated to be more accurate and less suggestive that he was “some sort of gravy-train riding reprobate”; a correction should reflect that he did not have eight support staff with him; and the article should clarify that the accommodation of the athletes at the Olympic Village is free.
2.5.2. He also wants News24 to be directed to apologise for the unnecessary harm it has caused, “particularly for the headline, but the article as a whole”.
News24
2.6. The respondent submits that the complaint is without merit and should be dismissed. It argues, firstly, that the article in question touches on a matter of public interest, namely how public money is spent and, secondly, that it provides details of questions put to the complainant during a session of the Sports, Arts and Culture Portfolio Committee.
2.7. With regard to the headline, the respondent states that the phrase “Send me” has become synonymous with President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration since his first State of the Nation Address (SONA) in February 2018.
2.7.1. It further states that the complainant is now a member of a Ramaphosa administration. and that the phrase was not attributed to him and that no quotation marks were used.
2.7.2. News24 goes on to argue that the phrase “gravy train” is commonly used in the media throughout the world in relation to the “expensive perks” that public officials enjoy at taxpayers’ expense.
2.7.2.1. It also notes that, while the complainant uses the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of “gravy train”, other dictionaries define it differently. As examples, it refers to those of the Oxford Languages (“used to refer to a situation in which someone can make a lot of money for very little effort”), Merriam-Webster (“a much exploited source of easy money”) and Thesaurus.com (“income obtained with minimal effort”).
2.7.2.2. News24 therefore denies that the phrase “gravy train” implies dishonesty or, according to the complainant, conduct that is “unethical, dishonest, criminal, reckless, self-serving, etc” (see 2.1.1.1).
2.7.2.3. It also points out that the complainant himself later describes the more than R450 000 spent on his “ground transport” in Paris as “exorbitant” and the R113 000 for his hotel as “very steep”.[1]
2.8. The respondent submits that the article is – “for the most part” – based on four responses by the complainant to written parliamentary questions and goes on to list each of these questions.
2.8.1. In question 512, the complainant was asked about the costs of sending athletes to the Olympics.
2.8.2. In question 272, he was asked whether he attended the Olympics and, if so, what the total costs were incurred by the DSAC for the duration of his attendance (this question is included as an annexure).
2.8.2.1. The Minister confirmed that he attended the Olympics and that the total costs incurred by the Department for his attendance amounted to R804 590.71. He also provided a breakdown of the costs.
2.8.3. In question 273, the complainant was asked whether his Department sponsored any “superfans” at the Olympics.
2.8.4. In question 293, the Minister was asked about the total number of athletes who attended the Olympics and at what cost.
2.8.4.1. In the second part of this question, he was asked about the total number of officials in his Department who attended the Olympics and the total costs incurred. He replied that it was attended by “[a] total of 8 officials including the Minister”. He also replied that he approved a total estimated budget of R 1 805 335.74 “for officials travelling to the Olympics”.
2.8.4.2. The respondent states that there was no mention that five of the Department’s officials were in Paris on completely independent travel to set up and manage the Ekhaya Gardens facility at the Olympics.
2.8.4.3. News24 also says that nowhere does its article state that the complainant was in Paris with an eight-person support team. It points out that the term “support team” was only used in the summary at the top of the story without mentioning any figure.
2.8.4.4. The respondent suggests that the implication is that the complainant misled Parliament if he now claims that News24 incorrectly reported that “eight officials, including himself, went” to the Olympics.
2.8.4.5. It says that the onus surely cannot be on the media to clarify with a Minister or their Department whether their responses to parliamentary questions are “truthful and comprehensive”.
2.9. The respondent goes onto argue that it is not “malicious and utterly beside the point” to compare the complainant’s travel expenses to those of the “superfans”.
2.9.1. It notes that the complainant stated that he would stop the Department paying for the trips of “superfans” and to “use that money where it’s needed the most”. Despite this pledge, it says, more than R800 000 was spent on the Minister’s first official trip, including on items which he later described as “exorbitant” and “very steep” (see point 2.7.2.3).
2.9.2. News24 argues that the issue is not whether a Minister should travel abroad; it acknowledges that this is part of the job. The issue, it says, is the “exorbitant” and “very steep” costs, and not using money “where it is needed the most”.
2.9.3. It also denies that it is “mischievous” to compare the complainant’s costs to that of the athletes. It says that supporting athletes is a core function of the department, “yet their travel expenses per person are dwarfed by that of the minister”.
2.9.3.1. News24 argues that the public has a right to know that the DSAC spent more on the Minister than on the athletes representing the country.
2.9.3.2. It adds that not mentioning the widely known fact that Olympians stay in the athletes’ village is immaterial and says that their costs are “still paltry” compared to the complainant’s “ground transport” alone.
2.9.3.3. It reiterates that it is in the public interest to know how public money is used by officials, including Ministers.
2.10. In conclusion, the respondent submits that News24’s article is not the cause of any harm to the Minister in relation to the ethics complaint lodged by the EFF. It states that the article is based on information that is publicly available and that it is especially accessible for an MP.
2.10.1. News24 adds that its article does not state that the Minister contravened the Ministerial Handbook or the Executive Ethics Code.
Minister Gayton McKenzie
2.11. In his reply, the complainant rejects the explanation offered by the respondent for using the words “Send me” in the headline (see points 2.7 and 2.7.1).
2.11.1. He says that the original meaning of “Thuma Mina” (“Send me”) was a positive one, and implied that “people were offering themselves and their time to improve the country and turn its fortunes around”.
2.11.1.1. However, in the context used in the headline, the complainant argues that the phrase is used negatively to imply that he asked to be sent to the Olympics, and also made it seem as if he was going there for the fun of it and not to perform official duties.
2.11.1.2. He therefore denies News24’s claim that it is “synonymous” with the meaning intended by the words “Send me” in the 2018 SONA. Instead, he argues, the phrase is used mockingly.
2.11.1.3. He adds that the use of the words makes it “sound as if it is coming” from him, whether or not quotation marks are used. He submits that News24’s intentions are obvious and regards the attempt to draw a link to President Ramaphosa’s speech as sleight of hand.
2.11.2. With regard to the dictionary definitions of “gravy train” that the respondent cites, the complainant submits that, even if these are accepted, “it does not change very much, and in fact only makes the use of the phrase even worse”. He notes that he did not “make a lot of money” on the trip nor did he make any “easy money” (see point 2.7.2.1).
2.11.2.1. He argues that, according to News24, it is “automatically acceptable” to refer to a “gravy train” whenever government money is spent on an official who is performing official duties.
2.11.2.2. He further maintains that the phrase “gravy train” bears enormously negative connotations and says he referred to the words mentioned in point 2.1.1.1 to illustrate just how negative this phrase can be in the minds of the public.
2.11.2.3. He acknowledges that his “ground transport” and hotel costs were very high. However, he says, this does not mean it is fair to suggest that he was enjoying “some trip on some sort of gravy train”. He adds that Paris was very expensive during the Olympics and that the rand is very weak against the Euro.
2.12. The complainant stands by his original complaint that it was a gross error for News24 to report that the eight officials were his “support team”. If that were the case, he says, it would have been in violation of the Ministerial Handbook.
2.12.1. He repeats his point that most of the officials were from the Department and were engaged in official work at the Olympics. He says they were not members of his support office and again notes that only one member of his support office accompanied him to Paris.
2.12.2. He submits that News24 incorrectly conflated two totally separate answers, and that the result falsely implied that he was in breach of the Ministerial code. Given the severity of the implications of the contents of the article, he says, News24 should at least have asked him for comment.
2.12.3. The complainant states that News24 is not owning up to the fact that it completely misunderstood and conflated two completely separate parliamentary answers.
2.12.4. He argues that it was “not exculpatory enough” to say that the reference to a “support team” was only mentioned once. The fact that this appeared at the top of the story, “in a bullet point”, means that the error was given great prominence and “discoloured” the article from that point.
2.12.5. He rejects the implication that he misled Parliament by stating in his parliamentary answer that eight officials went to the Olympics. He says that, although there is a difference between a political official and an administrative official, both are officials: political officials are appointed on a fixed term linked to the political principal’s term of office; administrative officials are full-time appointments and continue to work in the Department even when there is a new Minister.
2.12.6. The complainant states that News24 should not try to create the impression that what it has misreported is somehow the victim’s fault – “because somehow we should have known or predicted that they would try to contrive a single article out of different responses that were all answered accurately according to the specific questions asked”.
2.12.7. He acknowledges that the onus cannot be on the media to clarify with a Minister or their Department whether their responses to parliamentary questions are truthful and comprehensive, but submits that the media should at the very least try to report the facts accurately. He contends that this was not the case in this instance.
2.13. The complainant further suggests that it is malicious to compare his travel expenses to those of the “superfans”. He says he is not a “superfan”, but the executive authority of a Ministry.
2.13.1. He also takes issue with the claim in the article that the expenditure on his attendance at the Olympics was not money spent “where it is needed the most”. He dismisses this as merely the opinion of the respondent and asks who gave News24 the right to decide that a Sports Minister was not needed at the opening of an Olympics.
2.14. The complainant again objects to comparing the money spent on his costs to that of the money spent on the Olympic athletes.
2.14.1. Moreover, he says, News24 failed to point out that the athletes stayed for free at the Olympic Village because it did not suit its “narrative” of portraying him and his travel to the Olympics in the worst possible light.
- Analysis
3.1. Complaint one objects to the use of the phrase “Send me” in the headline. The complainant denies that he uttered those words and adds that the trip to the Olympics was a commitment that predated his appointment as Minister (see point 2.1.1.2). He also believes the headline uses the phrase in a negative context (see points 2.11.1.1 and 2.11.1.2).
3.1.1. There is insufficient merit in the respondent’s claim that the phrase is not attributed directly to the complainant because it is not placed in quotation marks. The way it is presented implies that the Minister either asked or wanted to be sent to the Olympics (even though the trip was planned before his appointment).
3.1.1.1. And, in the context that the phrase is used in the headline, the words are far removed from the original connotations of selflessness and a willingness to be of service that are associated with the use of the phrase in President Ramaphosa’s SONA in 2018.
3.1.2. The second part of the headline casts a further negative light on the use of the phrase “Send me”: the words “McKenzie’s gravy train” imply that the Minister’s request or desire to attend the Olympics was motivated by self-interest.
3.1.2.1. In fact, the definitions offered by the respondent go as far as to suggest an element of self-enrichment or personal financial benefit (see point 2.7.2.1).
3.1.2.2. In any event, no matter what specific definition a dictionary provides of the phrase “gravy train”, it always has pejorative connotations. Inevitably, these connotations cast aspersions on anyone linked to a “gravy train” – as the reference to “McKenzie’s gravy train” clearly does.
3.1.2.3. In relation to the complaint in question, the fact that the expenditure on the complainant’s trip to the Olympics is steep does not, in itself, suggest any financial impropriety by the Minister or that he improperly received any benefit.
3.1.2.4. Furthermore, and most importantly, the two sentences in the headline “Send me!” and “McKenzie’s gravy train to Paris Olympics cost taxpayers R800 000” cannot be read separately from each other. They constitute one headline and must therefore be read in conjunction with each other.
3.1.2.5. This makes the headline even more problematic. When the two sentences are read together, they suggest that the complainant asked or wanted to go to the Olympics in order to obtain a financial benefit for himself.
3.1.2.6. It is not for the Press Ombud to make a pronouncement on whether or not the R800 000 spent on the complainant was excessive. The point remains that he did not ask or express a desire to go to the Olympics in order to derive a personal financial benefit from the trip.
3.1.2.7. As a result, the headline is misleading and therefore in breach of Clause 10.1 of the Press Code.
3.2. In Complaint two, the complainant objects to the comparison between the costs incurred by the “superfans” and what it cost to fly him to the Olympics on the grounds that they attended different sports events (point 2.2).
3.2.1. There is some merit in this argument: the cost of the Minister’s trip to the Olympics – when the costs of flights and accommodation were at a premium – cannot neatly be compared to the costs incurred by the attendance of “superfans” at other international sports events.
3.2.1.1. Nevertheless, there is some grounds for drawing such a comparison in light of the complainant’s commitment to stop “superfans” from travelling around the world to support South African sports teams and to rather spend the Department’s money where it was needed most.
3.2.1.2. The respondent’s intention was obviously to gauge whether the Minister was indeed living up to his promise to review his Department’s expenditure in favour of athletes and artists. Furthermore, it is certainly in the public interest to know how public money is being spent.
3.2.1.3. The complainant goes on to question the suggestion in the article that the money spent on his attendance at the Olympics was not well-spent; he emphasises that international travel is part of his portfolio.
3.2.1.4. This is not in dispute. However, the Minister himself acknowledges that his “ground transport” and hotel costs were very high (point 2.11.2.3) and he also subsequently concedes that certain costs associated with his trip are “exorbitant” and “very steep” (see 2.7.2.3).
3.2.1.5. Based on the considerations outlined above, neither Clause 1.1 nor Clause 1.2 was breached in the article.
3.3. In Complaint three, the complainant contends that the article is incorrect in stating that he was in Paris with an eight-person support team at a cost of more than R1.8 million and says that only one support staff member travelled with him (see point 2.3).
3.3.1. He suggests that the respondent conflated two separate parliamentary answers: one about the cost of his and his support staff member’s travel, and the other about the number of officials who travelled to Paris and at what cost (see point 2.4.2.1).
3.3.1.1. While the article itself does not make any reference to a support team of eight members, there is a reference to a “support team” in the summary above the article.
3.3.1.2. This reference to the Minister’s “support team” erroneously includes the claim that R1.8 million was spent on it whereas, in fact, this figure refers to the total amount spent on all eight DSAC officials who were at the Olympics.
3.3.1.3. This erroneous reference in the summary at the top of the article to “R1.8 million [spent] on McKenzie and his support team” must therefore be corrected. Only one member of the Minister’s “support team” accompanied him to Paris.
3.3.1.4. This misrepresentation of a fact – whether intentionally or otherwise – is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.4. Complaint four is related to the above complaint about the number of members in the Minister’s support team that accompanied him to Paris.
3.4.1. The complainant says that he would have been in breach of the Ministerial Handbook if he had travelled with eight members of his support team as the Handbook allows only two members to travel with him on official trips abroad (see points 2.3.1 and 2.12.2).
3.4.1.1. Although the News24 article does not specifically state that the Minister contravened the Ministerial Handbook, the reference in the summary above the article to “McKenzie and his support team” is misleading because it also refers to the R1.8 million spent on all eight DSAC officials who were at the Olympics (see 3.3.1.2 above).
3.4.1.2. This suggests, by implication, that the eight were all part of the complainant’s support team. This would indeed have been in violation of the Ministerial Handbook (see 1.11 in Chapter Six on “International Travel” in “Republic of South Africa: Guide for Members of the Executive”).[2]
3.4.1.3. In the circumstances, it would therefore be appropriate to include in the correction requested in point 3.3.1.3 that the Minister was not in breach of the Ministerial Handbook as only one support member accompanied him to the Olympics.
3.5. In Complaint five, the complainant objects to the comparison between the money spent on him and officials to attend the Olympics and the expenditure on the athletes who represented South Africa at the event (see points 2.4.2.2 and 2.14). He adds that the athletes stayed for free at the Olympic Village (point 2.14.1).
3.5.1. The comparison is indeed skewed because Sascoc was still processing invoices for the Olympics at the time of the Minister’s response and in view of the fact that the 146 athletes were accommodated free of charge in the Olympic Village.
3.5.1.1. The one aspect – that Sascoc was still processing the athletes’ invoices at the time of the parliamentary reply – is duly recorded in the article.
3.5.1.2. However, News24’s failure to report that the athletes were accommodated for free in the Olympic Village – which no doubt appreciably reduced the expenditure on them – can be deemed to be a material omission.
3.5.1.3. This omission provides a flawed comparison between the expenditure on the Minister and officials and that on the athletes during the Olympics. Whether this is intentional or through negligence, it is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.6. Complaint six relates to the fact that the respondent did not contact the complainant or his Department to provide comment or clarity on the Minister’s responses to the parliamentary questions.
3.6.1. The complainant notes that he is aware that the respondent may rely on the fact that it is entitled to report on parliamentary answers without the need to seek clarity.
3.6.1.1. It is indeed reasonable to regard a reply to a parliamentary question as an accurate and satisfactory response to the matters raised in such a question. As a result, there cannot be an expectation that the media still need to confirm that a reply meets these basic requirements.
3.6.1.2. As noted in a report published by the Parliamentary Monitoring Group: “Written Questions are a means by which MPs can effectively scrutinise government conduct, misconduct or inaction … Through this process, Ministers are asked to give precise and reliable information about their conduct.”[3] (my emphases)
3.6.1.3. There is therefore no need to seek comment on the parliamentary questions and answers in the News24 article and hence there is no breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code. (The accuracy or balance of the report is another matter, and is assessed elsewhere in relation to Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.)
3.6.2. In particular, there are no grounds for the complaint that the respondent should have approached the Minister or his Department for clarity about the number of officials who attended the Olympics.
3.6.2.1. The Minister did not provide any additional information in his reply that eight officials were at the Olympics, nor did he make any distinction between public and political officials. This lack of specificity cannot be blamed on the publication.
3.6.2.2. As noted in points 3.6.1.1 and 3.6.1.2, it is reasonable to expect a reply to a parliamentary question to be accurate and satisfactory in all essential respects. As such, there was no obligation on News24 to seek clarity or comment on this aspect of the article.
3.6.3. The complainant goes on to argue that the respondent did not seek his views before publication even though the News24 article clearly contains “critical reportage” (point 2.4.1.1).
3.6.3.1. The respondent replies that, “for the most part”, its article is based on four responses by the Minister to written parliamentary questions (see point 2.8). In the main, this is indeed the case.
3.6.3.2. The only additional information in the article relates to the Minister’s announcement on X that he would stop “superfans” from travelling around the world on taxpayers’ money to support South African teams (see point 1.2).
3.6.3.3. However, this information was already in the public domain for some months by the time the News24 article was published. And, as the Press Ombud declared in John Steenhuisen and Others vs Mail & Guardian (albeit in another context), “[i]t cannot be practicable to have a blanket requirement to seek pre-publication comment … when reportage in the public domain is repeated.”[4]
3.6.3.4. Furthermore, the information about the Minister’s announcement that he would stop “superfans” from travelling around the world at taxpayers’ expense was relevant in light of one of the parliamentary questions put to the Minister (see point 1.6).
3.6.3.5. In this respect, there is therefore no breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
- Finding
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.5 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is upheld on two counts for the reasons outlined in points 3.3 to 3.3.1.4 and 3.5 to 3.5.1.3 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is dismissed for the reasons set out in points 3.6 to 3.6.3.5 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 10.1 is upheld for the reasons outlined in points 3.1.1 to 3.1.2.7.
Firstly, News24 is required to publish an apology to the complainant for breaching Clause 1.2 by (a) creating the erroneous impression that R1.8 million was spent on “McKenzie and his support team” whereas this amount was spent on all eight DSAC officials who were at the Games and (b) failing to mention that South Africa’s athletes were accommodated free of charge in the Olympic Village during the Games.
Secondly, News24 must update the summary at the top of the article to make it clear that R1.8 million was not spent on the Minister and his support team, but on all eight DSAC officials who were at the Olympics. It must also update the article to include the information that the athletes were accommodated in the Olympic Village at no cost.
Thirdly, News24 is required to publish an apology to the complainant for publishing a misleading headline in breach of Clause 10.1, and the headline must be updated accordingly.
These apologies and updates 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 News24’s landing page for three days and on all platforms where the article was published;
- be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Minister McKenzie” (or a suitable alternative);
- be published with a link to the updated online article and headline;
- 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 me.
Fourthly, the updated article should 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 Minister McKenzie” should state when and how the article has been updated.
The apologies and the final updates to the article should be approved by me 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
16 January 2025
[1] See https://www.news24.com/news24/politics/parliament/bad-sport-mckenzie-admits-r450-000-ground-transport-in-paris-was-exorbitant-eff-lays-complaint-20241016
[2] See https://static.pmg.org.za/221012Guide_for_Members_of_the_Executive_2022.pdf
[3] “Assessing the effectiveness of written questions & replies as an oversight mechanism”, page 17. See https://static.pmg.org.za/Assessing_Written_Questions_and_Replies_final.pdf
[4] See https://presscouncil.org.za2023-02-13//john-steenhuisen-others-vs-mail-guardian/