AfriForum vs. News24

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, The spectacular unravelling of AfriForum (published on 7 September 2018).

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

The column was an assessment of a presentation made by Ernst Roets, on behalf of AfriForum, to the parliamentary Constitutional Review Committee that was investigating whether the Constitution had to be amended to allow expropriation of land without compensation.

AfriForum inter alia complained that the article falsely and unfairly:

• reflected that Roets had offered no solutions as to how land redress could possibly have been managed to satisfy the need for justice, whilst ensuring agricultural sustainability;
• omitted to explain why it believed that white people never “stole” land; and
• reported that Roets had grinned while black MPs spoke of their families’ experiences under apartheid, wars of dispossession and how his attitude merely served to harden some attitudes.

It added that News24 had manipulated his video.

Retief said that, if the text stated that Roets had offered no solutions during his formal presentation, it would have been accurate. However, the question-and-answer session following his presentation was part of the committee’s proceedings – and during that time, Roets did offer a list of considerations. The publication was obliged to report that, the Ombud argued.

News24 was directed to apologise to AfriForum for misleadingly stating that it did not offer a single solution to the issue of land restitution, and to publish the considerations mentioned by Roets in response to a question by an MP.

The rest of the complaint, including the allegation of “grinning” and video-manipulation, was dismissed. The Ombud also concluded that he was not going to blame News24 for causing “serious reputational damage”, as Roets himself – by not finding time to address solutions in his formal presentation – had contributed to this “reputational damage”.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

Lodged by: Mr Ernst Roets, deputy CEO of AfriForum

Date of column: 7 September 2018

Headline: The spectacular unravelling of AfriForum

Author of article: Pieter du Toit, assistant-editor for in-depth news of News24

Respondent: Prof George Claassen, public editor

Complaint                                            

AfriForum complains that the following sentence in the column were inaccurate:

• “They also offered no solutions, not a single one, about how the issue of land redress can possibly be managed to satisfy the need for justice whilst ensuring agricultural sustainability”;
• “Roets’ submission – which he tweeted and which is available on AfriForum’s website – does not explain why he believes that white people never ‘stole land’ (besides just claiming that they never did) nor does it offer any clear or sophisticated argument about Section 25”; and
• “At one stage Roets sat grinning while black MPs spoke of their families’ experiences under apartheid, wars of dispossession and how his attitude merely served to harden some attitudes.”

The organisation adds that:

• News24 manipulated an edited version of a video in which he had presented AfriForum’s submissions to the Constitutional Review Committee in such a manner so as to portray it as the truth to corroborate the false and untrue accusations; and
• the reportage has caused it serious reputational damage.

Roets asks for a public apology and for the article, or the false accusations in it, to be removed.

The text

The column was an assessment of the presentation made by Roets, on behalf of AfriForum, to the parliamentary Constitutional Review Committee that was investigating whether or not Section 25 of the Constitution must be amended to allow expropriation of land without compensation.

Du Toit stated that Roets purposefully had led the Afrikaner rights organisation, its members and supporters into the wilderness. He added that Roets was aggressive, he looked across the aisle to parliamentarians with barely disguised disdain, and then proceeded to insult both MPs as a collective and the parties which they represent. This had angered members of the committee, including the white and Afrikaans MPs representing the ANC, DA and ACDP, he wrote.

He argued: “Roets apparently did not see the chance to address the committee as an opportunity to construct a rational and lucid argument, but rather as a platform on which he could grandstand and insult. If he wanted to influence the debate or inject his ideas into the subconscious of legislators he failed spectacularly. But it’s quite possible that constructive debate or engagement never was Roets’ or AfriForum’s objective, because that would mean that they would be bound to a process in which they cannot guarantee the outcome.”

He concluded: “The future will be determined by those occupying the rational middle ground. After yesterday AfriForum planted themselves firmly on the fringe.”

(See http://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/you-are-drunk-on-the-ideology-of-the-ndr–ernst-ro for the text of Roets’s submission.)

The arguments

Adding to his complaint, ROETS  says:

• he presented eight solutions in his presentation to the Committee (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04Ttlo_vrHs); besides, the 147-page written submission that he had filed also contained a list of solutions;
• he explained why AfriForum believed that the notion that “whites stole the land” is a historical fallacy; and
• he never grinned at any person who spoke to him about their families’ experiences under apartheid, and says that this statement amounted to either negligent or malicious reporting.

CLAASSEN says the video merely showed the reaction of members of the parliamentary committee in reaction to Roets’s presentation on land expropriation. He argues it should also not be seen in isolation, but rather in the context of all the news reports on this matter.

He adds that the column was clearly marked as an opinion piece, argued and published as such, and that it was substantially true – as required by Section 7 of the Press Code.

The internal ombud states that Roets’s presentation indeed did not contain solutions to achieve “redress…to satisfy the need for justice whilst ensuring agricultural sustainability” (as concluded by Du Toit). He adds that Roets also did not indicate how land reform can be managed to achieve justice.

Claassen emphasises that Du Toit based his opinion piece on Roets’s oral submission – which did not contain evidence in support of the bland statement that “whites did not steal the land”.

He concludes that Du Toit’s reference to Roets’s grinning was in relation to an exchange between him and MPs, which included a discussion about forced removals under apartheid, during which he grinned.

ROETS replies that he did offer eight solutions – which were not merely given in response to questions by MPs, but was also part of the submission in written form. “A fair account of all material facts would acknowledge this, instead of creating a false impression that no solutions were provided merely because it wasn’t provided within one isolated segment of the submission,” he argues.

He also says the column made it clear that it dealt with his submission (including his report of 147 pages), and not only with an isolated segment thereof. “To claim … that the article exclusively deals with the introductory oral presentation is misleading… It certainly isn’t made clear in the article that it only deals with the introduction and not with the entire submission,” he submits.

If the column only concentrated on his oral submission, he continues, it would not have been a fair account of all material facts that were substantially true, “because the criticisms levelled at the isolated part of the submission are nullified when the submission is considered in its entirety”.

Roets points out that he only had ten minutes to make an introductory statement. “It is only natural not to elaborate in detail about every point that has been made in the written component of the submission, but only to refer to those points in broad terms, as a result of the time limit. To claim that AfriForum didn’t elaborate on certain things ‘in the submission’, which are clearly elaborated on in the submission, is quite opportunistic and once again, not a fair account of all the material facts,” he argues

He concludes that the opinion piece did not take a fair account of all material facts, and made claims (stated as fact, not as opinion) that were not substantially true.

Analysis

False statements

“They also offered no solutions, not a single one, about how the issue of land redress can possibly be managed to satisfy the need for justice whilst ensuring agricultural sustainability”

The first issue is whether Du Toit based his opinion piece on what transpired that the committee’s meeting, or on the totality of his submission (which would include his written submission). This is important, as his written submission contained solutions that were not included in Roets’s formal oral submission.

Having read and re-read the column, I am satisfied reasonable readers would have understood that Du Toit’s comments were based on what had happened at the committee meeting.

It is also important to note that one MP asked Roets, after his presentation: “Is there a solution?” Another MP added: “Why are you not constructive?” Clearly, Roets did not offer any solutions during his formal presentation.

However, in response to the MPs questions, he did present a list of eight considerations (solutions), right at the end of proceedings.

Please note that I am not concerned with the question if Du Toit’s argument was extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated or prejudiced – the Press Code allows for such robust debate. My only question is if the statement that AfriForum did not offer any solutions took “fair account of all material facts that are substantially true” (as required by Section 7.2.4 of the Press Code).

If Du Toit said that Roets offered no solutions during his formal presentation, he would have been accurate. However, the question and answer session following his presentation was part of the committee’s proceedings – and during that time (in response to a question) Roets did offer his list of considerations.

I have sympathy with Du Toit in this regard, though, as Roets clearly did not see solutions to the matter as a priority. He had ten minutes for his oral submission, but could not find a few seconds to refer to this vital issue.

Be that as it may, because Du Toit commented on proceedings before the committee, he was obliged to at least reflect the fact that Roets did offer some solutions in response to a question – even if he did not do so during his formal presentation.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that the statement in question did not take fair account of all material facts that are substantially true – and can therefore not be considered as protected comment.

“Roets’ submission – which he tweeted and which is available on AfriForum’s website – does not explain why he believes that white people never ‘stole land’ (besides just claiming that they never did) nor does it offer any clear or sophisticated argument about Section 25”

Having listened to the whole procedure before the committee, I have little doubt that this statement was justified. If there is any argument to the contrary, I am yet to hear it.

“At one stage Roets sat grinning while black MPs spoke of their families’ experiences under apartheid, wars of dispossession and how his attitude merely served to harden some attitudes.”

At the time of Roets’s alleged grinning, the camera was on the MP and not on him – which makes it difficult to ascertain the veracity of this statement. However, while talking about her family’s experiences under apartheid, the MP did remark: “You are laughing…”

Immediately thereafter, the camera did focus on Roets, capturing a small smile on his face.

Given these facts, I have no reason to believe that the statement in question was in breach of the Press Code.

Video manipulated

This part of the complaint has no legs to stand on. Of course it “manipulated” proceedings, as clearly it was an edited version of the meeting – but in that process it did not distort the essence of what took place, and neither did it “corroborate false and untrue accusations”, as alleged by Roets.

Reputational damage

I have already ruled that Du Toit should have mentioned that Roets offered some solutions in response to a question (while not doing so in his formal presentation). However, I am not going to blame News24 for causing “serious reputational damage”, as Roets himself – by not finding time to address solutions in his formal presentation – contributed to this “reputational damage”.

Finding

News24 was in breach of Section 7.2.4 of the Press Code for stating that AfriForum did not offer a single solution, while Roets did so – albeit in response to a question. This section says: “[Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it] has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true”.

The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

Seriousness of breaches

Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1 – minor errors which do not change the thrust of the story), serious breaches (Tier 2), and serious misconduct (Tier 3).

The breach of the Press Code as indicated above is a Tier 2 offence.

Sanction

News24 is directed to apologise to AfriForum for misleadingly stating that it did not offer a single solution to the issue of land restitution, and to publish the eight considerations mentioned by Roets in response to a question by an MP.

This should be published at the top of the pages wherever the column is carried, with a headline containing the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “AfriForum”.

The text 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;
• refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
• end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;
• be published with the logo of the Press Council (attached); and
• be prepared by the publication and be approved by me.

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].

Johan Retief

Press Ombud