Renaldo Gouws vs The Daily Vox
SUMMARY
The headline to the column in dispute read, Hey Ronaldo, a selfie is a selfie, not an invitation (published on 19 July 2017).
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The Deputy Public Advocate dismissed Renaldo Gouws’s complaint as the piece in question was marked as a comment and as such fell under Section 7 of the Press Code which pertained to protected comment. The complainant was given an opportunity to argue why the text was not protected comment.
The matter was then referred to the Press Ombud.
Retief said in Gouws’s response to the Public Advocate’s invitation to clarify why he thought the article did not meet the requirements set by the Code, he had failed to provide satisfactory arguments.
He dismissed the complaint because it was clearly stated that the text was an opinion piece, instead of actual news. As for the text itself, any reasonable reader would have understood that the piece was not presented as hard news, but instead as an opinion, he added.
THE RULING ITSELF
Dear Mr Gouws,
Your complaint against The Daily Vox, headlined Hey Ronaldo, a selfie is a selfie, not an invitation (19 July 2017) refers.
After I have read all the documentation, I need to state that I fully agree with the Deputy Public Advocate.
For your convenience, I attach her reply:
| I have read the complaint in conjunction with your publicly posted Facebook status which was the source of the Daily Vox piece.
The piece in question was marked as a comment and as such falls under section 7 of the Press Code which pertains to protected comment:
I am satisfied that the piece meets all the requirements of protected comment and as you have expressed an opinion on the matter, so too has the writer. I am happy to hear from you on whether you feel that the comment has gone beyond the ambit of protected comment as expressed above and should therefore be subjected to other sections of the code which you will find here: http://www.presscouncil.org.za/ContentPage?code=PRESSCODE” |
In your response to her invitation to clarify why you think the article did not meet the requirements set by the Code, you have failed to provide satisfactory answers.
Firstly, you ask where it is clearly stated that the text was an opinion piece instead of actual news. Well, immediately underneath the headline the word “comment” appears.
I also submit that, given the nature of the text itself, any reasonable reader would have understood that the text was not presented as hard news, but instead as opinion
You have all the right in the world to disagree with the author, and to state such on whatever forum you choose – but so does she (and The Daily Vox). The fact that you disagree with her arguments does not in itself constitute a breach of the Code.
Your remark about the headline: Yes, you made no such reference, but the headline (as was the text) was interpretation – and rightly so, in an opinion piece.
I therefore find no evidence of malice on the publication’s part.
I am therefore dismissing your complaint.
The Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, you 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