Vivian Reddy vs Mail & Guardian
SUMMARY
The headlines to the story in dispute read, Zuma pals clinch nuke deal – What appears to be the first contract for SA’s mooted nuclear build has been quietly inked; and Zuma pals score first nuke deal – When debate still rages about the nuclear build programme, a tender has already been awarded to a close family friend of the president (published between 16 and 22 September 2016).
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The introductory sentence of the story stated, “Shantan Reddy, the son of Zuma’s friend Vivian Reddy, has clinched what appears to be a landmark deal for the country’s controversial multibillion-rand nuclear programme.” The journalist added that, although there was no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of Reddy or his company, the contract set off alarm bells because the government continued to deny that it had entered into any nuclear deal.
The gist of Reddy’s complaint was that the reportage falsely and without any substantiation suggested impropriety on his part in that:
- his son’s company (trading as Empire Technology) had been awarded a contract because of his “connection” to Pres Jacob Zuma; and
- Reddy himself must somehow have been implicated in the alleged deal because of Empire Technology’s links with his Edison Power Group.
He added that the journalist failed to seek his comment prior to publication.
Retief asked, “Even if it was accurate that Reddy senior and Zuma were friends, and even if the reportage did not say that Reddy was involved in the contract or had benefitted from it, did the context in which the story was clothed suggest that the latter was in some way involved, and that this involvement might have pointed to some wrongdoing on his part?” The answer to this question was “yes”.
The Ombud upheld the complaint. He directed the M&G to apologise to Reddy senior for unfairly and without the necessary substantiation involving him in its story via its headlines and the publication of his picture, thereby raising concerns about corruption without any proper grounds – and unfairly causing unnecessary harm to his reputation.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Adam Lahree of Afzal Lahree Attorneys, on behalf of Mr Vivian Reddy, and those of Beauregard Tromp, deputy editor of the Mail & Guardian newspaper (M&G).
Reddy is complaining about a story and a picture of him on pages 1 and 2 of the Mail & Guardian of 16 to 22 September 2016, headlined Zuma pals clinch nuke deal – What appears to be the first contract for SA’s mooted nuclear build has been quietly inked. The front-page headline read, Zuma pals score first nuke deal – When debate still rages about the nuclear build programme, a tender has already been awarded to a close family friend of the president.
Complaint
The gist of Reddy’s complaint is that the reportage (parts of the story, the headline as well as the publication of his photograph) falsely and without any substantiation suggested impropriety on his part in that:
· his son’s company (trading as Empire Technology) had been awarded a contract because of his “connection” to Pres Jacob Zuma; and
· Reddy himself must somehow have been implicated in the alleged deal because of Empire Technology’s links with his Edison Power Group.
He adds that the journalist failed to seek his comment prior to publication.
The text
The introductory sentence of the story, written by Jessica Bezuidenhout, stated, “Shantan Reddy, the son of Zuma’s friend Vivian Reddy, has clinched what appears to be a landmark deal for the country’s controversial multibillion-rand nuclear programme.”
She added that, although there was no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of (Shantan) Reddy or his company, the contract set off alarm bells because the government continued to deny that it had entered into any nuclear deal.
A picture of Reddy senior accompanied the story.
The complaint in more detail
Impropriety
Reddy complains that the publication of his picture was misleading, as the article itself did not allege that either he or any of his companies was awarded a nuclear deal (the allegation was that the deal was awarded to his son).
He also complains that the story described him as Zuma’s “friend” – implying that his son had concluded the deal because of his connection with Zuma.
Reddy submits that this “connection” was reinforced by the following statement in the story:
“[Empire Technology’s] details link back to Vivian Reddy’s Edison Power Group in Umhlanga, KwaZulu-Natal. Shantan Reddy is deputy chairperson of Edison Power, which became embroiled in controversy after it landed a R1.2-billion deal to roll out smart electricity meters for the City of Johannesburg a few years ago.”
He also argues that the article provided no evidence to support the implication (in the above quote) that there was a connection between the “deal” being awarded to Empire Technology and Reddy’s alleged friendship with Zuma. In fact, he notes, the story stated that “[there] is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of Reddy and his company.”
Reddy complains that the above, together with the fact that the Mail&Guardian did not contact him for comment, amounted to unfair, improper and untruthful reportage, suggesting impropriety on his part.
He also refers to tweets posted by the public as a result of the reportage.
The M&G responds
As background, Tromp says the contract awarded to Empire Technology was the first awarded by the Department of Energy since cabinet approval paved the way for the initial phase of the nuclear build programme in December 2015. He argues that the nuclear programme is of clear and enormous public interest.
He submits that the newspaper’s investigation showed that the company in question was associated with Reddy’s son (Mr Shantan Reddy). Also, the former was a well-known ANC benefactor of long standing, and his close relationship with Zuma, to which he had readily admitted, had been extensively documented.
Impropriety
Tromp replies that the only “evidence” Reddy presents for the so-called “implication” of wrongdoing on his part is a list of undisputed facts, and calls the complaint regarding this issue “unreasonable”.
He adds that the primary concern regarding the contract was its very existence at a time when there was no nuclear build to manage.
“The matter of who the contract was awarded to is of overriding interest. In our editorial judgment the most striking feature of Mr Shantan Reddy is his family relationship with a flamboyant, public, and occasionally controversial figure: Mr Vivian Reddy. Thus we reported on that relationship. If the complainant believes that merely stating the family and business relationship between father and son implies improper conduct, we disagree – the reasonable reader would not jump to that conclusion,” the deputy editor argues.
Tromp says the photograph accurately illustrated an important thrust of the article, which was the relationship between Reddy and Zuma.
He also refers to the blurb on the front page (which read, “While debate still rages about the nuclear build programme, a tender has already been awarded to a close family friend of the president”) which he says was accurate, and made the photograph germane.
Noting that Reddy has not challenged the facts stated in the article, Tromp adds that further copy on the front page (stating, “Zuma benefactor Vivian Reddy’s son is the director of the company awarded a tender for the nuclear build programme management system”) was also accurate, made the picture germane, and implied no wrongdoing on Zuma’s part.
Regarding the headline, Tromp replies that it fairly reflected the content of the article, noting that none of the facts in the story were in dispute. “If the complainant believes that publishing an illustrative photograph and an accurate headline suggests improper conduct, we disagree – the reasonable reader would not jump to that conclusion,” he states.
He explains that Reddy was described only in terms of undisputed facts regarding his relationship with his son and with Zuma, and his company’s past. Moreover, the story did not contain any allegations against him, “[and] any impropriety on his part is clearly and directly eliminated early in the article”.
Empire Technology linked with Edison Power
Regarding Reddy’s complaint that the story falsely suggested that, because of Empire Technology’s links to his Edison Power Group, he must somehow have been implicated in the alleged deal, Tromp replies that reporting on a registered company involved in a major government contract, the details of which have been formally published, cannot be construed as unfair; neither does it imply anything other than a close business relationship between father and son (which was true).
“If the complainant believes that reporting that two companies have exactly the same contact details suggests improper conduct, we can only disagree. The reasonable reader would not jump to the conclusion that there is any impropriety involving Vivian Reddy,” he submits.
No comment sought
Tromp says despite the fact that the M&G believed (and continues to do so) that it was not obliged to ask Reddy for comment as he was not the subject of critical reportage, the journalist in fact did seek comment from him.
Social media
Tromp says that tweets by the public on social media are not regulated by this office.
In conclusion
Tromp argues that a retraction would amount to the withdrawal of accurate information that was in the public interest, and that doing so would effectively censor the publication from acting in the public interest.
Analysis
Impropriety
The central questions are whether the reportage (read: the use of Reddy’s picture, the headline, and parts of the story) suggested that:
· Shantan Reddy’s company had been awarded a contract because of his father’s “connection” to Pres Jacob Zuma; and
· Reddy senior himself was implicated in the nuclear deal.
Tromp’s reply to the complaint, arguing that any such interpretation of the reportage was unreasonable, rests on the following pillars:
· The reportage was not critical of Reddy senior, as the story merely contained undisputed facts; and
· The story itself stated that there was no suggestion of wrongdoing on Reddy’s part (read: Reddy junior – but if there was nothing untoward regarding him, the same would apply to his father).
This sounds above board, but there is a problem: If the story really was uncritical of Reddy senior, and if Bezuidenhout’s intention was to keep it that way, how then should one understand her SMS message to him? The relevant part read, “[I] would also like your comment about your deals coming under scrutiny because of your family’s friendship with Pres Jacob Zuma.” (Emphasis added.)
These are my considerations:
· The reporter stated as fact that Reddy’s deals came “under scrutiny”. This implies, does it not, that Reddy was indeed the subject of critical reportage; and
· According to the journalist, the “scrutiny” came about “because of” Reddy’s “family’s friendship with Pres Jacob Zuma”.
The reporter’s intention is clear – she wanted to know whether Reddy had anything to do with the awarding of the deal to his son, or maybe even whether he himself was involved in the matter. I have no other reasonable way of interpreting Bezuidenhout’s request to Reddy.
So then, the next question becomes the crucial one: Did the reportage mirror the journalist’s intention? In other words: Would a reasonable reader have picked up the sub-text (which, I believe, was there)?
But before I come to a conclusion, let me first state that one may be accurate, as the reportage was on many (maybe even all of the) issues, but without the proper context, or indeed within the wrong context, accurate statements can become misleading and false.
The SA Code of Ethics and Conduct is concerned not only with accuracy – it is also about fairness.
In my finding on Zuma’s complaint against the M&G on the same issue, I have elaborated on this matter. Let me repeat the gist of it, for the reader’s convenience:
“In Ps. 14:1 the Bible says, ‘There is no God’. It is a fact that such a statement is made in the Bible, and it is accurate to report it as such. However, the words preceding the statement about God provide the context. The full sentence reads, ‘The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’.”
Applying this principle to the case at hand, the question now reads: Even if it was accurate that Reddy senior and Zuma were friends, and even if the reportage did not say that Reddy was involved in the contract or had benefitted from it, did the context in which the story was clothed suggest that the latter was in some way involved, and that this involvement might have pointed to some wrongdoing on his part?
All of these considerations bring me back to a critical re-reading of the reportage.
The headline says that the nuclear deal has been clinched by “Zuma pals”. Note the use of the plural. That, as well as the publication of a rather large picture of Reddy senior with this headline, can only suggest that:
· he was involved in the deal (allegedly as one of these “pals” who have “clinched” the deal; and
· some form of nepotism has occurred in this process.
Please note that the M&G would have been more than justified to mention Reddy if there was any possibility that he might have been involved in the story – but then the newspaper should admit it, and put some sort of evidence on the table to substantiate its reporting. By its own admission, this has not happened.
The only reasonable conclusion that I can come to is that the M&G was not justified in publishing its headlines and the picture, and that the result must unfairly have caused Reddy senior unnecessary reputational damage.
If, at a later stage, the M&G finds such “reasonable ground”, it is more than welcome to publish such information.
No comment sought
I have a copy of a message sent by the journalist to Reddy prior to publication, asking for his comment.
Tweeting
Tromp is correct – only text published by institutions subscribing to the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct is regulated by this office.
Finding
Headlines, picture
The M&G has unfairly and without the necessary substantiation involved Reddy senior in its story via its headline and the publication of his picture, thereby raising concerns about corruption without any proper grounds – and unfairly causing unnecessary harm to his reputation in this process.
This was in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news … fairly”;
· 1.2: “News shall be presented in context…”; and
· 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving … reputation.”
No comment sought
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Tweeting
This part 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), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are all Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
The M&G is directed to apologise to Reddy senior for unfairly and without the necessary substantiation involving him in its story via its headlines and the publication of his picture, thereby raising concerns about corruption without any proper grounds – and unfairly causing unnecessary harm to his reputation in this process.
The text should:
· be announced on its front page, including the words “apology” or “apologises” and “Reddy”;
· be published on page 2 as well as on its website;
- start with the apology;
- refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
- end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”; and
- be approved by me.
The headline on page 2 should also contain the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Reddy”.
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
