Esther Hlambiso vs. Daily Sun

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Rituals denied – Makoti bars family from Alex house (published on 29 September 2016).

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

 

The article was about a deceased person who, according to a sangoma, had been demanding that rituals be done at the house where she died. The woman who lived in the house, Esther Hlambiso, reportedly would not allow people in to do the rituals.

Hlambiso complained that the journalist did not afford her a proper opportunity to state her side of the story, which led to:

• misrepresentations of her in that the newspaper:
  • got her name wrong (not Ester Sibanda, but Esther Hlambiso);
  • inaccurately stated that her grandmother had died in 2008 (while she passed away in 2004);
• omissions of the following crucial information:
  • The matter was under discussion at the Department of Housing to determine the legal occupant of the house in question (which was not owned either by her or by the Sibandas, but by council); and
  • The Sibanda family had intervened six times, including going to court – but they had failed to prove that the house belonged to them.

Retief noted inter alia that the story did not say that Hlambiso owned the house – instead, it stated twice that she “lived” in the dwelling, and on another occasion that she “stayed” there. These statements were factually true. He dismissed this part of the complaint, as well as the complaint about a right of reply (as Hlambiso did not complain about the statement in the story that she would not discuss her family problems in the media).

Daily Sun was directed to correct Hlabisa’s first name as well as the year of her grandmother’s death.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Esther Hlambiso and those of Johan Vos, deputy editor of the Daily Sun newspaper.

Hlambiso is complaining about a story on page 6 of Daily Sun of 29 September 2016, headlined Rituals denied – Makoti bars family from Alex house.

Complaint                                            

Hlambiso complains that the journalist did not afford her a proper opportunity to state her side of the story, which led to:

·         misrepresentations of her in that the newspaper:

o   got her name wrong (not Ester Sibanda, but Esther Hlambiso);

o   inaccurately stated that her grandmother had died in 2008 (while she passed away in 2004);

·         omissions of the following crucial information:

o   The matter was under discussion at the Department of Housing to determine the legal occupant of the house in question (which is not owned either by her or by the Sibandas, but by council); and

o   The Sibanda family has intervened six times, including going to court – but they failed to prove that the house belongs to them.

The text

The article, written by Everson Luhanga, was about a deceased person who, according to a sangoma, had been demanding that rituals be done at the house where she died. The woman who lived in the house, Hlambiso, reportedly would not allow people in to do the rituals.

Luhanga also reported Hlambiso as saying that the Sibanda family had come to the house and that they broke windows and doors, adding that she would not discuss her family problems in the media. He also quoted her as saying that she was married to another man and that they were staying in the house. Hlambiso reportedly told the reporter he could write whatever he liked, and disconnected the call.

The arguments

Hlambiso says that the reporter did call her, but she was at a bank and asked to be phoned back in thirty minutes. However, “[he] insisted that I say something otherwise he will write whatever he likes” – which he did, misrepresenting her in the process.

Vos replies the Sibanda family told the journalist that Hlambiso’s surname was Sibanda, as she was married to a man with that surname. However, if that is wrong, the newspaper is willing to publish a correction to this effect.

The deputy editor says Luhanga told him he spoke to Hlambiso prior to publication and was satisfied with the information she gave him. “She also told him that she will not discuss her family problems in the media,” he adds, offering her a right of reply in a follow-up article in which any factual inaccuracies will be corrected.

Hlambiso rejects this offer, asking for an acknowledgement that the journalist lied, a retraction of the story, and an apology.

Analysis

The interview: As Luhanga’s telephonic interview with Hlambiso was not recorded, I have no way of establishing whether the journalist’s conversation with her lived up to the standards set by the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct.

I note, however, that Hlambiso did not complain about the statement in the story that she would not discuss her family problems in the media. If that is true, and I do not have any reason to doubt it, then this part of the complaint cannot succeed.

Hlambiso’s names: I accept that the newspaper got Hlambiso’s name and surname wrong, and appreciate the fact that Vos is willing to correct this.

Year of death: I have no reason to doubt that Hlambiso’s grandmother died in 2008 and not in 2004.

Omissions: The story did not say that Hlambiso owned the house – instead, it stated twice that she “lived” in the dwelling, and on another occasion that she “stayed” there. These statements are factually true, and therefore the complaint regarding this matter has no legs to stand on.

General remark: I shall respect Hlambiso’s wish not to have a follow-up article.

Finding

The reportage on Hlambiso’s name and surname as well as the year of her grandmother’s death was in breach of the Section 1.1 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct which reads, “The media shall take care to report news…accurately…”

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), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).

The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are Tier 1 offences.

Sanction

Daily Sun is directed to correct the mistakes as pointed out under the “Finding”.

The text should:

·         be published on page 6;

• 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 should adequately reflect the content of the text.

Appeal

Our 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