Balmoral College, Josias Wium vs The Citizen
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Andrew Boerner of Jurgens Bekker Attorneys, on behalf of Balmoral College and its principal, Mr Josias Wium, together with those of Charles Cilliers, digital editor of The Citizen newspaper.
Balmoral College (BC) and Wium are complaining about a story in The Citizen of 19 August 2016, headlined Private school teachers allege abuse, nonpayment. The article was also published online.
BC complains on its own behalf; the school and Wium also complain jointly.
Complaint
Balmoral College: BC complains that three statements (details below) were false and unverified, that they were not reasonably true, and that events of 2014 were portrayed as if they were recent.
Balmoral College and the principal: BC and Wium complain that the newspaper did not seek comment from either of them regarding several allegations (details below) – which led to a one-sided, unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate report.
The text
The article made some general statements about private schools, their unhappy teachers, and alleged mistreatment. The reporter cited two examples to this effect – one of which was BC in Witfield, Boksburg.
The following sentence summarised the rest of the story: “The principal … allegedly comes down hard on teachers who are late, sick, pregnant or attend funerals, as they allegedly face immediate dismissal.” The journalist mentioned several (anonymous) sources to this effect regarding three ex-teachers at that school (all of whom were Zimbabweans).
The article then reported quite extensively BC’s comments on the allegations regarding those teachers.
The complaint in more detail
Balmoral College
BC complains that the following statements were false and unverified:
· “A female teacher, Nobuhle Sebele, died in 2014 after several attempts to be granted sick leave so she could seek medical attention, but allegedly to no avail”;
· “Another teacher, Nyarai Palmer, despite bringing her hospital documents after being admitted for more than a month claims she was also unlawfully fired”; and
· “Another educator, Violet Dube, was allegedly dismissed after the principal realized she was pregnant”.
Boerner argues that BC provided the reporter with documents proving that these allegations were false, but still the newspaper chose to publish those baseless allegations.
He says the allegations concerning those teachers could not have emanated from them, neither did they verify them, as Sebele was deceased and Palmer stated in an e-mail that she had informed the reporter that she did not want anything to do with the story as she had left the school on good terms. (He does not say anything about Dube.)
The attorney adds that incidents which form the basis of the allegations against BC emanated from 2014 – yet the article created the impression that the events occurred recently, which in turn created a distorted picture that the school was involved in a labour-related crisis.
Boerner says that, from comments provided by BC and supporting documents which were made available to the reporter, it should have been clear to her that in fact there was no story and “[it] would be irresponsible to publish the allegations without proof disputing [BC’s] version or at the very least verification from Sebele, Palmer or Dube.”
He argues that even the journalist reported that the newspaper had contacted the school “[and] it denied all the allegations. It sent through records of proof that all due procedures had been followed.”
The attorney concludes that the allegations of misconduct, unlawful labour practices and intimidation are “[most] serious and definitely necessitate the [newspaper] exercising due care and consideration when deciding on whether or not to publish the allegations. There existed reasons to doubt the accuracy of the allegations against [BC], particularly in light of the fact that the [school] provided proof which categorically revealed that the allegations were baseless.”
Balmoral College and the principal
Boerner argues that because the allegations amounted to critical reportage, and because there was evidence to doubt the accuracy of those allegations, the newspaper should have sought the views of the complainants in advance of publication.
He notes that the newspaper raised the following allegations with BC:
· Sebele died in 2014 apparently after not being granted sick leave;
· Palmer was allegedly dismissed when she took sick leave despite proof from a hospital that she had needed medical assistance;
· Dube allegedly lost her job when she fell pregnant; and
· Management allegedly embarrasses teachers in front of pupils.
The attorney argues it is evident that the journalist only asked comment in respect of the allegation that management embarrasses the teachers in front of pupils. “As such [BC and Wium] were not given an opportunity to provide comment on these allegations”.
In addition, BC and Wium complain that the newspaper did not seek comment from either of them regarding the following allegations in the story:
· “Don’t dare get sick”;
· “The principal, however, allegedly comes down hard on teachers who are late, sick, pregnant or attend funerals, as they allegedly face immediate dismissal”;
· “ ‘At times, teachers are insulted in front of pupils or other staff members, leading to the disrespect of children and embarrassment to teachers and parents. Some parents can testify to this,’ alleged one of the female teachers”;
· “ ‘You get pregnant, know your job is finished. Instead of him giving you maternity leave, either with or without pay, and being able to come back to your job – alas, he replaces you,’ alleged another teacher”;
· “ ‘One wonders why so many teachers have left – good ones too. We cannot take this any more and what bothers us more is even our HODs are allies with the principal in getting other educators fired at school,’ said a disgruntled teacher”;
· “Most of the teachers who were dismissed declined to comment, saying their (sic) feared reprisals, even months after having left the school”; and
· “One ex-Balmoral educator said: ‘I’m the only one in this country with no relatives, so if ever I say much, no one will bail me out. And anyways, silence has never been misquoted.’ She revealed, though that ‘the trauma I got from that school was unbearable, but I will just bury it in my heart’ ”.
Boerner concludes that the lack of comment resulted in a one-sided, unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate report.
The Citizen’s response
Cilliers replies that the newspaper gave the complainants adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations; also, that the story adequately reflected their arguments, denials and objections. He adds, “I personally didn’t feel that the school was painted in an unreasonably bad light as many of the responses they gave seemed fair enough and were enough to allow people to make up their own minds about the school.”
Regarding Palmer’s e-mail, the digital editor replies that this matter is sensitive and that he would prefer not to discuss its particulars “[as] it will be seen by the school”.
He provides information about an e-mail sent by a person who is probably also a staff member (this message was sent after the story in dispute had been published), and compares the matter to the “hair scandal” at Pretoria High School for Girls (both of which I shall ignore, for reasons which should be obvious).
Cilliers argues it is understandable that the teachers concerned want to stay anonymous “[as] many of them still work for the school or are involved at other schools where they would not like to be known as ‘troublemakers’.”
He accepts that the newspaper could have been open to abuse, but also argues that by offering BC’s full reaction to the allegations, the scope of any potential abuse was “hopefully limited”.
Analysis
Balmoral College
The main complaint is that the allegations about Sebele, Palmer and Dube were false and unverified – and that The Citizen proceeded to publish them regardless of the fact that it was provided with documents refuting those statements; The Citizen’s reply boils down to the argument that the harm that the publication of the allegations could have caused was “hopefully limited” by the publication of BC’s denials and explanations.
The question is, was The Citizen justified in publishing those allegations?
| Please note: The media are not at liberty to publish an allegation just because someone has made it. The “balancing out” of an allegation by the publication of a denial or by the use of the word “allegedly” does not by default guarantee that a newspaper has adhered to the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
For example, if a newspaper published an allegation that a mayor had stolen R1-million, and it is completely untrue, then that official would suffer serious and unnecessary harm even if his or her denial was reflected. |
I therefore now need to consider the merits of the publication of the allegations regarding each of the three teachers separately. In order to do that, I’ll take into account the information BC gave the newspaper in response to her questions, and compare that to her reportage.
Sebele: The sentence in dispute reads that she died “[after] several attempts to be granted sick leave so she could seek medical attention, but allegedly to no avail”.
BC told the journalist that Sebele:
· was a mathematics teacher who also taught grade 12 learners, who were about to write their final examination;
· was off sick from work for more than a week, did not inform the school about it, and did not produce a medical certificate – at no point did the school grant her sick leave;
· was later dismissed for gross misconduct relating to evidence regarding the standard of her work;
· opened a case with the CCMA for unfair dismissal, but did not attend the hearing; and
· died afterwards.
BC provided me with documentation of a disciplinary hearing against Sebele on charges of gross misconduct and absconding (of which she was found guilty).
There is nothing in BC’s response that supports the newspaper’s reportage on this issue (in fact, quite the opposite), and the newspaper does not produce a shred of evidence or any sort of verification to substantiate the impression that the school did not want to grant her sick leave while she obviously desperately needed it.
Palmer: The story said that she – despite bringing her hospital documents (to the school) after being admitted for more than a month – claimed she was also unlawfully fired.
The school informed the journalist that Palmer:
· had fallen ill and was off sick for more than three months;
· had been paid her full salary in this time and that the school supported her as she had no relatives in this country;
· on her return to BC, said that her children had come to fetch her to return to Zimbabwe to recover; and
· then resigned, was paid in full, and received assistance with her documentation for her work permit (and she left on a good footing).
The Citizen has provided me with a confidential document. Due to the nature of that text, I am not going to come to a conclusion of any kind on this matter for reasons that are clear to me – but not necessarily to other parties. I am happy to leave it at that.
Dube: According to the article Dube, “[was] allegedly dismissed after the principal realized she was pregnant”.
BC said that she was found hitting a child in grade 2. She was reprimanded and given a written warning (as this was a criminal offence, to which she had confessed). Then she was caught hitting a child again, upon which she resigned – and only then stated that she was pregnant and in poor health.
I have no evidence, nor is there any kind of verification, that Dube was dismissed after the principal had realized she was pregnant – instead, the evidence points to her being dismissed for breaking the law by hitting / assaulting children. The school has provided credible documentation to prove its point on this issue.
Regarding the complaint that the newspaper took events from 2014 and portrayed them as “recent”, I do not believe that this has any legs to stand on. In one instance the year 2014 was mentioned, and if the examples were valid, that year certainly was “recent” enough.
In conclusion, then, I am confronted with two unverified statements for which there was no evidence whatsoever. (These are that Sebele died after several unsuccessful attempts to receive sick leave so she could seek medical attention, and that Dube was allegedly dismissed after the principal realized she was pregnant.)
These statements must have caused huge unnecessary harm to BC’s reputation, and there is no way the publication of the school’s denial or the use of the word “allegedly” could have “limited” this “abuse”, to use Cilliers’s words.
Balmoral College and the principal
This part of the complaint is twofold:
Firstly, Boerner says the reporter raised allegations with BC about Sebele, Palmer and Dube, but she only asked the school “[to comment] in respect of the allegation that the teachers were allegedly embarrassed by management in front of pupils”.
Looking at the list of questions to BC (as cited above), that is clearly not true – the reporter asked BC for comment on each of the teachers as well, which is why the school did respond in detail about each of those teachers (and this was duly reported).
Secondly, Boerner lists a number of particular statements which he says the journalist did not raise with BC (also cited above).
This time he has a point.
True, most of those statements overlapped with the issues raised in the particular questions about the three teachers – but suddenly, the teachers’ sickness or pregnancy became general statements. Consider the following: “Don’t dare get sick”; “The principal … allegedly comes down hard on teachers who are late, sick, pregnant or attend funerals, as they allegedly face immediate dismissal”; “You get pregnant, know your job is finished. Instead of him giving you maternity leave, either with or without pay, and being able to come back to your job – alas, he replaces you”.
The questions were directed at what allegedly happened to particular individuals, and BC was not to know that she would generalize those matters. The reporter certainly did not ask the school about any general allegation.
But there is a sting in this tail – the jourjnalist used particular issues for which she had little or no evidence or verification, and generalized those matters. It is bad enough to apply an example or two to most or to all – but it is quite a different matter if you do not even have proof or any kind of verification that your examples are valid in the first place.
Cilliers himself stated that many of the school’s responses seemed “fair enough” – so why, oh why, publish allegations that were by the newspaper’s own admission probably devoid of truth?
That was not fair to either BC or Wium, and the allegations of misconduct, unlawful labour practice and intimidation certainly must have caused huge unnecessary harm to their reputations.
Postscript
Cilliers has raised the issue of the use of anonymous sources. Section 11 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct should adequately answer his questions in this regard.
Finding
Balmoral College
The publication of the allegations about Sebele and Dube were unsubstantiated and unverified, and in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;
· 1.7: “Where there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a report or a source and it is practicable to verify the accuracy thereof, it shall be verified. Where it has not been practicable to verify the accuracy of a report, this shall be stated in such report”; and
· 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving … reputation…”
There is no finding regarding the complaint about Palmer.
The complaint that the newspaper took events from 2014 and portrayed them as “recent” is dismissed.
Balmoral College and the principal
The complaint that The Citizen asked the school for its comment only in respect of the allegation that management allegedly embarrassed the teachers in front of pupils is dismissed.
The fact that the journalist did not ask either BC or Wium about the general statements as outlined above (specifically those stating: “Don’t dare get sick”; “The principal … allegedly comes down hard on teachers who are late, sick, pregnant or attend funerals, as they allegedly face immediate dismissal”; “You get pregnant, know your job is finished. Instead of him giving you maternity leave, either with or without pay, and being able to come back to your job – alas, he replaces you”) was in breach of Section 1.8 of the Code, which states, “The media shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication …”
The statements, as cited above, boiling down to allegations of misconduct, unlawful labour practice and intimidation, were unsubstantiated, unverified and unfair towards BC and Wium – and were particularly (and unnecessarily so) harmful to their reputations – and were therefore also in breach of Sections 1.1, 1.7 and 3.3 of the Code.
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 Citizen is directed to apologise to Balmoral College and its principal for:
· unfairly stating, without substance and proper verification, that:
o Sebele died “after several attempts to be granted sick leave so she could seek medical attention, but allegedly to no avail”;
o Dube was “allegedly dismissed after the principal realized she was pregnant”;
· not asking them about the following general statements, which were also unsubstantiated, unverified and unfair:
o “Don’t dare get sick”;
o “The principal … allegedly comes down hard on teachers who are late, sick, pregnant or attend funerals, as they allegedly face immediate dismissal”;
o “You get pregnant, know your job is finished. Instead of him giving you maternity leave, either with or without pay, and being able to come back to your job – alas, he replaces you”; and
· causing huge unnecessary harm to their reputations in this process, by publishing allegations boiling down to misconduct, unlawful labour practice and intimidation.
The text should:
· be published online, as well as on the same page as that used for the offending report;
- 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 should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
HEADLINE: Apology to Balmoral College and its principal
INTRO: Complaint lodged with the Press Council
The Citizen online apologises to Balmoral College and its principal, Josias Wium, for:
? unfairly stating, without substance and proper verification, that:
o One of the school’s teachers, Nobuhle Sebele, died “after several attempts to be granted sick leave so she could seek medical attention, but allegedly to no avail”;
o Another teacher, Violet Dube, was “allegedly dismissed after the principal realised she was pregnant”;
· not asking the school about the following general statements, which the media ombudsman ruled were also unsubstantiated, unverified and unfair:
o “Don’t dare get sick”;
o “The principal … allegedly comes down hard on teachers who are late, sick, pregnant or attend funerals, as they allegedly face immediate dismissal”;
o “You get pregnant, know your job is finished. Instead of him giving you maternity leave, either with or without pay, and being able to come back to your job – alas, he replaces you.”
The school and its principal lodged a complaint about the article published on August 19 with the Press Council.
Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding.
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
