Uzalo vs. Sunday Times
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Hlaudi’s R167m Zuma TV deal – SABC strongman goes over heads of senior staff to push through cushy contract in just one week (published on 10 July 2016).
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The story said that SABC’s COO Hlaudi Motsoeneng had overruled his staff to push through a R167-million contract with a production company co-owned by President Jacob Zuma’s daughter, Gugu Zuma-Ncube. The company was Uzalo, a drama series on SABC 1 produced by Stained Glass Pictures.
Uzalo inter alia complained that the story falsely / misleadingly stated that:
- it had not presented a proper business plan;
- Pepsi Pokane, a television and film producer, and Zuma-Ncube had complained to Motsoeneng about a panel’s decision not to renew Uzalo’s contract;
- Uzalo had threatened to relocate filming from KwaZulu-Natal to Johannesburg, unless the municipality gave it R11.5-million; and
- the headline falsely suggested that Zuma-Ncube and Uzalo enjoyed an excessive budget.
Uzalo summarised the complaint as follows: “Ultimately the article in its entirety leaves the reader with a perception that Zuma-Ncube (and her company) is a recipient of her father’s…patronage.”
Sunday Times was directed to apologise to Zuma-Ncube, Pokane and Uzalo for:
- creating the inaccurate and unfair impression that the latter’s budget was unrealistically high; and
- causing them unnecessary harm in this process.
Large parts of the complaint were dismissed, including the complaint about the headline and that readers were left with the perception that Zuma-Ncube (and her company) had unduly benefitted because of her relationship with her father.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Sbu Mpungose, on behalf of Uzalo, a drama series on SABC 1 produced by Stained Glass Pictures, and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.
Uzalo is complaining about a story on the front page of Sunday Times of 10 July 2016, headlined Hlaudi’s R167m Zuma TV deal – SABC strongman goes over heads of senior staff to push through cushy contract in just one week.
Complaint
In general, Uzalo complains that the story was biased, unfair and inaccurate, as it alluded to impropriety involving Uzalo and its representatives (who are mainly the producers of the show, Gugu Zuma-Ncube and Pepsi Pokane) and also involved the SABC – but failed to substantiate this impression.
In particular, Mpungose says the story falsely / misleadingly stated that:
· Uzalo had not presented a proper business plan;
· Pokane and Zuma-Ncube had complained to the SABC’s COO, Hlaudi Motsoeneng, about a panel’s decision not to renew Uzalo’s contract;
· the Uzalo deal had involved four seasons of the drama a year, with each season comprising of thirteen episodes; and
· Uzalo had threatened last year to relocate filming from KwaZulu-Natal to Johannesburg unless the municipality gave it R11.5-million, adding that Sunday Times needed to provide proof of this assertion.
He adds that the:
· story gave financial details of Uzalo’s TV deal – but that the reportage was out of context in order to support a narrative of impropriety;
· journalist diminished Pokane’s response to the allegations of impropriety; and
· headline falsely suggested that Zuma-Ncube and Uzalo enjoyed an excessive budget.
Mpungose summarises the complaint as follows: “Ultimately the article in its entirety leaves the reader with a perception that Zuma-Ncube (and her company) is a recipient of her father’s…patronage.” (Her father is Pres Jacob Zuma.) He complains that the reportage has prejudiced them, positioning them as crooked and corrupt business people – and that this was widely published on various online platforms.
The text
The first two sentences of the story, written by Mzilikazi wa Afrika, aptly summarise the story. He wrote, “SABC boss Hlaudi Motsoeneng overruled his staff to push through a R167-million contract with a production company co-owned by President Jacob Zuma’s daughter Gugu Zuma-Ncube. The chief operating officer reversed a recommendation by a review panel of six members, who had decided not to renew the popular Uzalo drama series for a second season.”
The arguments
Uzalo
Background
As background, Mpungose says the story was positioned as an exposé of corrupt activities involving the SABC and Uzalo – Zuma-Ncube and Pokane were alleged to have interfered with the recommissioning process at the SABC in order to secure further and on-going business from the national broadcaster.
Inaccuracies
In addition to his complaint, as outlined above, Mpungose says the Uzalo deal “involves four seasons of the drama a year, with each season comprising 13 episodes”. This further supports the suggestion that Uzalo is being grossly overpaid, he claims, as it delivers fewer episodes when compared to other dramas.
He also stresses that Uzalo has not enjoyed remuneration / fees which are incompatible with industry standards – the story misled the public into believing that Uzalo is being paid more.
Out of context
Mpungose says the story reported financial details of Uzalo’s TV deal out of context in order to support a narrative of impropriety. An industry insider reportedly compared Uzalo’s budget with that of Generations, which has an annual budget of R80-million. Mpungose argues that, assuming that Uzalo’s budget was indeed R167-million for three years, it would boil down to an annual budget of approximately R55-million.
“However, in the article ‘facts’ are presented in a manner that says that Uzalo is in fact paid more than Generations whose frequency is five times a week. Had Sunday Times presented the facts in context and done basic calculations (according to their own example) there would have been no ‘story’.”
Response diminished
Mpungose says Wa Afrika has diminished Pokane’s response to the allegations of impropriety and has reduced it to a few lines at the bottom of the article, which served to undermine his response.
Headline
Uzalo complains the headline falsely suggested that Zuma-Ncube and Uzalo had enjoyed an excessive budget (with reference to the use of the words “cushy contract” in the sub-headline) – he says this is false, as the budget afforded to Uzalo is in line with industry standards.
In conclusion
Mpungose summarises the complaint as follows: “Ultimately the article in its entirety leaves the reader with a perception that Zuma-Ncube (and her company) is a recipient of her father’s…patronage.” He complains that the reportage has prejudiced them, positioning them as crooked and corrupt business people – and that this was widely published on various online platforms.
Sunday Times
Smuts denies that the main headline was in breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct – she says it merely reflected the facts laid out by the story, and there was nothing controversial about it.
She adds that the sub-headline amplified the main one and was also substantiated by the story. “In particular, the ‘cushy contract’ is supported by the fact that a six-person panel decided against renewing Uzalo because, among other reasons, the budget was ‘about 10 times that of a 13-part series’.”
She also notes that the story referred to an:
· internal e-mail which stated that “one would imagine that this kind of budget would fact the same fate as other business plans with smaller budgets sitting with GM TV finance office i.e. not getting signed”;
· SABC staffer who said: “Everything was put on hold to channel their budget to Uzalo. The SABC could produce about 20 programmes with R167-million”; and
· industry insider saying, “The average cost of a drama at SABC is R5-million. The average cost of a soap like Generations is about R80-million a year – and it is shown five nights a week and Uzalo is only shown three times a week”.
Smuts concludes that the decision of the panel, along with these statements, have provided ample justification for the description of the deal as a “cushy contract”.
The newspaper says the allegation about Uzalo not having had a business plan was properly attributed to the panel. “It is a fact that the panel reached this conclusion. We made it clear that this was a decision of the panel and not an independently verified fact.”
Likewise, Sunday Times submits that the story properly quoted a member of the panel who said that Zuma-Ncube and Pokane went to Motsoeneng to complain about the panel’s decision; the article also reflected Pokane’s denial of this statement.
Smuts accepts that the statement about the deal involving four seasons of the drama annually, with each season comprising thirteen episodes, was inaccurate. “In fact, a typical drama series comprises 13 episodes. We should not have referred to the deal in this statement, but rather to a typical series. We are willing to correct this.”
However, she argues that the story pointed out that the contract was for three years, and that the programme airs three times a week on SABC1; the article also quoted an industry insider stating that Uzalo ran three times a week. “We submit that this information mitigates against the error in the sentence referring to 13 episodes.”
The legal editor says the complaint with regard to financial details is unclear. “We submit that the article clearly attributes statements to the people who made them.”
She also says that the paragraph referring to Uzalo threatening to relocate filming from KZN to Johannesburg unless the municipality gave it R11.5-million was previously reported. Also, “Our reporter spoke to KZN DA leader Zwakele Mncwango to confirm the iol story. [He] confirmed that Stained Glass did threaten to move to Johannesburg if eThekwini Municipality didn’t fund them with R11.5-million. He said the DA opposed any financial [assistance] to Stained Glass, and also opposed the R5-million that the municipality eventually offered them.”
Smuts denies that Pokane’s response was diminished. “We reflected the responses that pertained to the story we published. Although he did respond to several other questions, these covered matters that were not traversed in the published story.”
Regarding the complaint that the story has positioned Uzalo as crooked and corrupt, and portrayed Zuma-Ncube as a recipient of her father’s patronage, “[we] submit that we substantiated the facts we reported on”.
Analysis
I shall deal with the particulars first, before considering Uzalo’s conclusion, namely that it was positioned as crooked and corrupt, and that the story portrayed Zuma-Ncube as a recipient of her father’s patronage.
Inaccuracies
Proper business plan: The story indeed did not state as fact that Uzalo failed to present a proper business plan, as Smuts successfully argues – it merely reported that the panel would not renew the drama series because it was concerned that there was no proper business plan.
I have no reason to disbelieve the source (a member of the panel) who conveyed this information to the newspaper. Surely, Sunday Times cannot be held accountable for reporting the panel’s concerns.
Complained to Motsoeneng: I am in no position to decide whether it is true or not that Zuma-Ncube and Pokane complained to Motsoeneng about the panel’s decision – I do not have to, either, as the story did not state this as fact. The sentence in dispute read, “One of the panel members, who asked not to be named, said, ‘Someone told Gugu we were not going to recommission Uzalo for the second season and apparently she and Pepsi went to Hlaudi to complain about our decision’.”
Again, the panel member was free to voice his or her opinion on this matter, and likewise Sunday Times was justified to report this – not as fact, but as someone’s opinion (which is exactly what it did). Also, the word “apparently” was used in the very sentence, and Pokane’s denial was reported.
Four seasons, 13 episodes: The story suggested that Uzalo was screened 52 times a year (4 seasons per year multiplied by 13 makes 52), which boils down to one episode per week – while it was in fact shown three times a week.
While taking Smuts’s arguments for mitigation seriously, I need to do the same with those of Uzalo – which is that this mistake has in fact added to the perception that the show was overpaid (as it was supposedly delivering fewer episodes when compared to other dramas).
Relocating to Johannesburg: The fact that this issue was reported earlier is neither here nor there – “reporting” something does not per definition render it factual. However, I am satisfied with the newspaper’s explanation regarding this matter. It would have been better, though, if the story referred to the source. But, given the context, I do not believe that this omission was material and could be construed as a breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Out of context
The story said the SABC had paid R50.5-million for the first season of Uzalo. The panel then met to discuss a proposal by Stained Glass Productions “to extend the contract for a further three years, at a cost of R167-million.”
The article, at least not at that stage, did not explicitly state that the R167-million was for a period of three years, or whether it was per year. I would submit that the average reader may have interpreted this amount as the total cost for three years, though – when read in isolation, that is.
However, Wa Afrika then quoted an industry insider who reportedly compared the cost of a soapie like Generations, which cost about R80-million a year and is screended five times per week, with Uzalo’s R167-million.
On the face of it, this comparison “showed” that Uzalo was much more expensive than Generations (R167-million is much more than R80-million, isn’t it?) – which was the reason for the reporter including the comparison in the first place (given the context of the story).
However, this is misleading as the R167-million was the cost for a total of three years (unlike the R80-million of Generations, which was the amount per year it cost the SABC), bringing its annual cost down to R55.66-million – which made it only slightly more expensive per episode than Generations.
The problem is that this perspective was not communicated to the public; instead, the impression of an overly-expensive budget for Uzalo was created.
I therefore agree with Uzalo that the financial details of its TV deal was reported out of context. This means that I believe this part of the story has caused the complainants unnecessary harm – against the warning of the Preamble to the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
I cannot say though, like Uzalo, that this was done in order to support a narrative of impropriety, as I have no basis for such a decision – I have no grounds to believe that Wa Afrika has deliberately misconstrued his information.
While I am not willing to go that far, I need to say that the effect of his reporting was harmful, nevertheless.
Response diminished
I agree with Smuts’s response to this particular issue, and I do not believe any further arguments are needed.
Headline
The Code of Ethics and Conduct requires a publication to reasonably reflect an article in a headline. This is what Sunday Times has done. However, if a story is incorrect, unbalanced and / or unfair and the headline reasonably reflects its content, the headline would also be incorrect, unbalanced and / or unfair.
It is my task to establish if the latter has transpired in this case.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with the main headline.
The sub-headline read, SABC strongman goes over heads of senior staff to push through cushy contract in just one week.
The complaint regarding the sub-headline is about the words “cushy contract”.
Synonyms for the word “cushy” include “easy”, “comfortable”, “agreeable” and “pleasant”. I therefore interpret the word “cushy” as referring to the reportage that Motsoeneng overturned the panel’s decision “in just one week” (and not to the budget) – making the use of the word justifiable. The rest of the text in the sub-heading attests to this interpretation.
It would have been a different kettle of fish if “cushy” referred to the budget (as Uzalo claims it did) – but I do not believe that the ordinary reader would have understood it in that way.
In conclusion
The gist of the complaint remains – did the article:
· leave the reader with a perception that Zuma-Ncube (and her company) unduly benefitted as a result of her relationship with her father; and
· prejudice them, positioning them as crooked and corrupt business people?
I take the following considerations into account:
· Nowhere did the story specifically state the above-mentioned issues;
· Even if the idea was planted in the public’s mind, it still remained a fact that Zuma-Ncube’s father was the president of this country – of course, Sunday Times was justified in mentioning that fact because it was in the public interest to know that; and
· If the above left the reader with the impression that Zuma-Ncube has unduly benefitted because of her father, that was not the newspaper’s fault – in this case, it was merely doing its job as a messenger.
While I am dismissing this part of the complaint, I keep in mind the unnecessary harm that the reportage could have done to the complainants and their company regarding the impression of an inflated budget.
Finding
Inaccuracies
Proper business plan: This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Complained to Motsoeneng: This part of the complaint is dismissed
Four seasons, 13 episodes: The reporting on this issue was both inaccurate and unfair, as it was likely to give an idea of an inflated budget. This is 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”; and
· 1.2: “News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization.”
Relocating to Johannesburg: This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Out of context
The rather clumsy comparison with Generations was out of context and might easily have given rise to a skewed interpretation of the facts. This was in breach of Section 1.2 of the Code.
I am not in a position to be sure that Wa Afrika did this on purpose. This will be reflected in the sanction below – or rather, in the lack of it.
Response diminished
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Headline
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
In conclusion
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 Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
Sunday Times is directed to apologise to Zuma-Ncube, Pokane and Uzalo for:
· creating the inaccurate and unfair impression that the latter’s budget was unrealistically high – with reference to the unfortunate comparison with Generations as well as to the erroneous reference to thirteen episodes in four seasons; and
· causing them unnecessary harm in this process.
The text should:
· be published on the front page;
- start with the apology;
- 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.
If the offending article appeared on the newspaper’s website, the apology should appear there as well.
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