David Malherbe vs. EWN
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Dawid J Malherbe of Franschhoek and Khahliso Mochaba, Group Human Capital and Regulatory Affairs Executive of Primedia Broadcasting.
Mr Malherbe is complaining about Eyewitness News’ incorrect use – and their resulting response – of a photograph of himself with a story regarding Eskom’s ex-managing director who was found guilty of fraud and money laundering.
The photograph was initially used with a story “ESKOM’S EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR FOUND GUILTY OF FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDERING” http://ewn.co.za/2016/06/20/Eskoms-ex-managing-director-found-guilty-of-fraud-money published on June 20, 2016
Complaint
The photograph of Mr Malherbe was pulled from his LinkedIn Account. Mr Malherbe asked for the correction to be published with the same prominence as the original story. He notes that he has since received an apology from EWN editor-in-chief Katy Katopodis and an apology added to the news release.
Malherbe believes that, as the apology does not constitute “a correction with the same prominence as the first press release” it cannot be seen as good enough action to ensure full restitution of the damage caused to his character and name.
The text
The updated story, with a corrected photograph, contains this note at the start of the story:
Apology: An earlier version of the story carried an incorrect photograph showing a man who is not linked to the story or is Dawid Johannes Malherbe. This article has since been updated. We sincerely apologise for the error.
The arguments
Malherbe says that once the story was published on EWN, he was made aware that it appeared on a number of other websites including BuzzSouthAfrica. By using the photograph, he says, he was implicated as a criminal. He notes that there were 72 comments on the website on the evening that the story was published with some comments directed at him (as the man in the photograph) causing harm and embarrassment.
In its response, Primedia noted that when it became aware of the error on the evening of June 20th, it immediately corrected the news article and removed Malherbe’s photograph; it added an apology and correction note to the article and remove the incorrect article from its social media platforms.
The next day, steps were taken to publish the correct photograph of the person who was the subject of the story; the article was republished to EWN’s homesite in a prominent position and the website published an editor’s note with the apology placed more prominently in the corrected version.
On June 22, 2016, after receiving a formal complaint from Mr Malherbe, EWN sent a formal written apology acknowledging the error and stating the steps that had been taken to rectify the error.
“In this regard, we respectfully submit that we acted expediently and with the required urgency to rectify our error and advise our audience accordingly and that, in so doing, we further conducted ourselves in line with the Press Council’s Code of Ethics and Conduct for South African Print and Online Media in particular the clauses 1.10 and 1.11 which provide as follows:
Clause 1.10 – ‘The media shall make amends for presenting information or comment that is found to be inaccurate by communicating promptly and with approriate prominence so as to readily attract attention, a retraction, correction or explanation”, and
Clause 1.11 – ‘An online article that has been amended for factual accuracy should indicate as such. In the event of an apology or retraction, the original article may remain, but the publisher must indicate in a prominent manner that it has led to an apology or retraction – and should link to both the apology/retraction and the original article.”
Primedia also noted that BuzzSouthAfrica had also corrected their error.
Analysis
There is no dispute that the website used the wrong photograph and it points to the dangers of using photographs off social media without permission from the source. In this regard, the code was breached in terms of accuracy. There is also no dispute that Primedia acted swiftly within the code’s clauses 1.10 and 1.11.
However, the reach, speed and the uptake from other social media cites means that it cannot completely erase the impact this mistake has had on the complainant. The question would be whether, as stated in the preamble of the constitution, the website was able to minimise unnecessary harm. Despite acting quickly, the story was associated with the complainant.
Finding
EWN breached the Code by publishing the wrong photograph. The complaint is dismissed as Primedia acted quickly within the Code.It is suggested that EWN review the circumstances in which the error was committed and develop guidelines for reporters on how to prevent such errors in future.
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].
Paula Fray
Deputy Press Ombud
