Cornu Perold vs. Daily Sun

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Forced to eat own kak! (published on 25 April 2016).

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

The story was about a man who had been caught stealing and who had subsequently been forced to eat and drink his own excrement. The article referred to the man’s “kak” and “piss”, while the headline (and apparently also some posters) also used the “k”-word.

Cornu Perold complained about the “offensive” nature of the type of language that the story used.

The publication said it was a tabloid newspaper for the people and argued that the word “kak” had been part of the newspaper’s lingo since its inception.

Retief said the Press Code did not prohibit the use of offensive language. He suggested that, if Perold did feel offended, perhaps he was not the kind of reader that the newspaper catered for.

The Ombud noted that, oddly enough, in later correspondence Perold asked the newspaper to consider in future using the word “shit” instead of “kak”. “I do not see what difference this would make,” Retief opined.

The complaint was dismissed.

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Cornu Perold and those of Johan Vos, deputy editor of the Daily Sun newspaper.

Complaint

Perold is complaining about an article in Daily Sun of 25 April 2016, headlined Forced to eat own kak!

He complains about the “offensive” nature of the type of language that the story used (details below).

The text

The story, written by Thumelo Waga Dibakwane, was about a man who had been caught stealing and who had subsequently been forced to eat and drink his own excrement.

The article referred to the man’s “kak” and “piss”, while the headline (and apparently also some posters) also used the “k”-word.

Analysis

Vos says the Daily Sun is a tabloid newspaper for the people, and argues that the word “kak” has been part of the newspaper’s lingo since its inception. He provides me with copies of several stories to prove his point.

The deputy editor also refers me to a finding which I have made on February 5 this year (Khutso Ngoasheng vs. Daily Sun). The complaint, in this instance, was about the use of the word “punani”.

In that ruling I have stated: “While the Press Code is the same for the press as a whole, this office should also keep in mind the readership of a newspaper, as well as the nature of that publication. For example, the readership of a religious magazine would not expect pictures and words such as those in question as it certainly would not be appropriate. The same does not apply to a tabloid whose readers are much more likely to anticipate such material.”

Vos is correct, as the same arguments apply in this case.

There is nothing in the Code that prohibits the use of (mere) offensive language. I would suggest that, if Perold does feel offended (which is his right to do), perhaps he is not the kind of reader that the newspaper caters for.

Oddly enough, in later correspondence Perold asks Vos to consider in future using the word “shit” instead of “kak”. I do not see what difference this would make.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

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