Kaizer Chiefs vs. Soccer Laduma

SUMMARY

The article in dispute was published on 19 November 2015.

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

 

Kaizer Chiefs complained about an “interview” between its player Lucky Baloyi and the freelance journalist Patrick Baloyi – an interview which, according to the player, never took place. The club was adamant that an audio clip confirmed that the voice on that clip was not that of Baloyi.

The journalist provided Retief with an affidavit, stating that he did interview Baloyi. The reporter said the interview took place without the knowledge of Kaizer Chiefs – which was why he was not surprised that Baloyi and the club would deny it happening.

The Ombud then requested a copy of the interview and an audio tape with Baloyi’s voice on it (in a separate recording).

After having listened to all the tapes and studied all the documentation, Retief said he had his suspicions, but a suspicion was not enough ground for him to base a definite finding on. He was no voice expert.

As he could not be sure whether the voice in the interview was the same as the voice in other recordings, he decided that he was not in a position to decide fairly either for or against the complainant.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Vina Maphosa, corporate communications manager of Kaizer Chiefs soccer club, and those of Peter du Toit, editor of Soccer Laduma magazine, as well as on several taped conversations.

Complaint

Kaizer Chiefs is complaining about an article in Soccer Laduma of 19 November 2015.

The club complains about an “interview” between Kaizer Chiefs player Lucky Baloyi and the freelance journalist Patrick Baloyi – an interview which, according to the player, never took place. Maphosa says both the player and the club’s manager listened to an audio clip and they confirm that the voice on that clip was not that of the player.

Analysis

Du Toit denies this allegation and provided me with an affidavit from the writer, stating that he did interview Baloyi.

He says the interview took place without the knowledge of Kaizer Chiefs – which is why he is not surprised that the player and the club would deny it happening.

The editor adds, “We do not listen to … tapes [presented by freelance journalists] but store them for internal audit purposes… Baloyi stands by his tape. We accepted the tape in good faith… We have no reason to doubt the freelance journalist.”

Du Toit concludes that the interview published was genuine because:

·         the freelance journalist vouches for it, and has even deposed an affidavit to corroborate its authenticity;

·         all interviews with Kaizer Chiefs have been done by freelance journalists;

·         the club has condoned and thereby consented to this practice; and

·         the club’s denial is a result of its direct vested interests. m

Du Toit provided background on several matters – all of which are interesting, but not material to the complaint.

In his response to the editor’s argument, Maphosa also mentions several issues which are not relevant to the complaint.

Despite Baloyi’s affidavit, he insists that the voice on the tape is not that of the player. He also says that the editor conceded on air, after listening to an extract of the recording on Metro FM, that it was possibly false. “This raises serious suspicion of perjury on the part of Patrick Baloyi,” he says.

He also argues that the magazine’s management should have verified the authenticity of the tape before presenting it as authentic.

Du Toit replies that management only listens to tapes in the event of a query. “There was no reason to listen to the Lucky Baloyi interview before it was published as there was no reason to doubt the freelancer,” he submits.

The editor says he finds the complaint “ridiculous” as tapes are “never” about the person’s voice, but rather about whether the spoken and printed words are the same.

He adds, “We don’t know what the player’s voice sound like and we are not an authority on voice recognition. As I said on radio, I can’t even recognize my own voice on tape! We all say, ‘Do I really sound like that?!’ when we hear ourselves speaking.”

Analysis

On March 22, I wrote the following e-mail to both parties:

I have read all the documentation regarding Kaizer Chief’s complaint against Soccer Laduma, and I have the following request and question:

1. I am expected to rule on whether the voice on a tape is really that of Lucky Baloyi. I have no way of doing that, except maybe if the club can send me a copy of the interview AS WELL AS the player’s voice on another recording; and
2. The club says that Peter has conceded on air (after listening to an extract of the recording on Metro FM) that the tape was possibly false. Peter, can you confirm that you made that statement?

Once I have received satisfactory replies I shall finalise my ruling.

Du Toit responded as follows:

“The only way to authenticate a voice recording is through an expert. With due respect to the Press Ombudsman’s office, even if the ombudsman were to listen to the recording and another voice recording of Lucky Baloyi the conclusion of the Press Ombudsman would be entirely subjective, as the voice on a recording is subject to very many variables. We submit that the affidavit must be relied upon.”

He denied conceding on air that the recording was false, stating that these were his words:

I don’t know what Lucky Baloyi sounds like and that I cannot tell the difference between the two tapes, that they sound the same to me, and furthermore I am not a voice expert and only a voice expert could make that decision. I can’t even recognize my own voice when I hear it played back to me. [The] journalist who previously worked for Chiefs, has produced an affidavit saying that he interviewed the player and that interview is what appeared in Soccer Laduma.

He added, “What further complicates the issue is that we know Lucky Baloyi was threatened with a large fine for having an interview appearing in Soccer Laduma without the freelance journalist first getting permission from the club. This in our opinion is the real issue.”

Kaizer Chiefs sent me voice recordings, as requested, to which I have listened intensely.

I do have my suspicions, but a suspicion is not enough ground for me to base a definite finding on.

Finding

As I cannot be sure whether or not the voice in the interview is the same as the voice in other recordings, I am not in a position to decide fairly either for or against the complainant.

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