Ziyanda Stuurman vs. Rapport

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Maties ‘vir die wolwe gegooi’ – Pers meisies sê universiteit wou nie hul kant van die storie hoor nie (published on 14 February 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 events transpiring shortly after a public outcry over an incident on the campus of Stellenbosch University (SU), involving two female students who had painted their faces purple for a party titled “Stellar Space” – and who were said to have “blackfaced” themselves.

Ziyanda Stuurman, an alumnus of the Listen, Live and Learn residential program at SU, which was administered by Mathew Smorenburg, complained that the:

• story did not clarify that Smorenburg’s employer (SU) disallowed him from communicating with the media and that he was therefore not able to defend himself against allegations;
• university’s reply was published on a separate page, with little context to the issue; and
• article mentioned several employees, student organisations and at least one student – yet the reporter made no contact with these people to confirm the quotes that were attributed to them.

Retief dismissed the complaint, mainly because:

• it was not the reporter’s duty to clarify protocol at SU;
• the prominent publication of the story on an inside page, with a reference to it on page 1, was adequate; and
• the journalist was under no obligation to ask people for comment who were not the subjects of critical reportage.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ziyanda Stuurman and those of Rapport journalist Pieter Malan.

Stuurman graduated in 2013 from Stellenbosch University (SU) and is an alumnus of the Listen, Live and Learn residential program at the university, administered by Mr Mathew Smorenburg.

Note: Stuurman did not lodge the complaint at the request of Smorenburg, who features prominently, but did so with the latter’s “knowledge and gratitude”. The latter says SU’s protocol prohibited him “to file one”. He asks that this office gives the complaint the attention and possible remedial action “that it would get if I was the complainant but knowing the reason for me not being the complainant”.

Complaint

Stuurman is complaining about a front-page story in Rapport of 14 February 2014, headlined Maties ‘vir die wolwe gegooi’ – Pers meisies sê universiteit wou nie hul kant van die storie hoor nie.

She complains that the:

·         story did not clarify that Smorenburg’s employer (SU) disallowed him from communicating with the media and that he was therefore not able to defend himself against allegations made;

·         university’s reply was published on a separate page, with little context to the issue; and

·         article mentioned several employees, student organisations and at least one student – yet the reporter made no contact with these people to confirm the quotes that were attributed to them by other individuals.

She argues that the article was one-sided, unfair, distorted, factually untrue, had an adversarial tone and had been dictated by the two students who alleged that inappropriate disciplinary actions bad been taken against them.

This, Stuurman submits, led to a situation where Smorenburg and Mr Tshepo Modiri (a member of Open Stellenbosch, who lodged a complaint of blackfacing with SU) have been harassed online by hundreds of individuals. “Threats of physical violence have been leveled against both men with the author of the original article providing little to no opportunity for both men to address the allegations made against them and their characters,” she concludes.

The texts

The story, written by Pieter Malan, was about events transpiring shortly after a public outcry over an incident on the campus of SU, involving two female students who painted their faces purple for a party titled “Stellar Space” – and who were said to have “blackfaced” themselves.

The story said that SU had eventually lifted the “temporary” suspension of the students after an “investigation” that lasted seven days. SU Dean of Students Pieter Kloppers had reportedly informed the students of their temporary suspension.

The text is mostly negative towards the university, stating that some of its officials initially refused to listen to the students, despite the fact that they knew the students had been painted purple (not black).

The journalist reported that, according to the students, Smorenburg was intimidating, intense, somewhat insulting and irritated – and not interested in their arguments. The students reportedly also alleged he told them that they were not allowed to obtain legal representation before he gave them permission to do so, that he did not care what their intentions were, and that he was not interested in looking at a picture showing their faces to have indeed been painted purple.

The arguments

Malan’s response to the complaint

Malan says on February 12 he asked Smorenburg for comment. This communication read, “I am writing an article for Rapport heavily critical of your handling of purple matter. Please phone Pieter …” (I have deleted his cell number.)

Smorenburg responded the same day as follows: “I am aware. Any request for comment regarding business of @StellenboschUni can be sent to the media office as per protocol.”

The reporter adds that, earlier that day, he had also sent questions to the university’s media office (addressed to Susan van der Merwe). In this correspondence, he stated that he possessed information that was potentially embarrassing to the university, as well as to certain employees. “I therefore hope the university sees its way open to respond to this in detail,” he added.

Van der Merwe told him that an official was under way, after which he e-mailed her the following message: “In that case please indicate if you gave Smorenburg and (Pieter) Kloppers (Dean of Students at SU) the opportunity to personally respond to the very serious allegations made against them.”

He says that Van der Merwe never responded to this message, but it was clear that she did show his enquiry to Smorenburg as he responded that he was “aware” of it – and yet he did not want to comment. The journalist argues this shows that he did ask Smorenburg for comment, and it is safe to say that the latter accepted that the university spoke on his behalf.

Malan also says Stuurman did not give any details about the other people and institutions mentioned in the story; she only gave some detail about Modiri. However, the story only mentioned the latter as the person who lodged the complaint with the university. “He was not asked to comment because a) it was not a harmful or defamatory allegation, and because b) it was correct.” He says Modiri himself published on Twitter that he had in fact lodged the complaint.

Regarding the university’s response, the journalist submits it was published prominently and in full on an inside page, with a reference on the front page. “By using it on an inside page, the newspaper was able for that reason to publish the university’s response more comprehensively.”

In conclusion, Malan says the story was in the public interest and was substantially correct. “The complainant gives no evidence to the contrary, except by making a general observation that the story was ‘factually wrong’. It is not.”

He also notes that the university’s vice-chancellor has in the meantime apologized in public for what the two students had to endure and also launched an independent investigation into the university’s handling of the matter.

Stuurman’s reply to Malan

Stuurman replies that Malan knew that the university’s protocol prohibits members of staff, including Smorenburg, from commenting on its operations.

She adds that the reporter aimed his questions at ascertaining why things had been done, instead of determining if they had transpired. She argues that this resulted in Malan presenting a one-sided version as fact. “There was also no attempt to verify with the university the accuracy of quotes later attributed to Mathew Smorenburg such as, ‘This is seen as black, finish and klaar’.”

She reiterates that the university’s statement was not used in full, adding that the inverted commas around the word “knowledgeable” people (who were going to investigate the matter) cast doubt on the credibility of that statement.

Stuurman also mentions Moridi, who was “unfairly” mentioned (which opened up the possibility of personal attacks on him, she says).

In conclusion, she argues that the students posted a picture which appeared to be black, to which the university responded proactively (to a situation which was not of its making). “In none of the statements of the University had there been any indication that they have evidence that Mathew Smorenburg or others acted improperly – something what would be hard to ignore given the people present in each of the meetings.”

My considerations

Forbidden to communicate

Stuurman complains the story did not clarify that Smorenburg was not allowed to communicate with the media and that he was therefore not able to defend himself against allegations made.

It is important to note that SU itself prohibited sss from talking to the media – that is not of Rapport’s making. The “blame” for sss’s claimed inability to defend himself could therefore not be laid at the newspaper’s door.

I do not believe that it was Malan’s duty to inform the public about SU’s protocol.

I have seen the extensive list of questions (25 of them) which Malan sent to SU’s media office, together with other e-mails – and I am satisfied that the reporter fulfilled his duty in this regard.

Admirably so, I should add.

SU’s reply

There is no merit in Stuurman’s complaint that SU’s reply was published on a separate page, with little context to the issue.

Malan’s argument in this regard (it was published prominently on an inside page, with a reference on the front page, thereby enabling the newspaper to publish the university’s response more comprehensively) is adequate.

Those involved not asked for comment

Stuurman complains that the article mentioned several employees, student organisations and at least one student – yet the reporter made no contact with these people to confirm the quotes attributed to them by other individuals.

Section 1.8 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct requires that a publication should obtain the views of the subjects of critical reportage. This means that, if the publication of a statement is not likely to harm somebody, the press is not obliged to ask that person for his or her opinion.

This goes for Modiri, as Malan rightly argues.

For the rest, I reiterate that the reporter followed the right channels and did his utmost to get SU’s views on the matter.

One-sided, adversarial, etc.

Stuurman complains that the article was one-sided, unfair, distorted, factually untrue, had an adversarial tone and had been dictated by the two students who alleged that inappropriate disciplinary actions had been taken against them.

The complainant cannot rightly expect this office to come to a responsible finding on the basis of her general statements only – without any stipulation of what exactly she alleges to be false, unfair, distorted, etc. The alleged “adversarial” tone is also impossible to adjudicate in light of the complete absence of examples and arguments to substantiate Stuurman’s claim.

Note: I have adjudicated another complaint on this matter (Kloppers vs. Rapport). This finding should be read in conjunction with the Kloppers ruling (which was much more specific regarding the complaint, and likewise with regards to my analysis).

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 Ombudsman