Sydney Kaye vs. Cape Times

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Complaints against the Cape Times dismissed (published on 15 February 2016).

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

 

The text on the front page said that the office of the Press Councial had dealt with Sydney Kaye’s complaint in response to an article published on 19 November 2015, headlined Israeli military chiefs face SA arrest. The Press Ombud reportedly found that the newspaper had portrayed the conclusion as fact, namely that South Africa had pledged to enforce Turkey’s arrest warrants against four Israeli military commanders, should they set foot on our soil. The newspaper was cautioned for stating conclusions as facts.

Kaye complained that the text and the headline were:

• in contempt of this office’s instructions (regarding a previous finding, and corresponding sanction); and
• an intentional attempt to deceive the public.

Kaye added that the front-page teaser, except for the last four words – “He also cautioned the paper” – mentioned only the peripheral complaints that had been dismissed. He argued, “It is well documented that a very high percentage of readers only read the headline and the first sentence or two and most don’t every finish an article. This was a blatant attempt to mislead the readers and at the same time avoid its obligations to the Ombudsman.”

Referring to communications between him and the newspaper, Retief pointed out that he was not satisfied with some drafts by the newspaper. He added he believed that, even though the front-page headline and teaser were not entirely satisfactory, the publication of the full finding inside more than made up for it.

The complaint was dismissed.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Sydney Kaye and those of Aneez Salie, editor, the editor of the Cape Times newspaper.

Complaint

Kaye is complaining about the publication of a sanction from this office, carried in Cape Times of 15 February 2016 on its front page, and headlined Complaints against the Cape Times dismissed.

He complains that the text and the headline were:

·         in contempt of this office’s instructions (regarding a previous finding, and corresponding sanction); and

·         an intentional attempt to deceive the public.

The text

The text on the front page said that this office had dealt with Kaye’s complaint in response to an article published on 19 November 2015, headlined Israeli military chiefs face SA arrest. It was found that the newspaper portrayed its conclusion as fact, namely that South Africa had pledged to enforce Turkey’s arrest warrants against four Israeli military commanders, should they set foot on our soil.

It also stated that this office had dismissed parts of another person’s complaint about the same matter, and “cautioned the paper for stating conclusions as fact”. The text added, “Retief dismissed Kaye’s complaint about the veracity of the document and that the article had been biased. He also cautioned the paper – Pages 6, 7”.

The full finding was published on inside pages.

Analysis

Kaye says that the front-page teaser, except for the last four words – “He also cautioned the paper” – mentioned only the peripheral complaints that were dismissed. He argues, “It is well documented that a very high percentage of readers only read the headline and the first sentence or two and most don’t every finish an article. This was a blatant attempt to mislead the readers and at the same time avoid its obligations to the Ombudsman.”

He adds that the use of the plural in the headline (“complaints”) can only be understood as that the dismissal applied to all parts of his complaint, and not only some of them. This, he complains, is not only a “direct untruth”, but also a “deceitful misrepresentation”.

Salie responds inter alia that:

·         it has covered the finding(s) in full, in approximately two and a quarter pages, which was much more than was expected of it (as this office has asked for a summary of the ruling). Moreover, this coverage came at a great cost – “however this was done as a service to the public and [to] illustrate transparency”;

·         the summary on page one was an accurate reflection of the findings as two thirds of Kaye’s complaint were dismissed;

·         this office was satisfied with the manner in which the sanction was covered and has approved the text that was published; and

·         ordinary readers would read pages 6 and 7, if they were interested in the full finding(s).

My considerations

The thrust of the finding in Kaye’s complaint was that the Cape Times breached the Press Code in stating its conclusion as fact (namely that the SAPS would enforce warrants of arrest if certain Israeli military chiefs entered South African territory).

I have dismissed other parts of the complaint (which may be accessed at www.presscouncil.org.za).

As is customary, the newspaper sent me a draft for approval prior to publication. I was not satisfied with it, and on February 4 sent the following e-mail to the publication’s representative:

Dear Abigail Thank you for this draft. I am not 100% happy with it. Please clearly state the real issue, namely that the newspaper portrayed its conclusion as fact that SA has pledged to enforce Turkey’s arrest warrants against four Israeli commanders, should they set foot on SA soil. This was what the caution was for, and it should be stated up-front. The rest of the draft is perfect. Also, please wait with publication, as the two complainants still have time to apply for leave to appeal. I am looking forward to your second draft.

Cape Times then went ahead and published its (first) draft, on February 15 – against my clear instructions.

On the same day, I sent the newspaper the following e-mail, under the heading, Not good enough:

Dear Abigail On February 4 I responded to you, following your first draft, and indicated that I was not 100% happy with your text. I wrote, “Please clearly state the real issue, namely that the newspaper portrayed its conclusion as fact that SA has pledged to enforce Turkey’s arrest warrants against four Israeli commanders, should they set foot on SA soil. This was what the caution was for, and it should be stated up-front.” (Emphases added.) As you know, I mostly leave the headline up to the newspaper – but I always state that it should reflect the content of the text. In this case, this means that the headline should have reflected the sentence as stated above. I believe that the newspaper should do it over again for the sake of fairness and justice – this time keeping to the guidelines that I have provided.

However, at that stage I had not seen pages 6 and 7, where Cape Times did something extraordinary and published the full finding on Kaye’s complaint (together with the other finding about the same issue). The newspaper alerted me to these pages, after which I sent it the following message:

Dear Abigail I have not seen pages 6 and 7, no (I have had some difficulties to connect to the internet during the last few days). Now that I have seen it, I am satisfied that the newspaper has done enough to do justice to the findings. I am still not happy with the wording on page 1 and with the headline – but in light of your excellent coverage of the findings I am willing to let this go.

I believed that, even though the front-page headline and teaser were not satisfactory, the publication of the full finding inside more than made up for it.

I still consider that to be the case.

For the record, as can be seen from the information  This office has not approved the text that was published, neither was I satisfied with the draft that reached me.

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