Appeal Decision-hearing: Russell Kearny vs Daily Dispatch

1.         This ruling is based on written submissions by Mr Bongani Siqoko, editor of Daily Dispatch (Appellant) and Mr Russell Kearney (Respondent) as well as on a hearing held on 15 May 2015 in Port Elizabeth, attended by Mr Brett Horner, Deputy Editor, Mr Andrew Stone, News Editor and Ms Aretha Linden, reporter for Daily Dispatch and Mr Kearney.

2.         The appellant was granted leave to appeal the Ruling of the Press Ombudsman, dated 17 December 2014. The Ruling followed a complaint by Mr Kearney against two articles published in the Daily Dispatch on 9 and 12 September 2014 respectively (both on page 3), headlined Kearney and Kei walk 6000km for a good cause and Charities don’t know of walker’s fundraising, both written by Ms Linden.

3.         The Press Ombudsman found against Daily Dispatch arguing that both stories were in breach of Section 2.1 of the Press Code: “The press shall take care to report news… accurately…” and that the second story was in breach of Section 4.7: “The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity…”

4.         During the hearing, Mr Kearney conceded that he would not have complained about the first story, although he thought it had contained a number of factual errors, had it not been for the second report.

5.         The majority of the alleged factual errors were in any case, as pointed out by the Press Ombudsman, of such a nature that they would not likely cause Mr Kearney unnecessary harm. During the hearing Ms Linden convinced the panel that she had reported the facts as given to her by Mr Kearney correctly. Mr Kearney conceded that he could mistakenly have made some of the errors himself during the interview with Ms Linden. The newspaper conceded that the reference to Mr Kearney in the caption being a “Gonubie resident” (he resided in Port Elizabeth) was incorrect, explaining that as the interview had been held in Gonubie the photographer, who wrote the caption, had mistakenly thought Mr Kearney lived there.

6.         In both stories it was reported that Mr Kearney was “raising funds” for certain charities. Mr Kearney strenuously objected to this, stating that he was not “raising funds” but “raising awareness” against canned lion hunting and rhino and elephant poaching as well as promoting his forthcoming book, some of the proceeds of which he had pledged to certain charities. The distinction between “fund raising” and “awareness raising” was important to Mr Kearney because he had previously received negative publicity as a result of his involvement in “fund raising” and he wanted to avoid a negative perception among potential supporters.

7.         The Press Ombudsman in his ruling found that as Mr Kearney was planning to give some organisations a percentage of the proceeds derived from the sales of his forthcoming book, it was not entirely incorrect to state that he was “raising funds”. However, the story might also have left the impression that he had been raising funds for some organisations directly. The Ombudsman continued: “I have no reason to believe that this true. As this matter can easily be misunderstood, it needs to be corrected — which will reduce the possibility of unnecessary harm to his integrity and reputation.”

8.         During the hearing Daily Despatch argued convincingly that as Mr Kearney was approaching certain establishments for accommodation and food during his trip around the country, he was not only “raising awareness” but also raising funds directly and that the longer term intention of his “awareness raising” was indeed to “raise funds” for beneficiaries.

9.         In finding the second report in breach of Section 4.7 of the Press Code and directing the newspaper to apologise to Mr Kearney, the Press Ombudsman stated: “The fact that the organisations did not know about Kearney’s stated intention of donating money to them does not mean that it was not his plan to do so. This statement therefore unnecessarily casts doubt on his intentions and integrity, as the story strongly suggests that he was lying (with the possibility of committing fraud).” And also: “… [This] does not mean that his past, whatever that may be, should be held against him.”

10.       After hearing the arguments from Daily Dispatch and Mr Kearney’s response the panel is convinced that although the second report did indeed have a negative impact on Mr Kearney’s dignity and reputation, the newspaper was justified in publishing it, including the references to his past, as it was substantially true and also in the public interest.

11.       Accordingly the appeal succeeds. The finding by the Press Ombudsman that Daily Dispatch was in breach of Section 2.1 and Section 4.7 of the Press Code is overruled and the sanctions he imposed are set aside.

Dated: 18 May 2015

Appeals Panel:

Adv Ntsikelelo Sandi (Public representative and Chair)

Mr Brian Gibson (Public representative)

Mr Fanie Groenewald (Press representative)