Particulars
Complaint numbers: 8441 (News24); 8442 (Eyewitness News); 8443 (PoliticsWeb); 8444 (The Citizen). Complaint number for Sowetan Live is still to be allocated.
Dates of articles: Between 26 October 2020 and 1 November 2020
1.1 The Public Advocate has declined to accept Mr. Matome Letsoalo’s complaints, arguing that there was no prima facie breach of the Press Code. (Details below.)
1.2 As the acting Press Ombud, I need to decide whether his decision was correct or, alternatively, whether to allow the complaints (on the basis that there may be some sort of prima facie breach of the Code).
2.1 In general, Letsoalo complains that the reporting regarding the outcome of his court case was inaccurate, misleading, unbalanced and defamatory of him, and that he was not given a right of reply.
2.2 He specifically objects against the misuse of the term “anti-Semitism”.
2.3 I shall deal with his complaints in more detail below.
2.4 He also complains against some publications that fall outside the mandate of the Press Council (PC). These are:
The media shall:
1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;
1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization;
1.8 seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication…; and
3.3 exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…
The articles all reported on a decision by the Randburg Magistrates’ Court, where Letsoalo was found guilty of crimen injuria for statements that had targeted the Jewish community. Most stories said Letsoalo became the “first person in South Africa to be convicted of an anti-Semitic crime”.
5.1 Anti-Semitism
5.1.1 Letsoalo’s main complaint revolves around the use of the word “anti-Semitism”.
5.1.2 He submits: “I find the misuse of the term Antisemitism in relation to my Crimen Injuria charge particularly unacceptable as it presents a one sided, European and White Supremacist angle of view, in that Semites are a broad group of people and languages which cannot be reduced to a small minority of Europeans who identify as Jews…” (Quoted unedited.)
5.1.3 His logic is, “Every Jew may be a Semite, but not every Semite is a Jew.”
5.1.4 Based on this, garnered from various sources, he argues that, since he now has been branded as being anti-Semitic (a word used by the media, and not by the court), he could not freely visit places such as Ethiopia, Eritrea and other Semitic-speaking countries anymore.
5.2 Other issues
Letsoalo complains that the articles were subjective and unfair in that they failed to show his “human side”. He says he had made efforts to end the matter before it went to trial by accepting a plea bargain and by showing remorse, having apologised directly to the SAJBD – all of which never received any coverage.
6.1 On 26 February 2021, the Public Advocate informed Letsoalo that he has declined to accept his complaints as he could find no prima facie breach of the Press Code.
6.2 Regarding Letsoalo’s main concern (the use of the word anti-Semitic), he wrote that, while he did appreciate his arguments in this regard, “… it is quite clear that all the publications have used it as meaning anti-Jewish. Whether one likes it or not, that is how the average reader would have understood it”.
6.3 He also disagreed that the reporting was biased and unbalanced. “It was basically reports on the outcome of the court case against you, and again whether one likes it or not, reporting on the reaction of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies to the case was quite justified. It is the usual practice to ask for the complainants’ comments on the outcome of a court case,” he argued.
Letsoalo rejects all of the Public Advocate’s arguments, without taking the matter any further.
8.1 Anti-Semitism
8.1.1 Both Letsoalo and the Public Advocate have valid arguments in this regard – some people do indeed understand that anti-Semitism is a wider concept than merely referring to Jews, while others simply equate the two.
8.1.2 From where I sit, I believe the latter is the more common interpretation – I notice that an internet search of the meaning of “anti-Semitism” overwhelmingly equates the concept with anti-Jewism. This, as well as my own experience, convinces me that “anti-Semitism”, in normal parlance, links that concept with the Jews (rightly or wrongly).
8.1.3 But there are two even more important considerations:
8.1.4 I shall deal with each publication separately in this regard.
8.1.5 News24: Both stories made it clear that the anti-Semitic statements had “targeted the Jewish community” – and therefore, not the whole of the Semitic world.
8.1.6 Sowetan Live: The story said the court had sentenced Letsoalo “for … anti-Semitic tweets he posted in June 2018”. However, it qualified this statement by reporting that the SAJBD had lodged the complaint. To the ordinary reader, it should have been clear that Letsoalo’s statements were made against Jews, and not against the whole of the Semitic world.
8.1.7 Eyewitness News: Both stories did not directly link the anti-Semitic statements to the Jewish community – but again, the ordinary reader would have understood that Letsoalo’s comments were directed at Jews, and not against the rest of the Semitic world.
8.1.8 Politics Web: The introductory sentence mentioned the word “anti-Semitism”, but it continued to read, “…the Randburg Magistrates [sic] Court found Matome Letsoalo guilty of crimen injuria for threatening and abusive tweets targeting the Jewish community” – and therefore not, by implication, the whole Semitic world. (Emphasis added.)
8.1.9 The Citizen: The story started off by mentioning “anti-Semitism”, but lower down in the article it became clear that the statements in question were directed at the Jewish community – and again, not against the whole Semitic world.
8.1.10 Based on my arguments above, as recorded in Sub-sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.3 above, as well as based on a careful study of how the publications reported on this matter, I agree with the Public Advocate that there is no prima facie breach of the Press Code in this specific regard.
8.1.11 To summarise, and for clarity’s sake:
8.2 Other issues
8.2.1 While some publications did report that Letsoalo had accepted a plea bargain, I do not believe the fact that others did not do so, and also did not report his apology, can reasonably be construed as biased reporting, as the mentioning of these matters were not essential to articles which told the story of the first case of such a nature in South Africa’s history.
8.2.2 In addition, the publications were under no obligation to ask Letsoalo for comment – the reporting was about the outcome of a court case, not about anybody’s feelings or convictions.
The Public Advocate’s decision to decline to accept the complaints as there were no prima facie breaches of the Press Code is upheld.
The 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 Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Acting Press Ombud