Date of publication: 15 March 2024
Headline:
Debunking the Lies: A response to News24’s special projects propaganda
Author of article: Edmond Phiri
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by News24 Editor-in-Chief, Mr Adriaan Basson, on behalf of News24, Mr Nick Wilson, Mr Jan Cronje and Mr Jeff Wicks; a written response on behalf of Sunday Independent by its Editor, Mr Sizwe Dlamini; and a written response by Mr Basson.
Complaint
The complainants submit that the article transgresses Clauses 3.3.2 and 7.2 of the Press Code:
“3. The media shall:
“3.3 exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if: …
3.3.2 the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are either true or reasonably true; …”
“7.2 Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”
1. Summary of article
1.1. Edmond Phiri’s opinion piece starts off by referring to an article in which he had critiqued Karyn Maughan’s article, “Survé targets senior judge”, and had described it as propaganda similar to that used in Nazi Germany.
1.1.1. He writes that this article was followed by an attack on him, Independent Media and its chairperson, Iqbal Survé, by “a team of journalists” from News24 and Daily Maverick.
1.1.2. He refers, in particular, to an article written by News24’s Nick Wilson, Jan Cronje and Jeff Wicks, “Inside Iqbal Survé’s glitchy propaganda machine”. According to Phiri, this article contained false claims about him and did not grant him the right of reply.
1.1.3. He states that this was despite the fact that Wilson was able to contact him by email and subsequently published a response from him in which he rejects Wilson’s “instructions” to conduct a Microsoft Teams or Zoom call with him in order to “prove” that he (Phiri) exists.
1.1.4. He writes that these “instructions” reminded him of the arrogance of a “baas” towards his “baas boy” during the apartheid era.
1.2. The writer goes on to reject the claim by Wilson, Cronje and Wicks that he was a “fictitious opinion writer” curated by Survé in order to polish the latter’s image. Phiri dismisses this as a lie and suggests that it is an attempt to reduce his opinion pieces to “some PR-controlled efforts”.
1.2.1. He states that the News24 article does not provide any evidence of how he works for Survé and points out that his criticism of “shoddy journalism” dates back to 2017. He writes that his previously expressed views are consistent with those in his critique of Maughan’s article.
1.3. Phiri argues that his “only sin” was to be seen as “defending” a black-owned company. Even so, he suggests, it is misleading to claim that most of his published writing relates to Sekunjalo.
1.3.1. He goes on to observe that “the recent escalation of attacks against black individuals and organisations by the media and the establishment is both alarming and worrying”. He cites the disputes between Sekunjalo/Independent Media and the banks as an example.
1.4. The article further declares that News24 does not have the right to dictate to Phiri where to send his work for publication.
1.4.1. He adds that the attempt to discredit him by suggesting that he is a “fictitious” writer or that he works at the behest of Survé is nothing more than an attempt to undermine his credibility and to silence him.
1.4.2. He denies that he works for Independent Media or any of its associated companies, and points out that his articles are his independent opinions. He further states that opinion writers always hold particular positions, which they express in their articles.
1.4.3. He writes that “[d]eploying an army of journalists and cyber investigators” to trace him, rather than engaging with the substance of his arguments, is an act of intimidation that is reminiscent of the suppression of dissenting views during apartheid.
1.4.4. He describes this as a threat to media freedom and the democratic principles on which South African society is built. Despite the intimidation and “terror tactics” employed by News24, he declares that he will keep on writing.
2. Arguments
News24 and Others
2.1. The complainants submit that the article in question – “by the elusive ‘Edmond Phiri’, which appears to be a pseudonym for a Sekunjalo employee” – contains a number of false claims about the News24 report referred to in point 1.1.2 above.
2.1.1. However, they believe that this News24 report speaks for itself and therefore confine their complaint to one particular part of the Sunday Independent article.
2.1.2. They specifically object to the following paragraphs: “Interestingly, he [Wilson] was able to publish a response to one of his emails to me, and my rejection of his instructions whereby I was supposed to do a Team or Zoom call with him to ‘prove’ that I exist.
“It reminded me of the typical arrogance of ‘baas’ to his ‘baas boy’ during the apartheid era.”
2.2. The complainants contend that this comment “unambiguously accuses Wilson of being a racist”. They state that there are no facts in the article, “or anywhere else”, to provide a foundation for such a claim.
2.2.1. In view of the lack of any evidence to support this claim, they submit that the comment in question is in breach of Clause 3.3.2 and Clause 7.2 of the Press Code.
2.2.2. Accordingly, they request that Sunday Independent and IOL – which also published the article on the same day – be directed to publish an apology to Wilson.
Sunday Independent
2.3. In response to the complaint, the respondent states that it is important to clarify the nature of the statement in question.
2.3.1. Firstly, it submits that the statement referred to in point 2.1.2 should be “construed” within the context of the expression of an opinion rather than as a factual assertion. It states that the writer conveyed “a subjective impression derived from the interaction” and also drew parallels with previous experiences.
2.3.2. It further submits that the writer’s assertion that the interaction reminded him of “the typical arrogance of ‘baas’ to his ‘baas boy’ during the apartheid era” does not explicitly state that Wilson addressed him in such a manner nor does it directly imply that he is inherently racist.
2.4. The respondent further contends that it is important to note that the writer’s expression of an opinion is protected under the principles of free speech and opinion, “within the bounds of reasonable interpretation”.
2.4.1. It maintains that the writer’s statement “does not constitute an unambiguous accusation of racism against Wilson”.
2.4.2. In light of the above, it submits that the allegation that the writer’s statement is an unambiguous accusation of racism lacks merit and is unfounded.
News24 and Others
2.5. The complainants deny that their complaint is unfounded and request the Ombud to adjudicate it.
3. Analysis
3.1. The crux of News24’s complaint is that the paragraphs identified in Phiri’s article “unambiguously accuses Wilson of being a racist” (my emphasis).
3.1.1. It is not clear on what grounds the complainants arrive at this conclusion: the paragraphs to which they object do not contain such an unequivocal statement (see point 2.1.2).
3.1.2. What the paragraphs in question do state quite unambiguously is that Wilson’s request to Phiri for a Microsoft Teams or Zoom call to prove his existence reminded the writer “of the typical arrogance of ‘baas’ to his ‘baas boy’ during the apartheid era”.
3.1.3. This reference is obviously to the unequal power relations in South Africa which prevailed under apartheid, a legally enforced system of racial privilege in which South Africans classified as white occupied a superior position in all strata of society.
3.1.4. As such, the paragraphs in question cannot be regarded as an unambiguous accusation that Wilson is a racist.
3.1.5. While it is understandable that Wilson may take exception to these paragraphs, and deem them to be without foundation, the point remains that they do not unequivocally accuse him of being a racist.
3.1.6. As the respondent argues, the writer’s observation is “a subjective impression derived from the interaction”. And, because of the subjective nature of such an impression, it is not possible to dispute or disprove this.
3.1.7. Moreover, the request for an on-screen call was evidently prompted by News24’s attempt to establish the identity of the writer. (Their complaint describes him as “the elusive ‘Edmond Phiri’, which appears to be a pseudonym for a Sekunjalo employee”, and they refer to him throughout as “Phiri”.)
3.1.8. News24’s request was therefore bound to give rise to some discomfort as it implies that the writer’s bona fides are open to question. He says this request reminded him of the condescending attitude of a “baas” towards a “baas boy” under apartheid.
3.1.9. However, it is important to note that the writer did not state that Wilson himself displayed the attitude of a “baas” towards a “baasboy”. He wrote that Wilson’s request “reminded” him of this attitude. In other words, the question brought to mind the power relations and attitudes that prevailed during apartheid.
3.1.10. Therefore, contrary to News24’s complaint, the comment does not contain an unambiguous accusation that Wilson is a racist, nor will the reasonable reader understand the writer’s comment to be making such an accusation.
3.1.11. In light of the above, the comment in question is not in breach of Clause 3.3.2 of the Press Code.
3.2. The complainants further argue that the comment in question does not comply with Clause 7.2 of the Press Code on protected comment. However, even though the complainants may deem the comment to be unjust, it sufficiently meets the requirements of this clause.
3.2.1. Firstly, the comment was part of an article that was clearly identified as Opinion. And, at the risk of stating the obvious, the writer was entitled to express a view on Wilson’s request for an on-screen call.
3.2.2. Secondly, the comment does not relate to a statement of fact. In other words, it does not involve a material fact; rather, it is a matter of opinion.
3.2.2.1. As noted above in point 3.1.6, the writer’s comment is a subjective impression based on his interaction with Wilson.
3.2.3. Thirdly, as stated previously, the writer’s comment expresses his view on the request for an on-screen call, and observes that this reminded him of the high-handed attitudes that prevailed under apartheid.
3.2.3.1. However, the writer does not state that Wilson himself displayed such an attitude, so no malice can therefore be attached to the comment.
3.2.4. Lastly, the writer was asked by News24 to participate in an on-screen call in light of questions raised in the public domain about his identity (for instance, in News24’s article “Inside Iqbal Survé’s glitchy propaganda machine”).[1]
3.2.4.1. The response of the writer to News24’s request is therefore, in turn, also a matter of public interest.
4. Finding
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 3.3.2 is dismissed (see the reasons set out in points 3.1.1 to 3.1.10 of my Analysis).
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 7.2 is also dismissed (see the reasons outlined in points 3.2.1 to 3.2.4.1 of my Analysis).
5. Note
This matter also included a complaint about a second article, “‘The three stooges of News24’”, authored by Masibongwe Sihlahla, and published by Sunday Independent on IOL on 13 March 2024. The complainants accepted an offer from Sunday Independent to apologise and retract the article. The apology and retraction were published on 4 June 2024.
Appeal
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 [email protected]
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombud
12 June 2024
[1] Other examples are “Iqbal Survé has become an enemy of press freedom” (Daily Maverick, 7 March 2024) and, more recently, “After the bell: Responding to a ghost about SA banks closing accounts” (Daily Maverick, 13 May 2024).