June 1 2021
Finding: Complaint 8834
Date of publication: February 14 2021
Headlines: (1) How South Africans defied the booze ban
(2) Alcohol industry counts lockdown losses
(3) Sensible drinking is a joint effort
Page: 7
Authors: Amanda Khoza, “Staff Reporter” and Sibani Mngadi
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Maurice Smithers on behalf of the Southern African Alcohol Policy Alliance (SAAPA), a written response from Ms Susan Smuts on behalf of Sunday Times, and a written reply from Mr Smithers.
Complaint
Smithers complains that three related articles in Sunday Times, published on the same page, transgressed Clause 2 of the Press Code, which states:
“The media shall:
2.1 not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism;
2.2 not accept any benefit which may influence coverage;
2.3 indicate clearly when an outside organization has contributed to the cost of newsgathering; and
1. Text
1.1. Smithers complains about three articles published on Page 7 on February 14 2021 under the headlines “How South Africans defied the booze ban”, “Alcohol industry counts lockdown losses” and “Sensible drinking is a joint effort”.
1.2. The page is flagged at the top with a banner that reads “Editorial Partnership”. It also features a red blob on the page that refers to a “Partnership between Sunday Times and SALBA” and carries a note at the bottom of the page that states that “This project was paid for by the South African Liquor Brand owners Association (SALBA) and reported by the Sunday Times”.
1.3. The page includes photographs and an infographic.
1.4. The main article, written by Amanda Khoza, carries the headline, “How South Africans defied the booze ban”, with a subheading, “Illicit trading, home brewing boomed despite the risks”.
1.4.1. The article is based on the results of an online survey by Euromonitor, an international consultancy, and provides statistics on the response of those surveyed to the ban on the sale of alcohol during the first Covid-19 lockdown in South Africa between March and May 2020.
1.4.2. Among the research findings is that the ban on the sale of alcohol allowed the illicit industry to proliferate during this period. The article includes comment on the illicit trade of alcohol by Police Minister Bheki Cele, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and SALBA CEO Kurt Moore.
1.4.3. In addition, the article features comments on home-brewed alcohol from Port Nolloth pastor James Malgas, Liquor Traders Association of South Africa convener Lucky Ntimane and an anonymous Cape Town man who brewed his own liquor.
1.5. The second article, “Alcohol industry counts lockdown losses”, is written by an unidentified “Staff Reporter” and deals mainly with financial losses to the liquor industry as a result of the ban on the sale of alcohol during lockdown.
1.5.1. Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) professor Adrian Saville provides information on the consequences of the lockdown on the economy in general and on certain industries (including the liquor industry) in particular.
1.5.2. Vinpro, which represents the wine industry in South Africa, provides information on how the lockdown affected the wine-producing industry, while its MD Rico Basson is quoted on its court bid to allow the Western Cape premier to deviate from future nationwide bans on the sale of alcohol.
1.6. The third article, “Sensible drinking is a joint effort”, is an opinion piece written by SALBA chair Sibani Mngadi, who is also corporate relations director at Diageo SA. He discusses the total prohibition of the sale of alcohol on three occasions, and outlines various initiatives by the liquor industry to help curtail the spread of Covid-19 infections.
1.6.1. In addition, Mngadi argues that the misuse of alcohol is “a behavioural issue” and requires “an enhanced focus on behavioural change interventions and a massive improvement in [law] enforcement”. In line with this view, he calls for research on the core drivers of certain kinds of behaviour.
Maurice Smithers (SAAPA)
2.1. Smithers points out that SAAPA does not object to the publication of full-page advertorials or sponsored content, and acknowledges that the newspaper is entitled to sell advertising space.
2.2. However, he contends that the newspaper did not differentiate between editorial and advertorial content in its “treatment and design” of the page, and that it further blurred the distinction between editorial and advertorial by using staff reporters to write two of the three articles.
2.3. In addition, he submits that the newspaper clearly associates itself with the alcohol industry’s position on alcohol as set out in the contents of the sponsored content by presenting the three articles as an “Editorial Partnership”.
2.4. Smithers argues that the first article, “How South Africans defied the booze ban”, only provides comment from the alcohol industry, and that it does not offer any alternative views on the ban on alcohol sales during lockdown.
2.5. He further argues that the second article, “Alcohol industry counts lockdown losses”, focuses on the loss of revenue and jobs in the alcohol industry as a result of the ban on alcohol sales during lockdown, but does not include any information or views on the positive impact of the ban during lockdown.
2.6. In the absence of alternative views, he submits that these two articles are not balanced or independent.
2.7. Smithers also argues that the opinion piece by Mngadi, “Sensible drinking is a joint effort”, is not countered by an alternative viewpoint on Page 7 or anywhere else on the newspaper’s opinion pages on February 14 2021.
2.8. He argues that Sunday Times therefore breached each of the clauses in Clause 2 of the Press Code by:
2.8.1. Allowing commercial considerations to influence its reporting, thereby creating a conflict of interest which adversely affects the newspaper’s independence and professionalism (clause 2.1);
2.8.2. Accepting a benefit which influenced the content of its reporting and the composition of Page 7 (clause 2.2);
2.8.3. Failing to indicate clearly that the content was paid for by an outside organisation (clause 2.3); and
2.8.4. Failing to clearly differentiate between editorial material and paid content (clause 2.4).
2.9. As a result, Smithers calls on the Press Ombudsman to find Sunday Times in breach of the Press Code, and calls on it to reprimand the newspaper; direct it to publish a retraction, an apology and the findings of the Ombudsman on its front page; and direct it to devote a full page to “impartial and balanced reporting” on the impact of the alcohol sales ban during lockdown.
Susan Smuts (Sunday Times)
2.10. Smuts submits that Sunday Times is not in breach of the Press Code, and contends that it clearly indicates that an outside organisation contributed to the cost of “news gathering”.
2.11. She submits that the newspaper did so by clearly marking the page as an “Editorial Partnership” in the balcony of the page, by inserting a large red blob in the middle of the page announcing a “Partnership between Sunday Times and SALBA” and by publishing a note at the bottom of the page which states that “This project was paid for by the South African Liquor Brand owners Association (SALBA) and reported by the Sunday Times”.
2.11.1. Smuts contends that the use of these three devices alerted readers to the fact that the content on the page was “sympathetic to the interests of the sponsor and that it should be read with the appropriate caution”.
2.12. Smuts further argues that advertorial material “has always been written and laid out like news articles and pages are”, and adds that the Press Code does not stipulate that advertising and sponsored content should be given different treatment and design in order to differentiate it from editorial content. She submits that the actual differentiation is left up to the individual media houses to determine.
2.13. She believes that the differentiation employed on Page 7 is in keeping with a previous ruling by the Press Ombudsman in “Simon Pamphilon vs Sunday Times, which found that the newspaper sufficiently differentiated a sponsored feature by (a) using a flag to indicate that it was “Brought to you by the Gauteng Provincial Government”, (b) omitting the usual “News” flag in the balcony and (c) using the byline “Special Reporter”.
2.14. Smuts further argues that it is not clear how the newspaper associates itself with the sponsored content, and why that is a breach of the Press Code. She submits that it “reported the content, following the usual news gathering and news writing skills that we use for journalism”.
2.15. Regarding the main article, “How South Africans defied the booze ban”, Smuts confirms that Khoza is a staff reporter, but argues that there is no requirement in the Press Code to refrain from using its own reporters for sponsored content.
2.16. She also denies that Khoza’s story quotes only comment from “alcohol industry insiders”, and notes that it includes comment from the Police Minister, SARS and a pastor as well.
2.17. Regarding the second article, “Alcohol industry counts lockdown losses”, Smuts contends that it deals mainly with the views of GIBS professor Adrian Saville and with a court case which involves Vinpro. She argues that it is not clear why this article should have included a view on the positive impact of bans on the sale of alcohol, and states that a single newspaper article cannot cover all perspectives, nor is there any requirement for it to do so.
2.18. Regarding Mngadi’s opinion article, “Sensible drinking is a joint effort”, Smuts submits that the newspaper is not obliged to run counter positions to any of the opinions it publishes, but is only required to alert readers when content is opinion.
2.19. The newspaper nonetheless published an opinion piece by Smithers, “ ‘Partnership’ with booze industry does the whole country an injustice”, on February 21 2021 in the interests of ensuring “the free flow of ideas and debate”.
2.20. Smuts therefore calls on the Press Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint and, accordingly, for the requested sanctions to fall away.
Further arguments
2.21. In reply, Smithers contends that the response of Sunday Times effectively admits that it breached clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Press Code. The only defence it offers, he submits, is that it declared to readers that SALBA paid for the copy.
2.22. However, he argues that there is a fundamental flaw in this argument: he contends that a breach of clauses 2.1 and 2.2 cannot be “cured” by complying with clauses 2.3 and 2.4. In other words, allowing commercial considerations to influence reporting and accepting a benefit to influence coverage are not “cured” because the newspaper declared that an outside organisation contributed to the sponsored material or kept such material distinct from editorial copy.
2.23. In support of this argument, he submits that the four clauses in Clause 2 of the Press Code are “self-standing and independent” – all of them must be complied with, and are “not alternative obligations”.
2.23.1. He submits that allowing this would mean that the media may breach clauses 2.1 and 2.2 as long as they comply with clauses 2.3 and 2.4. He suggests that this is wrong “as a matter of law”.
2.24. In addition, Smithers argues that the three devices used by the newspaper to indicate that the content was sponsored are inadequate. He asserts that the concept “Editorial Partnership” does not clearly indicate that the content on the page was wholly paid for by SALBA.
2.24.1. He further submits that the location of the note at the bottom of the second article, “This project was paid for by the South African Liquor Brand owners Association (SALBA) and reported by the Sunday Times”, gives the misleading impression that SALBA only paid for this particular article, and not necessarily for all three articles on the page.
2.24.2. He also contends that the use of the word “project” in this note is misleading and that it adds to confusion about the nature of SALBA’s involvement in the contents on the page.
2.25. Smithers further argues that the publication of his opinion piece a week later does not “cure” the breaches of Clause 2 of the Press Code on February 14 2021. If this were the case, he suggests, the media would then be free to mislead its readers providing that they subsequently publish a view which opposes the content for which it was previously paid.
2.26. Regarding the Press Ombudsman’s ruling in “Simon Pamphilon vs Sunday Times”, Smithers notes that even though the finding was in favour of the newspaper, the ruling encouraged Sunday Times to find a clearer distinction between advertorial and editorial copy as some readers may have been misled.
2.27. Smithers repeated SAAPA’s contention that the newspaper “completely blurred the distinction between editorial copy and advertising content” on Page 7 on February 14 2021, and allowed commercials interest to influence the content of the news stories it produced on the page.
3.1. The key issue under consideration in this complaint is whether Sunday Times compromised its editorial independence by accepting payment for material it published on Page 7 on February 14 2021, and whether doing so led to a conflict of interest.
3.2. The main contention of Sunday Times is that it used three devices on the page to inform readers that an outside organisation contributed to the paid content, in compliance with clause 2.3 of the Press Code.
3.2.1. It further submits that, by using these three devices to indicate that the content was the result of a partnership and/or payment from an outside organisation, it is not in breach of clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Press Code.
3.2.2. The words “Editorial Partnership” at the top of the page do indeed indicate that the contents on the page differ from the content on pages marked with more conventional flags such as “News”, “Comment” or “Sport”.
3.2.3. However, while this flag does indicate the involvement of another party in the contents of the page, the wording is vague and lacks sufficient explanatory value. In fact, the use of the word “Editorial” is, in itself, problematic as it may serve to obscure the distinction between editorial and sponsored content – whether intentionally or otherwise.
3.2.4. The red blob inserted into the main article does provide some information on the “partnership” by identifying the two parties involved – namely, Sunday Times and SALBA – but it does not provide any details about the nature of this “partnership”.
3.2.5. The nature of the “partnership” is spelt out clearly only in the note right at the bottom of the second news article at the foot of the page (though the “partnership” is now referred to as a “project”).
3.3. In its response, Sunday Times refers to a previous complaint, “Simon Pamphilon vs Sunday Times”, in which the Press Ombudsman found that the newspaper adequately differentiated a sponsored feature on March 10 2019 by (a) flagging that it was “Brought to you by the Gauteng Provincial Government”, (b) omitting the “News” flag and (c) using the byline “Special Reporter”.
3.3.1. However, unlike in the previous complaint, this time the newspaper assigned reporting staff to write two of the articles on Page 7 on February 14 2021.
3.3.2. Secondly, in response to the 2019 complaint against Sunday Times, Smuts pointed out previously that the main headline on the page was in a different font from other headlines in the editorial body of the newspaper. In the present complaint, however, this is not the case: the main headline is in the same font used elsewhere in the newspaper.
3.3.3. In other words, the sponsored content published on Page 7 on February 14 2021 is less distinct from editorial copy than the sponsored copy published on March 10 2019 in at least two ways.
3.4. While Sunday Times correctly points out that the Press Code does not specify the wording or devices to be used to differentiate sponsored content from editorial copy, the newspaper is urged to re-examine the devices it uses to identify paid content in line with the obligation to “keep editorial material clearly distinct from advertising and sponsored events”.
3.5. The American Society of Magazine Editors (AMSE) rightly notes that the true value of a media brand lies in its relationship with its readers, in particular “on the reader’s trust in the magazine’s editorial integrity and independence”.[1] The media must therefore avoid any practices which may bring their trustworthiness into question.
3.6. In the wake of the rapid growth of digital media, and the devastating financial effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the media, South African media houses will increasingly come under pressure to explore new ways of generating revenue. While such endeavours are inevitable, and in fact need to be encouraged, these efforts should not be at the cost of eroding the relationship of trust between the media and their readers.[2]
3.7. Sunday Times is mindful of this, and emphasises in its response to the SAAPA complaint that it does not have any intention of deceiving its readers or damaging their trust in the newspaper. Nevertheless, it is evident that it needs to exercise greater vigilance in this regard.
3.7.1. For instance, Smuts refers variously to the content on Page 7 as “sponsored content” and a “sponsored feature”. However, she also describes some of the content on the page as “news stories – for an advertorial feature”.
3.7.2. This lends credence to Smithers’ contention that “the content was styled as news reportage and took on the appearance of real news stories when it was in fact sponsored content” – in this way, blurring the distinction between editorial copy and sponsored content.
3.7.3. This conclusion is further encouraged by Smuts’ response to the complaint that “We reported the content, following the usual news gathering and news writing skills that we use for journalism” (my emphases).
3.8. Sunday Times argues that the form of the advertorial used on Page 7 is increasingly being seen in newspapers in South Africa and elsewhere, and that the material published on February 14 2021 “is merely a more sophisticated form”.
3.8.1. However, the fact that this form of advertorial is increasingly being employed by some newspapers does not mean that it is necessarily best practice. The trustworthiness of the media is absolutely critical to its credibility as a reliable and truthful purveyor of information.
3.8.2. Sunday Times is therefore urged to eliminate any ambiguities that may cause readers to be misled about the source and nature of the material it publishes. It must ensure that the devices used to identify paid content are clear and are displayed prominently.
In view of the fact that the content on Page 7 is paid or sponsored copy, this finding did not consider whether the material published was in breach of clauses 2.1 and 2.2, which apply in the main to editorial content.
With regard to clauses 2.3 and 2.4, the complaint against Sunday Times is upheld.
The involvement of an outside organisation is not indicated clearly on Page 7 on February 2021, in breach of clause 2.3. The banner “Editorial Partnership” and the wording in the red blob are vague; the explanatory note at the bottom of the page is placed in what is perhaps the least conspicuous position on the page; and the location of the note can be misinterpreted as referring to that particular article only and not to the page as a whole.
Sunday Times does not clearly differentiate the paid copy on Page 7 from editorial copy elsewhere in the newspaper, in breach of clause 2.4. On the contrary, by assigning reporting staff to write two articles and treating these as conventional news stories, it creates the impression that these articles are independently produced news stories.
These transgressions raise doubts about the independence of the newspaper, for which Sunday Times must apologise to its readers.
The headline should contain the word “apology”, and the text should:
It is further recommended that the Press Council should engage Sunday Times in discussion on (a) possible measures to clearly differentiate editorial copy from sponsored content and (b) possible measures to clearly disclose the involvement of an outside organisation in editorial content.
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 Ombudsman
June 1, 2021
[2] In order to preserve this relationship of trust with its readers, the UK newspaper The Guardian for example uses the following labels to flag funding for editorial content: (a) ‘Supported by” (funding from third parties for editorially independent content); (b) “Paid content/Paid for by” (advertising features paid for and controlled by the advertiser), or (c) “Advertiser content/from our advertisers” (advertising features paid for and produced by the advertiser). The newspaper does not use staff reporters to produce content for (b) and (c). See https://www.theguardian.com/info/2016/jan/25/content-funding