Radical Honesty White Refugee vs. City Press
Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombudsman November 3, 2010 This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Lara Johnstone, representing the Radical Honesty White Refugee (RH) group, and the City Press newspaper.
Complaint The RH complains about a story in City Press, published on July 30, 2010 and headlined Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial. The complaint is that the headline is a misrepresentation that alters the context of the story. The RH also complains that Johnstone was never asked for comment. The parts of the complaint stating that the story omits an accusation against the media, the reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the statement that the journalist’s source was uninformed and prejudiced towards minority groups are all frivolous and cannot be entertained. Analysis The story, written by Khadija Bradlow, is about the sentencing of the Reitz Four that was briefly postponed in the Bloemfontein’s magistrates court “…after a little-known group calling itself ‘Radical Honesty’ made an eleventh hour attempt to be admitted as a friend of the court”. (The Reitz Four are students who were found guilty of crimen injuria following the leaking of a video showing them humiliating five university cleaners.) The story says that, in its founding affidavit, RH attacks the TRC and calls the trial against the Reitz Four “a grave injustice”. She is also quoted as saying that the Reitz Four were “used as scapegoats in a race war”. We shall now consider the merits of the complaint:
Headline: a misrepresentation The RH complains about one phrase and one word in the headline: “rightwing group” and “scupper”. First, with regards to the phrase rightwing group: Johnstone denies that the organization is “rightwing”, saying that RH supports the rule of law for everyone. She says that even if
1
the organisation happens to support right-wingers it does not necessarily mean that the RH itself is rightwing. City Press argues that Johnstone, in her application to intervene as a friend of the court in the Reitz Four trial, says (amongst other things) that: the liberation struggle in South Africa could not have been considered a “just war” when apartheid had raised poor black living standards to the highest in Africa; apartheid was not a crime against humanity, but a just war for “Afrikaner Demographic Survival”; she endorses the concept of “white refugees” in South Africa; she renounces the TRC; and she regards the Reitz Four as victims rather than wrongdoers. The newspaper says that, in her application to the Constitutional Court, she: defends the use of the word “kaffir” in the South African context; mentions that she has been previously convicted of crimen injuria for using this word; and uses race repeatedly as a prominent concept in her world view. In a rather lengthy response to the above Johnstone mentions some of the issues, but she does not adequately refute what the newspaper is stating. The best example of this is Johnstone’s defence of the k-word. In her correspondence with our office she cites 26 different definitions of the word “kaffir”, all intended to justify its use. She may as well have given 1 000 definitions – the fact of the matter is that by far the majority of people in South Africa finds this word offensive. No “definition” on earth will change this situation and merit its use in the South African context. It is reasonable for the newspaper to use the word “rightwing” if only for the fact that she keeps on defending the use of this word. Her false accusations against City Press can also not go unnoticed. She says that she is “absolutely astounded” by the newspaper calling the Reitz Four “wrong doers” (she calls them “victims”). Johnstone admits that she has no idea if the students are guilty or not (even though she herself cites news reports that state that they were found guilty), but she nevertheless goes on to accuse the newspaper of demonstrating its preference for mobjustice and other not-so-nice things, such as that it acted as a judge in this case. Two remarks are appropriate: She would have done well to check her facts first – the Reitz four were sentenced to a R20 000 fine each or 12 months imprisonment earlier this year after they have pleaded guilty to a charge of crimen injuria. It was not the newspaper that acted as a judge, but a proper court of law.
2
The Reitz Four’s behaviour is widely seen as race-related – again, she must not be surprised when she is being called “rightwing” if she continues to call the transgressors (found guilty by a court of law) the victims.
Also consider the fact that Johnstone is the only member of RH in South Africa. While it may be true that the RH is not a “rightwing” organization, the only source that the newspaper can go on is Johnstone. She should again not be surprised if the newspaper calls her organization “rightwing” when she, as its only representative in this country, makes rightwing-like statements. Now, on the use of the word scupper: City Press says that she brought her application in the Reitz matter (to be allowed as a friend of the court) at the moment of sentencing, resulting in a brief postponement of procedures in a highly-publicised, race-related criminal trial. (City Press says her application was unsuccessful. A telephone call to the Constitutional Court affirmed that the newspaper is not correct – her application was indeed successful. However, this issue is immaterial to our investigation and this matter is therefore not to be pursued any further.) According to a dictionary the word “scupper” means to “wait in hiding to attack” or to “put in a dangerous, disadvantageous, or difficult position”. Considering her timing as well as the nature of the Reitz Four trial, it is reasonable to accept that the word “scupper” is reflective of what transpired.
Not asked for comment Johnstone says that the newspaper did not approach her for comment. The newspaper argues: “But her abortive attempt at intervention in the Reitz matter was in itself a public event, on which City Press merely reported.” On the contrary, the newspaper should have approached Johnstone precisely for this reason – she was the subject of the reportage and should as such have been asked for comment. There was no acceptable reason for the newspaper to not ask her for comment.
Finding
Headline The headline is not misrepresentative of the story and it also does not alter the context of the article in any way. This part of the complaint is dismissed.
3
Not asked for comment The newspaper made no attempt to ask Johnstone, the subject of the story, for comment. This is in breach of Art. 1.5 of the Press Code that states: “A publication should usually seek the views of serious critical reportage in advance of publication…”
Sanction City Press is reprimanded for not asking Johnstone for comment. The newspaper is directed to publish this reprimand, together with a summary of the finding (not the full ruling) on the same page as the article in dispute was published. Our office should be furnished with this text prior to publication. Please add the following sentence at the end of the text: “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za (rulings, 2010) for the full finding.”
Appeal Please note that our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven days of receipt of this decision, anyone of the parties may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Ralph Zulman, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be reached at khanyim@ombudsman.org.za. Johan Retief Deputy Press Ombudsman
4
Welcome
News
Press Code
Latest News John Stewart vs. Roodepoort Record Radical Honesty White Refugee vs. City Press Flamingo Primary School vs. Diamond Fields Advertiser Mike Masina vs. Nkangala Informer Pasco Risk Management vs. The Star Linda Gordon vs. The Times The SABC vs. Sunday Times Doreen Thys vs. Highway Mail The Democratic Alliance vs. Sowetan Douglas Mthukwane vs. Diamond Fields Advertiser The Premier of Limpopo vs. City Press Mr and Mrs Brian Burke vs. The Argus Ismail Ayob vs. Sunday Times Oasis Group Holdings vs. The Argus Musa Furumele vs. The Weekly Lakela Kaunda vs. The Times Lakela Kaunda vs. Mail & Guardian Herman Bester vs. Rapport SABC vs. Sundy Independent Gauteng Department of Education vs. The Star Mathews Phosa and the ANC vs. City Press Clifford Motsepe vs. Sunday Independent Dr P. Spiller vs. Die Son Mr Yusuf Baboo Carrim vs The Criterion Coen Vermaak vs. Saturday Star (Translated english version) George Annandale vs. City Press Coen Vermaak vs. Saturday Star Jeppe High Preparatory School vs. The Star Hugh Mbatha vs. Lowvelder Solly Mokoetle vs. Sunday Times Kouga Local Municipality vs. Die Burger Mthobisi Zondi vs. The Star Tabisa Ralo vs. Daily Dispatch Melomed Hospital vs. Daily Sun Lyn de Jong vs. Sunday Times Nico Nel vs. Sandton Chronicle Judge Zulman's Ruling on the Appeal Hearing - Pearl Luthuli vs Sowetan Mkhuseli Khusta Jack vs. EP Herald Press Ombudsman's ruling on the Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd and Mail
Rulings
Documentation
Search the website
Constitution of the PCSA
Useful Links
Contact Us
search...
Search
Radical Honesty White Refugee vs. City Press Posted by Khanyi Mndaweni (pmsa) on Nov 03 2010 at 8:43 AM Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombudsman November 3, 2010 This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Lara Johnstone, representing the Radical Honesty White Refugee (RH) group, and the City Press newspaper.
Complaint The RH complains about a story in City Press, published on July 30, 2010 and headlined Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial. The complaint is that the headline is a misrepresentation that alters the context of the story. The RH also complains that Johnstone was never asked for comment. The parts of the complaint stating that the story omits an accusation against the media, the reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the statement that the journalist’s source was uninformed and prejudiced towards minority groups are all frivolous and cannot be entertained. Analysis The story, written by Khadija Bradlow, is about the sentencing of the Reitz Four that was briefly postponed in the Bloemfontein’s magistrates court “…after a little-known group calling itself ‘Radical Honesty’ made an eleventh hour attempt to be admitted as a friend of the court”. (The Reitz Four are students who were found guilty of crimen injuria following the leaking of a video showing them humiliating five university cleaners.) The story says that, in its founding affidavit, RH attacks the TRC and calls the trial against the Reitz Four “a grave injustice”. She is also quoted as saying that the Reitz Four were “used as scapegoats in a race war”. We shall now consider the merits of the complaint:
Headline: a misrepresentation The RH complains about one phrase and one word in the headline: “rightwing group” and “scupper”. First, with regards to the phrase rightwing group: Johnstone denies that the organization is “rightwing”, saying that RH supports the rule of law for everyone. She says that even if the organisation happens to support rightwingers it does not necessarily mean that the RH itself is rightwing. City Press argues that Johnstone, in her application to intervene as a friend of the court in the Reitz Four trial, says (amongst other things) that: the liberation struggle in South Africa could not have been considered a “just war” when apartheid had raised poor black living standards to the highest in Africa; apartheid was not a crime against humanity, but a just war for “Afrikaner Demographic Survival”; she endorses the concept of “white refugees” in South Africa; she renounces the TRC; and she regards the Reitz Four as victims rather than wrongdoers. The newspaper says that, in her application to the Constitutional Court, she: defends the use of the word “kaffir” in the South African context;
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd and Mail & Guardian matter Sweet Connection vs. Die Son The South African Zionist Federation vs The Star and the Cape Argus Ruling by Press Ombudsman Louise Malherbe, I. van Aswegen en Rita Prinsloo vs. Rapport Stats SAvs The Star Cape of Good Hope SPCAvs. Daily Voice Settlement Agreement between Stats SAand The Star André Williams vs. Sports Illustrated Appeal Ruling in the matter between Alan Mukoki, former CEO of the Land Bank, and the Sunday Times Daya Chetty vs. Laudium Sun Pearl Luthuli, SABC Group Executive, Public Commercial Broadcasting vs Sowetan, Ruling by Ombudsman's Panel Richard Ferraris vs. Sunday Times The Media Monitoring Project (MMP) and Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CorMSA) vs Daily Sun KZN Premier Dr Zweli Mkhize vs the Sunday Tribune Gay Society Refused Leave to Appeal by Judge Zulman Sinky Mnisi vs. City Press Ntsikelelo Michael Songatshu vs Kaapse Son Francois en Christene van Wyk vs. Die Burger Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community vs Sunday Sun Francois en Christene van Wyk vs. Paarl Post Ronald Suresh Roberts vs The Weekender Noupoort Christian Care Center vs Rapport Floyd Shivambu (for ANC Youth League) vs. Mail & Guardian Sandile Memela vs Sowetan MXit vs Independent Newspapers Colin Jordaan vs. The Mercury Appeals Panel's Ruling on the ANC and City Press Leonard Chuene and Athletics SA vs Sunday Times Isaac Trout vs. Son Premier Ebrahim Rasool vs The Daily Voice Rev Frank Chikane vs The Times Ms Selona Devipersad vs. Post Mr Sam Mkhabela vs Sunday Times Rev Frank Chikane vs Business Day Ms K. Barolsky vs. Sunday World ANC against City Press Robert Gumede vs Mail and Guardian John Duarte vs Mail & Guardian Mr Alan Mukoki, former CEO of the Land Bank against the Sunday Times Press Council announcement Mr Damon Leff, Director of the South African Pagan Rights Alliance, vs Various Publications ROBERT GUMEDE VS M & G : BEFORE THE PRESS COUNCIL APPEALS PANEL (the Appeals Panel)
mentions that she has been previously convicted of crimen injuria for using this word; and uses race repeatedly as a prominent concept in her world view. In a rather lengthy response to the above Johnstone mentions some of the issues, but she does not adequately refute what the newspaper is stating. The best example of this is Johnstone’s defence of the k-word. In her correspondence with our office she cites 26 different definitions of the word “kaffir”, all intended to justify its use. She may as well have given 1 000 definitions – the fact of the matter is that by far the majority of people in South Africa finds this word offensive. No “definition” on earth will change this situation and merit its use in the South African context. It is reasonable for the newspaper to use the word “rightwing” if only for the fact that she keeps on defending the use of this word. Her false accusations against City Press can also not go unnoticed. She says that she is “absolutely astounded” by the newspaper calling the Reitz Four “wrong doers” (she calls them “victims”). Johnstone admits that she has no idea if the students are guilty or not (even though she herself cites news reports that state that they were found guilty), but she nevertheless goes on to accuse the newspaper of demonstrating its preference for mob-justice and other not-so-nice things, such as that it acted as a judge in this case. Two remarks are appropriate: She would have done well to check her facts first – the Reitz four were sentenced to a R20 000 fine each or 12 months imprisonment earlier this year after they have pleaded guilty to a charge of crimen injuria. It was not the newspaper that acted as a judge, but a proper court of law. The Reitz Four’s behaviour is widely seen as race-related – again, she must not be surprised when she is being called “rightwing” if she continues to call the transgressors (found guilty by a court of law) the victims. Also consider the fact that Johnstone is the only member of RH in South Africa. While it may be true that the RH is not a “rightwing” organization, the only source that the newspaper can go on is Johnstone. She should again not be surprised if the newspaper calls her organization “rightwing” when she, as its only representative in this country, makes rightwing-like statements. Now, on the use of the word scupper: City Press says that she brought her application in the Reitz matter (to be allowed as a friend of the court) at the moment of sentencing, resulting in a brief postponement of procedures in a highly-publicised, race-related criminal trial. (City Press says her application was unsuccessful. Atelephone call to the Constitutional Court affirmed that the newspaper is not correct – her application was indeed successful. However, this issue is immaterial to our investigation and this matter is therefore not to be pursued any further.) According to a dictionary the word “scupper” means to “wait in hiding to attack” or to “put in a dangerous, disadvantageous, or difficult position”. Considering her timing as well as the nature of the Reitz Four trial, it is reasonable to accept that the word “scupper” is reflective of what transpired. Not asked for comment Johnstone says that the newspaper did not approach her for comment. The newspaper argues: “But her abortive attempt at intervention in the Reitz matter was in itself a public event, on which City Press merely reported.” On the contrary, the newspaper should have approached Johnstone precisely for this reason – she was the subject of the reportage and should as such have been asked for comment. There was no acceptable reason for the newspaper to not ask her for comment. Finding Headline The headline is not misrepresentative of the story and it also does not alter the context of the article in any way. This part of the complaint is dismissed. Not asked for comment The newspaper made no attempt to ask Johnstone, the subject of the story, for comment. This is in breach of Art. 1.5 of the Press Code that states: “Apublication should usually seek the views of serious critical reportage in advance of publication…” Sanction City Press is reprimanded for not asking Johnstone for comment. The newspaper is directed to publish this reprimand, together with a summary of the finding (not the full ruling) on the same page as the article in dispute was published. Our office should be furnished with this text prior to publication. Please add the following sentence at the end of the text: “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za (rulings, 2010) for the
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
APPEALS PANEL (the Appeals Panel)
Quick Links
full finding.�
Appeal Please note that our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven days of receipt of this decision, anyone of the parties may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SAPress Appeals Panel, Judge Ralph Zulman, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be reached at khanyim@ombudsman.org.za. Johan Retief Deputy Press Ombudsman Back Copyright Š 2007 Press Council South Africa. | Sitemap - Legal & Disclaimer
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com