Learn about the Press Council’s harsh ruling on Iqbal Survé newspaper

It is unclear whether the dog also ate his homework. Fieri’s article, titled “Is Karin Mohan the South African Lenny Riefenstahl — a Nazi Film Propaganda Man?” was the focus of the virtual hearing, which Fieri may or may not have attended.

In a complaint filed against an article first published in Sekunjalo’s Sunday Independent on March 3, 2024, News 24 For his part, Maughan alleges two breaches of the Press: clause 3.3 (read with clause 7.2); and clause 2.1.

Article 3.3 requires the press to “exercise caution and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation”, and Article 7.2 effectively recognizes the defamation law defense of fair (or protected) comment. Under Article 2.1, the media “shall not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting and shall avoid conflicts of interest and practices that may cause readers to doubt the independence and professionalism of the media”.

In its ruling on 6 August 2024, the Commission upheld both sides of the complaint and ordered the Sunday Independent and all Sekunjalo-owned newspapers that published the article to retract it and apologize to Maughan. The article was promoted on social media and may have been published by: IOL, Pretoria News, The Star, The Mercury, The Daily News, Cape Times and Cape Town Tribuneand the speech of Sekunjalo President Iqbal Survé. Read the jury’s ruling.

In addition to the two substantive issues we discuss below, the panel also had to consider two procedural issues: first, whether the complaint should be admitted; and second, the nature and extent of the role played by Media Monitor Africa (MMA). MMA also filed a complaint but was admitted as an amicus curiae. MMA describes itself as “a non-profit organization that seeks to be ‘the pre-eminent (media) watchdog in Africa'”. On the first procedural issue, the panel found that “the objections raised are overly technical and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Press Council’s procedures.” The complaint was first directed against IOL, which claimed that it was misquoted because the article was first published by Sunday IndependentIt refused to entertain the complaint because it was sent to the IOL. When the updated complaint was sent, the Sunday Independent claimed it was out of date.

On the second issue, the panel had to consider the Sunday Independent’s objection to MMA’s involvement on two grounds: first, that “the matter was between two parties and adding another party was ‘not quite appropriate'”; and second, that MMA was “trying to expand the scope of the complaint and was not relevant here”. The panel resolved this procedural issue by admitting MMA as amicus curiae, limiting its involvement to “addressing the issues raised in the main complaint”.

With regard to the first complaint (“exercise care and consideration in matters of dignity and reputation”), the Panel noted that failure to enjoy the protection afforded by Article 7.2 did not in itself constitute a breach of News CodeInstead, it simply opens the door to consider whether a provision such as Article 3.3 has in fact been breached. In this case, the panel found that the clause could not rely on the safe harbour provided by Article 7.2 because – as the panel commented – “it does not adequately consider the facts”.

While noting that “authors of commentaries should be given freedom to develop their arguments and to use hyperbole and other devices to make their case”, the panel held that the article could not rely on the protection afforded by Article 7.2 because the attacks on Maughan were wide-ranging and serious and based on “the flimsiest of foundations”. Even a self-commissioned report “designed to identify bias in Maughan’s reporting over five years” was of no avail.

Without the protection of Article 7.2, it would be difficult for the article not to be considered to have breached Article 3.3. Importantly, the article was not considered in isolation, but in the context of the way it had been promoted online, including by Survé himself, and in the context of the “well-known history of online gender-related abuse directed at Maughan and other female journalists”. In their view, the article represented “a torrent of unwarranted abuse”.

In dealing with the second complaint, the panel considered Phiri’s identity. They noted that they had “no firm evidence that the byline was a pseudonym” and that they “believed that this person… (they) had heard was the author and occasionally contributed to The Independent.” This seemed largely based on the understanding that “the responsibility for publishing rests with the owner, who is represented by the editor.” In short, publish at your own risk.

The panel ruled in favour of the complainant and made a series of devastating findings about various editorial decisions of the Sunday Independent and its sister newspapers. In particular, the panel found that the newspaper “had allowed corporate interests to influence its editorial decision to publish the relevant columns, thereby creating a conflict of interest in violation of Article 2.1.” In short, publications owned by Sekunjalo were used by their editors to promote Sekunjalo’s corporate interests.

On August 8, 2024, just two days after the commission’s ruling was released, Sekunjalo’s “Independent Media” slammed the South African Press Council’s ruling on a complaint that upheld News 24 and journalist Karyn Maughan objecting to an opinion piece by Edmond Phiri”, calling it “a ‘serious blunder’ that endangers press freedom and exposes systemic bias at the Press Council.” If an application for leave to appeal is to be made as expected, it should be done by August 16, 2024. GroundUp publishes an Ombud Watcher column to inform the public about Press Council decisions.

Originally published on Ground up.