Ruling by the Press Ombud
12 July 2016
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Altaaf Kazi, head: media and communications of Cricket SA (CSA), and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.
CSA is complaining about a story on page 22 in Sunday Times of 12 June 2016, headlined ‘CSA not playing ball with Zimbabwe’.
Complaint
CSA complains that the:
· story falsely stated that it was unwilling to assist Zimbabwean cricket;
· headline and posters were misleading and that it set out to portray CSA in a negative light, while nothing in the article illustrated that it did not want to help Zimbabwean Cricket; and
· newspaper did not ask CSA for comment, which resulted in a one-sided and unverified article.
It adds that former Protea cricketer Makhaya Ntini did not respond after CSA replied to his request for warm-up matches between the Zimbabwean team and the SA Academy side. I cannot entertain this part of the complaint as I have no jurisdiction over Ntini’s actions.
Kazi also mentions a story by the same reporter which was published on January 16. This article falls way outside the time frame stipulated for a complaint.
The text
The article, written by Khanyiso Tshwaku, was about the well-known former Protea cricketer Makhaya Ntini, “the first black South African test cricketer” – and then also “the first black South African to coach an international team” (Zimbabwe).
At the end of the article Ntini was quoted as saying he felt that CSA had turned a blind eye to their struggling neigbours. “[I] picked up that South Africa is not keen on visiting here and they don’t want much to do with Zimbabwe. It was sad to hear that, along with the fact that I was told they nearly didn’t want to come to Zimbabwe for the tri-series they played with Zimbabwe and Australia two years ago”.
He also reportedly said he would like to find out why CSA had nearly pulled out of that series and why CSA did not want to support Zimbabwe.
The arguments
Kazi says CSA helps Zimbabwe Cricket by inviting them to play in its annual Africa T20 cup “which we pick up all the costs for”, and adds that the SA A team will be touring Zimbabwe next month.
He sums up the complaint as follows: “The issue for Cricket SA is that … the story only published what Makhaya had to say, yet wat he says is not true.”
Sunday Times replies that, as a Protea legend, Ntini’s views are of interest to its readers. Smuts argues there is nothing in the Code of Ethics and Conduct prohibiting the newspaper from publishing Ntini’s comments – in fact, Ntini had the freedom to express his views, just as the newspaper was free to publish those opinions.
She adds, “The story was not about whether or not CSA had in fact been wanting in its treatment of Zimbabwe. The quotes concerning CSA were all properly attributed to Mr Ntini, and were not stated as fact. If the story had reached a conclusion which was presented as fact, then it would have been necessary to give CSA an opportunity to respond.”
The legal editor also submits that the readers are capable of distinguishing between an interview (which reflected comments) and a story dealing with a factual situation.
The headline, she contends, was presented in inverted commas, “signaling to the reader that it was someone’s opinion” – a long-established journalistic principle that has previously been upheld by this office. She argues, “While the exact words of the headline were not used in the article, they were a shortened and fair reflection of the comments actually made.”
Smuts also rejects the allegation that the newspaper was motivated by a desire to report negatively on CSA. “We did not put words into Mr Ntini’s mouth,” she contends.
She concludes that Sunday Times offered Kazi an opportunity to respond (after the story was published), saying the offer was made because the newspaper was interested in a free flow of information and ideas, and not because it believed that it had been in breach of the Code.
Kazi rejects this offer, arguing that the damage had already been done and noting that the right of opportunity to respond should have been afforded to CSA prior to publication. He also asks why the journalist did not ask him for comment, while he did do so in other instances.
Analysis
Unwilling to assist Zimbabwean cricket
Ntini had a right to say what he believes and, likewise, Sunday Times had a right to publish those views. As long as the views did not amount to hate speech or to defamation, Sunday Times was justified to report those views, regardless of the question of whether Ntini was right or wrong.
This right is enshrined both in the country’s Constitution and in the Press Council’s Code of Ethics and Conduct, which includes the right to be wrong.
Headline
I do not believe that the headline set out to portray CSA in a negative light – the words were used in inverted commas, which means they were not stated as fact.
I am uncomfortable with the assumption that readers would not have understood Ntini to have used those exact words, though – which he did not, by the newspaper’s own admission.
The fact that the quote did reflect the gist of Ntini’s views is a mitigating factor. Still, the press should be careful not to interpret someone’s opinion and then put the interpretation in that person’s mouth. A quote is a quote, and it should always be exactly correct. If it is not, it would inevitably lead to erosion of the media’s credibility.
In this case, though, I believe that Sunday Times did interpret Ntini correctly – which is why I am not going to be pedantic and find against it.
However, I need to remind the newspaper that it is a dangerous practice to interpret a source’s views and then to use quotation marks around that interpretation. I need to reflect this concern in my finding and sanction.
Not asked for comment
Smuts argues that, as long as a newspaper presents a person’s view as opinion and not as fact, no comment from the subject of critical reportage is necessary.
That cannot be right. A source’s comments may be unnecessarily harmful of somebody else – and if such a possibility exists, the media should get that subject’s views.
The operative word here is “unnecessary” – because in such a case the reportage would be unfair.
The opinions in question are critical of CSA – which, fairness tells me, requires of a newspaper to obtain the response of the report’s subject. That is precisely why Section 1.8 (quoted below) was included in the Code.
This section does not only apply to the presentation of hard news, as Smuts argues, it also extends to articles reflecting a source’s view.
Finding
Unwilling to assist Zimbabwean cricket
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Headline
This part of the complaint is dismissed, as the newspaper adequately summarized Ntini’s views. Still, it should be stated that this is a dangerous practice.
Not asked for comment
Given the fact that Ntini’s comments may have affected CSA’s reputation unnecessarily, Sunday Times should have given that body an opportunity to respond to the cricketer’s remarks regarding its alleged attitude towards Zimbabwean cricket.
Neglecting to ask CSA for comment was in breach of Section 1.8 of the Code which states, “The media shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication…”
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above is a Tier 2 offence.
Sanction
Sunday Times is:
· reprimanded for not asking CSA for its opinion on Ntini’s allegations against that body, as outlined above; and
· reminded of the obligation to use a source’s exact words when quoting that person, and to be careful not to put its own interpretation into a source’s mouth.
The newspaper is directed to:
· publish this reprimand prominently on the main sports page or close to it; and
· include CSA’s views on Ntini’s allegations, should it wish to comment on this matter.
The text, which should be approved by me, should:
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
If the offending article appeared on the newspaper’s website, the reprimand should appear there as well.
Appeal
Our 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
Press Ombud