Decision to adjudicate
Complaint 8508
Date of article: 07/12/2020 (online) & 11/12/2020 (print)
Complainant: Jesse Myburgh
Respondent: Roodepoort Record
Headline: “Arrested for 2018 crimes”
Author: Amy Slocombe
Particulars
Complaint
2. Roodepoort Record published an article about the arrest of a suspect who has reportedly been a wanted suspect since 2018.
3. The sentence causing offence to the complainant reads: “According to APCAN, the reaction officers then searched a nearby KFC and found the coloured male hiding in the baby room near the restrooms.”
4. Myburgh states in his complaint that Roodepoort Record, which has a “predominantly non-Black” readership according to him, “continuously labels Black crime suspects by their races and never crimes committed by non-Blacks”. He says this alleged practice fuels racism, stereotypes and attitudes shown to Black people.
Public Advocate’s stance
5. The Public Advocate says the complainant could provide no evidence of continuous racial references in crime reports of Roodepoort Record. The complainant therefore made a sweeping statement.
6. He conducted a brief search of crime reports published by Roodepoort Record and could not find any other race references.
7. In follow-up correspondence, Myburgh himself stated that he also noticed that the respondent refrained from such references in further reports.
Complainant’s stance
8. Myburgh concedes that he made a sweeping statement about the “continuous” nature of the racial profiling but wants the newspaper to provide proof that this is not a recurring practice.
9. The complainant also says the one example of reference to a “coloured male” is enough to warrant an adjudication of the matter.
10. His complaint is not only that a Black suspect was identified as such, but that “non-Black” suspects are not identified as such.
Analysis
11. Very little has to be said about the complaint that the respondent “continuously” use racial epithets. There is no basis for this assertion. A complainant must at least identify more than one example to substantiate such an allegation.
12. With that said, it is also true that a single instance of racial stereotyping that transgresses the Press Code justifies an investigation.
13. References to people’s race is regulated by Clause 5.1. of the Press Code, which reads:
“The media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, and not refer to such status in a prejudicial or pejorative context – and shall refer to the above only where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported, and if it is in the public interest…”
14. The Appeals Panel, in Goss Marlon vs News24 (8424/02/2021), gave a detailed exposition of the interpretation and application of Clause 5.1. The majority stated:
“…(E)xcept in certain strict circumstances, (Clause 5.1.) prohibits discriminatory or denigratory references therein enumerated, ranging from “people’s race” down to “language and birth or other status”. These are “discriminatory or denigratory references.” (My underlining)
15. As a starting point, a reference to someone’s race, language, sexual orientation, etc. only needs scrutiny in terms of the Press Code if such reference is made in a discriminatory or denigratory context. More often than not it is uncontroversial to state that a woman is pregnant, or a person belongs to a particular religion, or that someone’s mother tongue is English.
16. The most basic question is therefore whether the description of the suspect in the article was used in a discriminatory or denigratory context.
17. The crime report was about an unnamed, but visually recognised suspect who was sought for an earlier theft of a bakkie. The victim of the earlier theft coincidentally recognised the suspect and provided security footage to the attending private security firm to confirm that the suspect was indeed the bakkie thief. In that sense, the fact that the suspect is reportedly a “coloured male” was strictly descriptive and germane to the facts of the story. Plainly put: The community member showed security officers video footage of a suspect who was of what is described as mixed-race appearance. The security officers then found “the (same, identified) coloured male” in a restroom of a restaurant.
18. Myburgh conceded in correspondence with the Public Advocate that the police routinely use descriptions that include references to race for identification purposes.
19. A reasonable reader would not equate the physical description of a suspect to a subliminal message that members of a certain race group are more inclined to be criminals than any other race group. In this context, the description was neither denigratory nor discriminatory.
Conclusion
20. For the above reasons, I decline to adjudicate the complaint for lack of merit.
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 Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za
Herman Scholtz
Deputy Press Ombud
9 August 2021