Ruling by the Press Ombud
12 June 2018
PARTICULARS
|
Complainants
|
Ms Julegka Motaung |
|
Lodged by
|
Mr Ben Winks |
|
Date of article; page
|
Sunday Sun: 6 May 2018 (page 5) Daily Sun: May 7 (website)
|
|
Headline
|
Sunday Sun: CHIEFS’ QUEEN TAKEDOWN! – Thieves steal valuables worth R2m
Daily Sun: Thieves steal valuables worth R2m from the Motaungs Poster: MOTAUNG IN HIJACKING!
|
|
Author of article
|
Mduduzi Nonyane |
|
Respondent
|
Johan Vos, legal editor |
Complaint
Motaung complains that the article:
· was not in the public interest as she was not a public figure;
· violated her rights to dignity and privacy, and consequently posed risks to her personal security;
· inaccurately stated that the hijacking took place “recently”; and
· misleadingly suggested that the items of which she was robbed (to the value of R2.5-million) consisted mainly of jewellery.
She also says that the:
· police incident report was unlawfully leaked to the reporter; and
· publication was requested to take down the article (or at least the private details in it) from its website, but says that it has ignored this request.
The text
The article said Motaung had been the victim of a robbery and hijacking at her home.
The arguments
No public interest
Motaung denies that she is a public figure, even though her husband may be one.
She says the article itself set out to make her newsworthy purely by association with her husband and the club as the:
· headline referred to her, misleadingly, as “CHIEFS’ QUEEN”;
· poster referred merely, and misleadingly, to “MOTAUNG”;
· online headline referred to valuables stolen from “the Motaungs”;
· article attributed no public or professional role to her in her own right, describing her instead as: “Kaizer Chiefs owner Kaizer Motaung senior’s wife, Julegka”; “the soccer bigwig’s wife”; “the queen of the soccer family”; and
· journalist reportedly sought comment from the club’s spokesman and from her husband, who were not even involved in the subject matter of the article.
Motaung also complains that, even if she was a public figure, the incident described in the article still was not of legitimate public interest – and even if it was, the specific private details set out in the article were gratuitous.
She adds that some details in the article were inaccurate (details below).
Dignity, privacy; security
Motaung says that, by publicising some private details (such as that she lived in Bryanston, drove a white Range Rover, and was carrying jewellery and other valuables worth R2.5 million, including R18 000 in cash), the publications have exposed her to public humiliation, and the headline “CHIEFS’ QUEEN TAKEDOWN!” actually invited the public to marvel at her misfortune.
In addition, this has exposed her to more such attacks.
Inaccurate, misleading
Motaung says the hijacking did not take place “recently”, as stated in the article – the incident already happened in January 2017. The journalist therefore avoided using any actual dates in the article, as he apparently wished to manufacture “news” out of an old police incident report that had been (unlawfully) leaked to him.
She also complains that, by stating that she was “robbed of items valued at R2.5 million”, the article misleadingly suggested that these “items” were composed mainly of jewellery, and did not include the vehicle, which would obviously have made up the majority of the value of the stolen property. The story therefore gave the misleading impression that she typically carried extraordinarily expensive jewellery and other items on her person or in her car.
Removed from website
Motaung says Daily Sun was requested to take down the article (or at least the private details in it) from its website, but it has ignored this request. She asks for a retraction and an apology, and for this office to direct that the article should be permanently removed from its website (and not only temporarily).
|
Vos argues that the story was in the public interest, as: · Motaung was a public figure as she was well-known (he includes a list of newspaper articles in this regard to prove his point); · her husband (Mr Kaizer Motaung Sr) was the founder and chairperson of Kaizer Chiefs Football Club; and · crime was a serious issue in South Africa that affected everybody in the country. He adds that the article did not disclose Motaung’s address, but only stated that she lived in Bryanston, Sandton, saying that, according to a census in 2011, Bryanston had a population of 28 758. He also says the story mentioned that she drove a white Range Rover, but did not publish its registration number, adding that Bryanston was an affluent area and that it was unlikely that there was only one person in Bryanston who drove such a vehicle. Vos denies that the: · story has portrayed Motaung in a negative light and has violated her dignity – he says the article merely portrayed her as a victim of crime; and · headline has invited the public to marvel at her misfortune – he says it merely indicated the trauma she had experienced in the hijacking and robbery. The legal editor says the journalist tried to get hold of Motaung, but was unsuccessful (as indicated in the article). The reporter then tried other avenues, such as contacting her husband (as he could be privy to information about the incident), as well as the club’s spokesperson. He says the police informant told the journalist the incident happened in December 2017 and it was never reported on; he adds that the investigation was still ongoing. He says the newspaper has removed the article permanently from its website out of courtesy (and not as an admission of guilt), even before Motaung lodged a complaint with this office. |
No public interest
Motaung says the courts have consistently said that a “public figure” is someone who “by his personality, status or conduct exposed himself to such a degree of publicity as to justify an intrusion into or public discourse on certain aspects of his private life”. Moreover, any such intrusions “should be limited to those that are in the public interest or for the public benefit so that unjustified prying into personal affairs unrelated to the person’s public life may be prevented”.
She argues that she has not “exposed herself” to publicity in any way. Instead, she says, the newspapers took it upon themselves to “expose” her to publicity.
She also says that the list of articles, provided by Vos, only proves that she is not a public figure as:
· five of the articles are in fact one and the same story, republished on different platforms;
· the other one is a republication of the very article which is the subject of her complaint; and
· all of the listed “articles” were published after the one which is in dispute.
Therefore, she concludes, the publications cannot rightly claim that she had any “public figure” status at the time of publication.
Motaung says that, even if she were a public figure, the newspapers cannot show that their article was related to her “public life” and thus in the “public interest”. She argues that Vos’s reference to crime being “a serious issue in this country” which “affects everyone” comes nowhere near the satisfying test for “public interest” set by the courts.
She quotes from another court case: “Prurient or morbid public curiosity, no matter how widespread, about things which are ordinarily regarded as private or do not really concern the public cannot be the test. Nor can the fact that there is a legitimate public interest in a particular topic such as the prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders mean that any information of any kind which is relevant to that topic may be published with impunity.”
Privacy; dignity
Motaung questions Vos’s denial that the newspapers have published private details about her. She argues that, even if a person is a public figure and there is legitimate public interest in a particular event in his or her private life, that does not create a licence to publish gratuitous details of the event. The journalist is restricted to publish only those details that the public has a right to know.
She says that, even though Vos points out that the publications have refrained from publishing her street address and registration number of her car, he still fails to explain what public interest they saw in disclosing what suburb she lives in and what make, model and colour of car she drives.
Motaung also insists that the headline, CHIEFS’ QUEEN TAKEDOWN! has invited the public to marvel at her misfortune. She argues that the word “takedown”, according to the Oxford Dictionary, denotes either “a wrestling manoeuvre in which an opponent is swiftly brought to the mat from a standing position”, or informally “a police raid or arrest” or “an instance of overwhelmingly defeating or severely criticizing someone or something”.
She says none of these definitions connoted concern or sympathy, as Vos claims. She says, “On the contrary, and particularly when positioned alongside the word ‘queen’, the word ‘takedown! clearly means to make a spectacle of [her ordeal], and even to convey a sense of schadenfreude.”
Inaccurate, misleading
Motaung says the legal editor’s argument that the article was not inaccurate and misleading, as “[t]he police informant told the journalist that the incident happened in December 2017”, is unconvincing. She says Vos effectively admits that they gained their information from a single anonymous source, and that they did not corroborate it in any way, not even by examining any police document. In the circumstances, she argues, the publications cannot contend that the article was accurate, as they did nothing to verify what they had been told by an unnamed “police informant”.
She adds that, to the best of her knowledge, it is not true that there is any “ongoing” police investigation, as Vos claims (without explaining how he has ascertained this information).
She notes that Vos does not deny the statement that the article gave the misleading impression that she typically carried extraordinarily expensive jewellery and other items on her person or in her car.
Analysis
Public interest
The gist of the complaint rests on the question if Motaung could rightly be described as a public figure.
I have taken note of Motaung’s argument about what constitutes a public figure, and especially that she uses the phrase “exposed himself [or herself]” to such a degree of publicity as to justify an intrusion into certain aspects of that person’s life. She argues that she has not “exposed herself”, saying that it was rather the newspaper who have exposed her to publicity.
This last argument is debatable. One could also argue, with some justification, that she has indeed “exposed” herself merely by being Mr Motaung’s wife – who is undoubtedly a public figure.
In normal parlance, a “public figure” is merely someone who is well-known, or widely known, or famous. Given the high prominence her family enjoys in society (surely, one of the most well-known families in the country), as well as the fact that many newspaper reports have referred to her as well, I have little hesitation in accepting that the publications were justified to treat her as a public figure.
For the record: I am not basing my statement about newspaper reports on the list that Vos has supplied me with – I have done my own internet search, and am satisfied that Ms Motaung can rightly be described as well-known or famous as there are quite a few articles in which she appears prior to the publication of the story in question.
Regarding the corresponding argument about public interest, I am mindful of the following sentence in the Preamble to the Press Code: “The media’s work is guided at all times by the public interest, understood to describe information of legitimate interest or importance to citizens.” (My emphasis.)
This is a telling distinction, as it caters both for news that one needs to know (“importance”), and for that which is nice to know (“interest”).
The article in question falls squarely inside this “definition” of what constitutes public interest.
I also agree with Vos’s argument about crime in the country which affects “everybody”, and that it was in the public interest to know that Motaung was involved in such a hijacking incident.
Dignity, privacy, security
I fail to see how the reportage could have tarnished Motaung’s dignity or that it could have humiliated her – the report did not state that she had been hijacked as a result of her own actions. I also do not interpret the word “takedown” in a negative sense towards her as a person – which the story in any case did not reflect either.
I also do not agree that the stories contained so many detailed personal information that the reportage could have endangered her life, or have exposed her to any kind of danger or any similar attacks.
Inaccurate, misleading
Motaung complains the story said that the hijacking took place “recently”. However, that word does not appear in either of the stories – they merely stated that it took place.
The fact that the incident happened 16 months before the stories appeared was not good journalism as it indeed was old news, but that does not by default constitute a breach of the Press Code.
The next question is if the story has misleadingly portrayed that Motaung had been robbed of R2.5-million, mainly of valuables (read: mainly jewellery).
The story said that Motaung had been robbed of “items” valued at R2.5-million. A bit lower down in the story, the journalist stated that the Police were investigating a case of “carjacking” as well as robbery. The article added that the thugs “also” got away with jewellery and a handbag “with R18 000 in cash”.
To the reasonable reader, it would have been clear that the R2.5-million in fact included her car as one of the “items” stolen.
The source
The question is how reliable the newspaper’s source was.
The articles attributed the information to a “police report”. Surely, a journalist has the right to quote from such a document. Motaung has not explained why this information was unlawfully leaked to the reporter – and even if it was, it would not necessarily have violated the Press Code (see Section 1.4).
Taking down of article
I only have a mandate to direct a publication to remove an article if it is defamatory. Section 1.12 of the Press Code states, “No person shall be entitled to have an article removed which falls short of being defamatory, but is alleged by such person to be embarrassing.”
I therefore leave the decision to remove the article, or not, up to the publication.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
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.
Johan Retief
Press Ombud