Ruling by the Press Ombud
19 October 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Mbulelo Maqhubu and those of Michael Kimberley of The Herald newspaper. Maqhubu, a current affairs presenter on SABC radio station Umhlobo Wenene, complains in his personal capacity.
The complaint concerns a front-page story in The Herald of 15 August 2017, headlined Kings Beach fight lands radio presenter and woman in court. This was also published on its Facebook page headlined, Kite fight leads to court” (http://heraldlive.co.za/news/2017/08/15/kings-beach-kite-lands-radio-presenter-woman-court/).
Complaint
Maqhubu complains the story falsely stated, as fact, that he:
· had faced a charge of malicious damage to property;
· had briefly appeared in court;
· and a woman (Ms Bondi-Borné Hulley):
o had laid complaints against each other (a statement which he had allegedly “confirmed”); and
o would return to court on August 29.
He adds that the headline was misleading and sensationalist, and not supported by the content of the story, adding it insinuated that he had participated in a fight, thus portraying him as a hooligan who fought a woman over a kite.
Maqhubu asks for:
· a retraction, correction and apology on the front page, with the same prominence;
· posters (as the story in dispute was advertised on posters);
· a link to the factual report on Facebook; and
· syndication of the text to the same media who published the original story – he says it was published by the Sunday World, TimesLive, Twitter, some blog (teevetee.blogspot), and also featured on some entertainment TV channel.
Maqhubu complains that the reportage was defamatory and malicious, and that it has damaged him and caused him great stress.
The text
The article, written by Riaan Marais, started as follows:
“Threats and insults that led to a slap in the face and destroyed a power kite, landed two Port Elizabeth residents in court following an altercation at Kings Beach in April.
“Saleswoman Bondi-Borné Hulley faces charges of assault and crimen injuria for allegedly slapping radio presenter Mbulelo Maqhubu after he reportedly destroyed her R4 000 power kite – for which he faces a charge of malicious damage to property.
“Both appeared briefly in the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court yesterday and will return to court later this month.”
The reporter quoted Hulley as saying that she and Maqhubu had words when she flew a kite. She said later her kite accidentally hit the sand right where Maqhubu and his family were sitting. The former allegedly threatened to cut her and her kite with a knife. According to her, Maqhubu did indeed cut her kite to shreds. When Maqhubu then walked towards her, she “decided to act first, slapping him”.
The story said the police were called, and the two laid complaints against each other.
Marais continued, “Maqhubu … confirmed he and Hulley laid complaints against each other, but declined to comment. They will return to court on August 29.”
The arguments; attempts at mediation
Maqhubu denies that he was involved in a fight – he calls the episode an “altercation” (the word was used in the story, but not in the headline).
He says the only truth in relation to court proceedings is that Hulley indeed made a brief appearance and her case of assault and crimen injuria was remanded for 29 August 2017.
Kimberley offers the following apology under the headline, Apology to Maqhubu over incorrect reporting: “In the article ‘Kings Beach kite fight lands radio presenter and woman in court’, published on Tuesday August 15, it was incorrectly reported that radio presenter Mbulelo Maqhubu appeared in the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court on a charge of malicious damage to property. In fact, the matter was provisionally withdrawn against Maqhubu and as a result he never appeared in court. We apologise to Maqhubu and any damage it may have caused him.”
Maqhubu rejects this “watered-down” apology, and proposes the following text:
“In the article ‘Kings Beach kite fight lands radio presenter and woman in court’, published on Tuesday August 15, it was incorrectly reported that radio presenter Mbulelo Maqhubu appeared in the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court on a charge of malicious damage to property. In actual fact, Maqhubu did not appear in court on 14 August 2017 as reported, rather the charge against him was not enrolled on 11 April 2017, after he had been issued with a warning to appear in court.
“Maqhubu had taken issue with the article, lodging a complaint with the Press Ombudsman, raising a number of other inaccuracies with the article, as outlined herewith:
a) He had complained that our headline was misleading in that it insinuated that he was involved in a fight, whereas in actual fact it was an altercation. He cited the fact that nowhere in the report did The Herald make reference to a fight, rather the only mention made was that of an altercation;
b) He went on to complain that it was untruthfully reported that he had confirmed that he and Hulley had laid complaints against each other, but declined to comment. In fact he never confirmed anything to that effect;
c) He complained that the report said he was to ‘return to court on August 29’, whereas there was nothing to substantiate this.
“Subsequent to ascertaining the facts, The Herald hereby apologises for the inaccurate report and any damage it may have caused him.”
In turn, Kimberley then proposed a revised draft which read:
“In the article ‘Kings Beach kite fight lands radio presenter and woman in court’, published on Tuesday August 15, it was incorrectly reported that radio presenter Mbulelo Maqhubu appeared in the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court on a charge of malicious damage to property. In fact, the matter was provisionally withdrawn against Maqhubu and as a result he never appeared in court. Maqhubu also complained that the report mentioned he was to ‘return to court on August 29’, whereas there was nothing to substantiate this mention in the article. The Herald apologises for the inaccurate report and any damage it may have caused him.”
He undertook to publish this text on the front page, with a picture of Maqhubu, as well as on Facebook.
Maqhubu rejects this version, insisting that his text be published. He asks why The Herald wants to omit that he also complained that:
· the headline was misleading in that it insinuated that he had been involved in a fight, rather than an altercation, and that it was not supported by the story itself;
· the story falsely stated that he had confirmed that he and Hulley had laid complaints against each other, but that he had declined to comment.
He argues that The Herald is selective in its apology, “thus rendering their apology not genuine, for if it was genuine it would own up to the fact that it was wrong and take full responsibility.”
In response, Kimberley says:
· The Merriam Webster thesaurus lists the synonym of “altercation” as “fight”, and vice versa. The words can therefore be used interchangeably to described what transpired that day; and
· The reporter asked Maqhubu if he was aware of the case and the incident. Maqhubu responded by saying “yes”. “This is a confirmation of him knowing about the case and incident. He also then declined to comment further,” he adds.
Analysis
Consensus
The parties have consensus on the following issues:
· An apology, with a picture of Maqhubu, is appropriate;
· This should be published on the front page and on the newspaper’s Facebook page, and should include that the reportage has caused him some unnecessary damage;
· The text should include that the story wrongly stated that he had:
o appeared in the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court on a charge of malicious damage to property;
o to return to court on August 29; and
· The headline and the date of publication of the offending article should be mentioned.
Given this consensus, I am willing to say, “So far, so good.”
Issues in dispute
The issues in dispute are the:
· headline:
o Maqhubu says it was misleading in that it insinuated that he had been involved in a fight, rather than an altercation, adding that it was not supported by the story itself;
o Kimberley argues the words “fight” and “altercation” are interchangeable as they carry the same meaning;
· statement that Maqhubu confirmed that he and Hulley had laid complaints against each other, but that he had declined to comment:
o Maqhubu denies this is true; and
o Kimberley says Maqhubu admitted that he knew about the case and, in fact, did decline to comment further.
Headline
While it is true that the thesaurus equates the words “fight” and “altercation”, and also that headline space is always limited, I tend to disagree with Kimberly on this issue (technically speaking, that is) – I believe that the reasonable reader would interpret the word “fight” as a physical confrontation, while the word “altercation” would indicate some form of disagreement which was not necessarily of a physical nature.
However, I note that the story, while having used the word “altercation”, also stated that Hulley had slapped Maqhubu in the face – which constituted a fight, indeed, even if the latter had not retaliated in the sense of hitting or assaulting her physically.
Also, the allegation that Maqhubu had cut her kite to shreds, as well as that he had “walked towards her”, suggested that the incident could indeed have been more than an altercation. If he in fact did cut Hully’s kite (an allegation which he does not deny), the “altercation” could, at the very least, be called a “kite fight”.
Therefore, I do not accept that the use of the word “fight” was wrong – the only mistake in the headline was the reference to Maqhuba having “landed in court”.
Confirming that he laid a complaint
I am not in a position to decide which of the two parties is correct in this instance. Fortunately, I do not believe that this issue is of much material importance.
Conclusion
I find it difficult to understand how it can happen that a journalist reports information, as fact, which was not true. I leave this matter to the editor, hoping that such sloppy reporting would be prevented in future.
Finding
The statements, of fact, that Maqhubu was facing a charge of malicious damage to property, that he had briefly appeared in court, and that he would return to court on August 29 were false and therefore in breach of Section 1.1 of the Press Code which reads, “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.”
The headline was incorrect in that it also falsely stated that the incident has landed Maqhubu in court, breaching the same section as mentioned above.
There is no finding on the statement that Maqhubu and Hulley had laid complaints against each other, and that the former had confirmed this.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1 – minor errors which do not change the thrust of the story), serious breaches (Tier 2), and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Press Code as indicated above are all Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
Text to be published
Given the abortive attempts by the parties to reach consensus on the text which should be published, I have decided on the text which should be published on the front page as well as on Facebook. I have taken care not to include too many details, which may not be properly understood by uninformed readers, and rather to focus on the salient issues.
The text, headlined Apology to Maqhubu over incorrect reporting, reads as follows:
In the article “Kings Beach kite fight lands radio presenter and woman in court”, published on Tuesday August 15, it was incorrectly reported that radio presenter Mbulelo Maqhubu appeared in the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court on a charge of malicious damage to property, and also that he was to return to court on August 29.
Our journalist, Riaan Marais, reported on an altercation between Maqhubu and a woman on a beach following an incident which had involved her kite, which led him to lodge a complaint with the Press Council.
The Press Ombud also found that the headline was misleading in that it falsely stated that the incident had landed Maqhubu in court.
The Herald hereby apologises for the inaccurate report and any damage it may have caused him.
Visit www.pressouncil.org.za for the full finding.
The text should be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed.
Other actions
I am asking the Public Advocate to syndicate this text to the platforms which also published the offending story, with the request to run the apology as well.
This matter was not so serious as to revert to the publication of posters as well – the front page, I believe, will suffice.
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