Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
29 April 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Sizakele Khumalo and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.
Complaint
Khumalo is complaining about three pictures on the front page of the newspaper on 19 April 2015, with a story headlined Kill thy neighbour: Alex attack brings home SA’s shame – Mozambican murdered a day after pledge to curb xenophobic violence.
He complains: “It presented brutality, violence and suffering of Mr Emmanuel Sithole in its raw form. The newspaper was insensitive and offensive in the extreme to show…such brutal images of an attack [on] a human’s life.”
The pictures
The story’s headline and sub-headline adequately described what the story was about. The murder took place in Alexandra, Johannesburg.
The report was accompanied by three pictures. In the largest a man with a knife, held up high above his head, was about to strike Sithole with the deadly weapon. In the second picture, three men stood around the stabbed man, who was lying on the ground. The last photograph depicted the victim clearly suffering much pain.
The caption to these pictures read: “MOVING IN FOR THE KILL: After being stalked down a street, taunted and hit with a wrench, Emmanuel Sithole is cornered by his attackers, stabbed in the heart and left to die on a rubbish-strewn Alexandra street early yesterday morning. He was from Mozambique.”
The arguments
Section 9 of the Press Code is relevant. It reads: “Due care and responsibility shall be exercised by the press with regard to the presentation of brutality, violence and suffering.”
Smuts argues that the context should determine whether the newspaper adhered to this clause or not. She says the violence against foreign nationals and its underlying grievances (whether real or perceived) are matters of irrefutable public interest – the attack on Sithole illustrated just how precarious life can be in communities where these attacks were taking place.
The legal editor adds: “It is in no small part thanks to the publication of the photographs that those suspected of killing Mr Sithole have been arrested. The images certainly are disturbing and brutal. However, we submit that in this instance the public interest in having the killers brought to justice must outweigh the sensitivities of our readers.”
Khumalo replies that Sithole’s circumstances could not have justified the indignity that he was afforded by Sunday Times. He argues that the publication of those images showed the newspaper’s equal disregard for the lives and dignity of foreign nationals. Khumalo adds it would be a sad day when the violation of people’s rights and insensitive, lowly reporting could be justified, defended or dismissed simply by the argument of “public interest”.
He says he cannot believe that the apprehension of Sithole’s perpetrators was even brought into the newspaper’s reply to his complaint. “Surely this cannot be right?”
Analysis
This complaint brings to mind an incident that happened in April 1988, when a terrorist/freedom fighter (depending on the perspective) planned to detonate a bomb outside the Sterland movie complex in Pretoria. The bomb exploded earlier than expected, gruesomely ripping this person to pieces and disheveling parts of his body.
Rapport then published a huge picture of what was left of this person in colour on its front page, with a much smaller picture of the deceased, showing his face as somebody had lifted it up for the photographer.
A more gruesome illustration than the main picture is in fact unthinkable.
A complaint was lodged with the then Media Council, who rejected it with regards to the main picture, arguing an overriding public interest in this case. (The complaint about the smaller picture was upheld because the lifting up of the torso was deemed to be staged.)
I am fully aware of the fact that the Media Council was a different animal from the current Press Council – the former was an Apartheid institution, and the latter is independent of any government influence.
While I am therefore not guided by this decision, I still am taking the merits of the ruling into account.
Given the spate of xenophobic attacks of late, and the huge impact they have had both nationally and globally, I would argue that public interest in this case overrides the concerns of sensitive readers as well as those of family members. I therefore do not believe that the publication of the disputed images showed any disregard for the lives and dignity of foreign nationals.
(I need to add that, even though it may be true that the killers were brought to justice due to the publication of the pictures, the same result could have been obtained by merely presenting these photographs to the police.)
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
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 Ombudsman