Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
21 June 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Stefan du Toit and those of Son sports editor Natheer Marshall and the writer of the story, Seraj Jones.
Complaint
Du Toit is complaining about a story in Son of 26 May 2015, headlined Durbell wen, maar ref krap Lowrians erg om.
He complains that the article was inaccurate, subjective and partial – and that a statement that he was biased as the referee handling the game, was unverified.
Du Toit says he had in fact given more penalties to Sir Lowrians than to Durbell, in contrast to the insinuation in the article that he had been biased in favour of the latter team (who won the match).
He adds that a statement that he had disallowed a legal try was inaccurate, as there was a knock-on in the build-up to the try.
Du Toit concludes that the report impacted negatively and unfairly on his integrity. “The accusations are based on incorrect facts and as a result constitutes defamation of character.”
The text
The story was about a rugby match between Sir Lowrians and Durbell, two teams in the Cape Town area. The journalist alleged that the referee (Du Toit) had been biased, and that he had disallowed a legal try.
The arguments
Marshall replies that Son’s sports department encourages its reporters to express themselves and that, unlike other journalists, sports reporters are allowed to give their opinions of what happened in a match.
“Not everybody views events in a match exactly the same – and like all our other sports reporters, Seraj has freedom to sum up a match as he best sees it. He went there to report on what he saw. In his opinion what he saw is what he wrote.”
Jones agrees. He stands by his story (that the referee made questionable decisions). “According to me he spoilt a good match.”
Du Toit replies that the statement on his decision to disallow a “legal” try due to a knock-on was not an opinion, but rather a statement of fact. He says a video recording of the match shows this knock-on – which made the statement inaccurate.
My considerations
The newspaper’s argument is correct in that sports writers are allowed to give their opinions, unlike reporters of hard news. This is a world-wide practice.
Because much of sports writing is interpretation, it is not an easy matter to judge the result in terms of right or wrong. If Jones’s observation of the game led him to the view that the referee was biased and made blatant errors, then that was his opinion (to which he was entitled).
Du Toit takes umbrage to the statement that he had disallowed a legal try. He says that this statement was not presented as opinion, but as fact.
I have therefore studied a video recording of the incident, provided by Du Toit. This video shows no knock-on.
Therefore, I have no basis to find that the newspaper has breached the Press Code.
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