Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
October 30, 2013
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Takalani Dzaga, director of Communications and Marketing at the University of Venda (Univen), and Ms Wendy Pretorius, news editor of Sowetan.
Complaint
The story that led to the complaint was headlined Higher Education in Crisis – CEO, published in Sowetan on 17 October 2013. Univen complained that its response to the story in the form of a letter to the editor, headlined FirstRand CEO ‘off mark’ (October 23, page 5), omitted important information.
Analysis
The story, written by education journalist Bongekile Macupe, reported that FirstRand chief executive Sizwe Nxasana said that previously disadvantaged universities (including Univen) were producing unemployable third-class graduates. Nxasana also reportedly emphasised the need for more government investment to improve quality education.
Univen Vice-Chancellor and Principal Prof Peter Mbati responded to Sowetan (dated October 18), outlining the following (I am only citing the more important issues):
Sowetan then published (part of) Mbati’s response, merely saying that he had “hit back”, that Nxasana’s statement was “unsubstantial”, and that Univen had produced alumni who held powerful positions both in the private and the public sector.
Univen then complained that the newspaper omitted material information provided by Mbati.
First things first:
· Sowetan had the right to publish the initial story which merely reported Nxasana’s views;
· Accordingly, Univen correctly did not complain about the publication of his views;
· Because Nxasana was speaking at a public event, and the journalist merely reported what the former had said, the publication was under no obligation to ask for Univen’s response; and
· The newspaper published (part of) Mbati’s letter – of its own accord, without intervention by this office, which in itself is commendable.
This means that this office was not asked to adjudicate on either the initial story or on the question if Sowetan in the first place should have given him a right of reply after the publication of its story.
Therefore, my one and only question boils down to this: Did Sowetan breach the Press Code by the way that it had reported Mbati’s response? In other words: Once Sowetan has decided to publish Mbati’s response, it was obliged to keep its reporting on this matter within the boundaries of the Press Code.
My observations in this regard are:
That was not fair to either Mbati or Univen and it amounted to causing them some unnecessary harm as it created a false impression of his response. (For more context to this statement, see the finding and the sanction below.)
Finding
Sowetan is in breach of the following Sections of the Press Code:
Sanction
Sowetan is directed to:
Beginning of text
Sowetan apologises to the University of Venda for omitting material information from a response by Vice-Chancellor Prof Peter Mbati to a story headlined Higher Education in Crisis – CEO (published on 17 October), the omission of which caused them some unnecessary harm.
The story, written by education journalist Bongekile Macupe, reported FirstRand chief executive Sizwe Nxasana’s views that previously disadvantaged universities (including Univen) were producing unemployable third-class graduates, and that government should invest more in quality education.
Mbati responded via aletter to us, the content of which we partly reported – saying that he had “hit back”, that Nxasana’s statement was “unsubstantial”, and that Univen had produced alumni who held powerful positions both in the private and the public sector.
The University then complained to the Press Ombudsman that we have omitted material information from Mbati’s response.
The Ombudsman, Johan Retief, said: “I do not blame the newspaper for not publishing Mbati’s full response, as it is an accepted journalistic practice to pick out the more important issues and omit the less significant ones – especially if the content of a letter is quite comprehensive such as the one in question…However, equally so it is an accepted practice not to leave out material information – in fact, this is more than an ‘accepted practice’, as the Press Code requires fairness and balance…”
He then found that the complaint was justified, and added: “That was not fair to either Mbati or Univen and it amounted to causing them some unnecessary harm as it created a false impression of his response,” Retief said.
The more important elements of Mbati’s response that we omitted to publish were:
Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding.
End of text
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 Adjudication Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombudsman