Introduction

I have gone through the Press Ombudsman's rulings for the last three years (2010, 2011 and 2012), as listed on its website, and categorised those rulings that found against particular newspapers, by newspaper. The list follows below. At the top is the paper with the most findings against it; at the bottom, those with the least. I have excluded those newspapers which have no findings against them during this period.

The list is as follows:

Sunday Times: 12
City Press: 8
Sunday Independent: 7
Sowetan: 7
Sunday World: 7
The Star: 6
Sondag: 5
The Times: 4
Beeld: 4
Daily Voice: 3
Rapport: 3
Die Burger: 3
Mail & Guardian: 3
Citizen: 2
Daily Dispatch: 2
Ilanga: 2
The Saturday Star: 2
Diamond Fields Advertiser: 2
Volksblad: 2
Business Day: 2
Sunday Tribune: 1
Cape Times: 1
Die Son: 1
Daily Sun: 1
EP Herald: 1
The New Age: 1 (1 unknown)
The Post: 0 (1 unknown)

Methodology

Before looking at the findings in more detail it is, however, necessary to set out a number of disclaimers, because this exercise is actually far more complex than it first appears. When reading the list, you need to bear the following in mind:

First, the nature of any transgression varies, some are profound, others, minor infractions. A front page central factual inaccuracy is far more damning than a minor effor on page 7. The sanctions deal with both. One would need a more qualitative assessment to determine which violations were the most damaging and significant.
Second, in many cases, in a given complaint, a great many sub-issues were dismissed by the Ombudsman. Nevertheless, if just one was upheld, I have counted it as a sanction because, in my view, it still stands as an error, even if a substantial part of a complaint was dismissed.

Third, these only represent those complaints listed on the Ombudsman's website for this period, if there were others not listed, they are not included.

Fourth, while certain conclusions can be drawn from the above they don't speak to a newspaper's competence entirely. A great many errors can be corrected by the newspaper of its own volition, without the matter being raised with the Ombudsman. So, if a newspaper is exceedingly good at correcting its own mistakes, it will have fewer findings against it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make mistakes (the Sunday Times, for example, ran a voluntary apology on the front page when it got the facts wrong regarding the Western Cape tender story it ran, they would not feature on this list).

Fifth, there is no doubt a relationship between the number of readers who read a publication and the number of complaints brought against it. More readers means more oversight and, in turn, probably more complaints.

Sixth, this is actually a very small sample, no doubt because a worryingly small number of people make use of the Ombudsman and its procedures are too complex and slow. However, I do believe certain conclusions can be reached from them. I would have done a five year sample but the 2009 rulings on the Ombudsman website were blocked by my computer because of a virus threat.

Seventh, where I have recorded ‘unknown', there was a problem with the Ombudsman website downloading that particular ruling.
Eighth, there were some 30 cases brought against community newspapers and other publications. I have not included them here. It focuses only on mainstream papers.

So, this is a very crude assessment, but I do feel it necessary to say at the outset that I do not understand why the Ombudsman does not provide this kind of overview itself. It seems to me an essential part of its mandate. How else is the public supposed to gauge the most reliable newspapers from those that routinely make errors and misrepresentations? It strikes me as bizarre that no such analysis is not regularly produced and advertised by the Ombudsman and published by the newspapers themselves. If self-regulation is the answer to better reporting, surely the newspapers and the Ombudsman have a duty in this regard?

The findings

At the top of the list is the Sunday Times, with 12 findings against it. It also had the most complaints brought against it, some 22. Indeed, it is significant that the top three slots are all occupied by Sunday weeklies: The Sunday Times (12 complaints uphelp), City Press (8) and the Sunday Independent (7).

On the one hand, these papers do boast a bigger readership, on the other they produce less copy than the weeklies. So greater oversight needs to be balanced against a greater amount of copy and, when one considers both, the fact that they occupy the top three slots is significant and says something about their quality control.

That would seem to be confirmed by the fact that Rapport, a paper which also boasts a large readership, has faired so well (just 3 complaints upheld). Of the four big Sunday weeklies, the Sunday Independent probably also deserves some special attention. If it is agreed greater readership has an effect on the number of complaints, it has the smallest and so the 7 complaints uphelp against it are significant.

The Sunday World should not escape interrogation either, with 7, likewise Sondag, 5. The Mail and Guardian - which enjoys a reputation as ‘controversial' and, because it deals primarily in investigative journalism, would seemingly lend itself to more complaints - also does very well, with just 3 complaints upheld.

The Saturday papers fair much better, with very complaints against them. They also enjoy significant readership numbers but have far fewer pages dedicated to hard news.

Here are all the weeklies:

Sunday Times: 12
City Press: 8
Sunday Independent: 7
Sunday World: 7
Sondag: 5
Rapport: 3
Mail & Guardian: 3
The Saturday Star: 2
Sunday Tribune: 1

The daily publications fair much better. Here they are:

Sowetan: 7
The Star: 6
The Times: 4
Beeld: 4
Daily Voice: 3
Die Burger: 3
Citizen: 2
Daily Dispatch: 2
Ilanga: 2
Diamond Fields Advertiser: 2
Volksblad: 2
Business Day: 2
Cape Times: 1
Die Son: 1
Daily Sun: 1
EP Herald: 1
The New Age: 1 (1 unknown)
The Post: 0 (1 unknown)

The Sowetan and the Star have a case to answer. Both recorded especially high numbers in comparison with the rest. The ‘tabloids', surprisingly, do quite well.

So, which newspapers have a clean record for the period in question? They include the following:

Weekend Witness
Weekend Argus (Saturday and Sunday)
Saturday Star
Sunday Sun
Independent on Saturday
Cape Argus
Citizen on Saturday
Saturday Burger
The Mercury
Pretoria News
Natal Witness

Please forgive me if I have excluded any studious newspaper that has not lost a complaint to the Ombudsman over this period.

Conclusion

One could also categorise the findings by ownership house, something I have not done here but which might make for interesting reading. How, for example, does Avusa (Sowetan, Sunday Times, Business Day, Times, etc) compare to News24 (City Press, Rapport, Sondag, Die Burger, Beeld, etc) or the Independent Group (Star, Cape Times, Mercury, Argus, etc)? It could be a difficult comparison to make, because the number of newspapers per group might vary. Still, it might be interesting.

At any rate, the fundamental point is this: there is a great deal of improvement necessary here - both with regards to the way in which these findings are analysed and made available to the public and how often the Press Ombudsman is used by the public to complain. Certainly there is a need for a more qualitative assessment: What were the nature of the transgressions and their impact and, importantly, how did the sanction measure up against the impact of the initial error?

That said, and despite all the various disclaimers in this piece, there exists a record and that cannot be explained away. And so it is worth asking: Why do some newspapers fair better than others and what does that say about them and their commitment to fair, honest and accurate reporting?

This article first appeared on Inside Politics.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter