ADJUDICATION NO: 07/A/2015

PROGRAMME NAME: NEWSROOM DATE OF BROADCAST: 9 APRIL 2015

BROADCASTER: SABC – NEW CHANNEL 404 COMPLAINANT: CINMAN

COMPLAINT

Allegedly biased and insulting behaviour of presenter during interview conducted as part of a news programme.

APPLICABLE RULES

11 (1) Broadcasting service Licensees must report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.

12 (1) Broadcasting service licensees are entitled to broadcast comment on and criticism of any actions or events of public importance.

12 (2) Comment must be an honest expression of opinion and must be presented in such manner that it appears clearly to be comment, and must be made on facts truly stated or fairly indicated and referred to.

ADJUDICATION

[1] The Registrar of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission received a complaint regarding a presenter’s allegedly biased and insulting behaviour during an interview conducted as part of a news programme.

[2] The complaint reads as follows:

“I would like to make a complaint about the appalling behaviour of Eben Jansen on SABC NEWS this morning. Biased, unprofessional, rude and embarrassing. Here is a link to the footage in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BGxQ4ahGDE

The interview I am referring to starts at 19:00 into the video. This was broadcast on SABC News on 9 April.

This contravenes in the code of conduct, in my opinion, because it is biased, inflammatory and insulting. It is not news: it is either journalistic incompetence, in which case Mr Jansen should be taken off the air; or it is political bias, in which case the same is required. Clearly Mr Jansen has a preconceived view of the issue, did not allow the guest time to speak and cut him off when he disagreed with him.

In addition, he use of the phrase “Red Indians” is racist and embarrasses not only himself but the broadcaster and our country.”

[3] The Broadcaster responded as follows:

“BCCSA COMPLAINT: JARRED CINMAN - CHANNEL 404 - NEWS - 09.04.2015 - 09:00

In respect of the above-mentioned complaint, please find our comments as follows:

1. The issue regarding the abrupt ending of the interview in question has been addressed internally as a breach of the SABC Editorial Policies, with the presenter having been removed, as confirmed by the attached media statement from the SABC. However, we do not believe this was in any way a transgression of any clause of the Code regarding broadcast content.

2. With regard to the use of the phrase “Red Indian”, we agree with the complainant that this is considered derogatory by indigenous Americans and apologise for its use, albeit through ignorance on the part of the presenter with no intent to cause offense. Again, this has also been addressed in the disciplinary action instituted.”

EVALUATION

[4] The Complainant contends that a presenter breached the Code by behaving in a manner that was biased and “unprofessional” during an interview that formed part of a news programme. The presenter refused the interviewee sufficient opportunity to present his views, eventually cutting him off abruptly. In addition, the racial slur “Red Indian” was used by the presenter.

[5] The Respondent concedes that the interviewer’s behaviour was a matter of concern, to the extent that it warranted severe disciplinary action on the part of the broadcaster. However, the broadcaster limits its concern to the abrupt manner in which the presenter terminated the interview, regarding this as “a breach of the SABC Editorial Policies” rather than a transgression of the BCCSA Code. Hence, the matter was addressed internally, with the presenter having been removed from the programme.

Attempts are made to substantiate the argument by means of references to a media statement that the Broadcaster subsequently issued in regard to the programme. With regard to the racial slur, the Respondent conceded that the term Red Indian is derogatory, though again it regarded this as an internal matter that was dealt with by taking disciplinary action against the presenter.

[6] I listened to the clip, and it is clear that the interviewee was interrupted and ridiculed to the point that he was denied the opportunity of answering tendentious questions that were put to him. The presenter’s manner was aggressive and strident, and he seemed unwilling to listen to the responses or to treat them in a respectful manner. In contrast, the interviewee’s tone was measured and controlled as he struggled to put his point of view across. In the end, he was silenced by the presenter, who baldly declared: “Actually I’m not going to allow you to speak any more Mr Ndlozi because we can’t have a conversation. Let’s move on. That’s the spokesperson for the EFF, Mr Mbuyiseni Ndlozi who unfortunately does not want a conversation, he’s more in the mood for a soliloquy today.”

[7] On the one hand, the Respondent argues that there was no transgression of the Code with regard to broadcast content. On the other hand it issues an apology admitting unequivocally that the presenter’s behaviour was “completely uncalled for and unprofessional”, making reference also to the “severity of his transgression”. It is noteworthy that the Broadcaster limits this transgression to the presenter’s abrupt termination of the interview – an action that amounts to silencing him, and refusing the right of reply.

However, professionalism suggests skill and competence – neither of which were evident in the presenter’s aggressive manner and tendentious interviewing technique, clearly aimed at ridiculing the interviewee. Consequently, the presenter’s generally scornful demeanour and bullying behaviour could be described as grossly unprofessional, and the “severity” of his unprofessionalism, i.e. the degree of incompetence displayed, puts it in breach of the BCCSA Code, which requires accuracy and fairness of news programmes, and demands that comment be honest and based on facts that are “truly stated or fairly indicated and referred to”.

Fairness was precluded by the presenter’s refusal to allow the interviewee the opportunity of answering questions put to him. As a consequence, the interview took the form of an inquisition rather than an inquiry, with the presenter – who had clearly prejudged his hapless victim – apparently relishing his role of Grand Inquisitor. There is, thus, a discrepancy in the Respondent’s argument, since the apology, and the inferences one may draw from it (the presenter’s bias, unfairness and refusal of the right to reply) conflicts with its defence that there was no transgression of the Code.

[8] Regarding the racial slur, it may be accepted that the term Red Indian was a verbal slip, an understandable error, given that the term relates to a context whose sensitivities South Africans may not be entirely familiar with. Accordingly, and since there appears to have been no deliberately malicious intent in the utterance, the Broadcaster was entitled to deal with this error internally.

[9] In view of the extensive public interest in the matter dealt with in the interview and the potentially inflammatory consequences of the presenter’s behaviour, and taking into account current political tensions in South African society, the Broadcaster cannot simply be let off with a slap on the wrist. It needs to be made clear that it is a presenter’s professional duty to maintain a certain level of detachment and to avoid being caught up in tensions that may arise from a topic under discussion. This is the only way to ensure fairness – not only with regard to an interviewee’s right to freedom of expression, but also regarding comment, since facts can only be “truly stated” if sufficient opportunity is provided by the Broadcaster.

[10] After consideration of the facts before me, I find that Clauses 11 and 12 of the Code have been breached. The complaint is upheld, and both the Respondent and Complainant were requested to submit a submission on sanction on or before 27 April.

[11] Submission on Sanction

The Respondent: “Our comments in terms of sanction as requested are as follows:

1. As noted in our initial response in this matter, we have taken strong action against Mr Jansen. This was done immediately after the on-air incident, even before a complaint was received.

2. Mr Jansen remains off air pending a decision on his return by SABC News management.

3. Mr Jansen has acknowledged his default in separate letters addressed to both the interviewee and the SABC. Copies of the letters are attached, with Mr Jansen’s consent, indicating genuine remorse on his part.

4. The SABC has also issued a media statement publicly apologising for the incident and has brought to the attention of all its News presenters that similar action is not permissible.

5. In view of the firm steps taken by the SABC, we submit that a reprimand would be in order.

The Complainant: “I would imagine that a public acknowledgement and apology would be appropriate.”

[12] In view of the obvious sincerity of the steps taken by the Broadcaster, as well as the presenter’s written apology, and taking into account the Complainant’s suggestion, the Respondent is directed to broadcast the following during the first five minutes of the same news service, and at the same time, that Mr Jansen conducted his interview with the spokesperson of the Economic Freedom Fighters:

“The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa has reprimanded the SABC as a consequence of the failure of its news presenter, Mr Eben Jansen, to grant Mr Mbuyiseni Ndlozi a reasonable opportunity to respond to questions or properly conclude an interview on behalf of the Economic Freedom Fighters, following the removal of the Rhodes statue at the University of Cape Town.”

The Broadcast must take place before 30 April 2015.

The Broadcaster must also inform the Registrar at least 48 hours before the above is broadcast of the broadcast so that the relevant parties may be informed thereof. A copy of the broadcast must also be filed with the Registrar.

DR LYNDA GILFILLAN

BCCSA COMMISSIONER

Issued by the BCCSA, April 28 2015