Press Ombudsman rules in AfriForum’s favour and orders Sunday World to publish apology for false reporting
19 November 2024
The Press Council Ombudsman today ruled that Sunday World had published false claims about AfriForum in August 2024 and ordered the publication to retract the allegations and apologise.
The 26 August article in Sunday World falsely claimed that AfriForum claims there is a “white genocide” happening in South Africa, as well as that the organisation “refuse to cry foul” about murders of black people.
According to the Press Omdbud’s findings, Sunday World accepted it was wrong to say that AfriForum claims there is a white genocide in South Africa and has offered to retract the allegations and apologise. The ruling further stipulates that Sunday World accepts that previous rulings by the Press Council, complaint 4366 against the Mail & Guardian (2018) and complaint 8395 against TimesLive (2021), have found this claim to be without foundation. Additionally, the Press Ombud upheld the complaint that Sunday World’s article breached clause 1.1 of the press code – to take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly – by reporting that AfriForum refused to condemn the murder of black people.
According to Ernst van Zyl, head of Public Relations at AfriForum, the organisation welcomes this vindicating ruling by the Press Ombud. “This is, however, not the end, seeing as AfriForum recently filed two additional complaints regarding further false claims recently published by Sunday World against the organisation. The first pertains to the absurdly false claim on the 10th of November that the ‘Apartheid flag flew high’ at our protest against the Bela Act. The second complaint was filed regarding fabricated quotes about the ANC being attributed to Kallie Kriel being published on the 17th of November,” Van Zyl continues.
“It’s hard not to see a clear bias and even agenda against AfriForum in Sunday World’s reporting in the past few months. One false claim can possibly be written off as a mistake, but not at least three, especially not of this serious and blatant nature. The media’s job is to report the truth, not to try to deceptively influence politics and ongoing policy negotiations,” concludes Van Zyl.
Text of ruling:
AfriForum vs Sunday World
Complaint 31984
Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud
Date of publication:
25 August 2024
Headline of publication:
“Moegoe: Afriforum makes noise all the time” (online)
Link: https://sundayworld.co.za/news/opinion/moegoe-of-the-week/moegoe-afriforum-makes-noise-all- the-time/
“Moegoe” (print) Author: No byline Particulars
1. The complainant is AfriForum, and the complaint was submitted in their name by the organisation’s
campaigns officer and spokesperson Louis Boshoff. The complaint was filed on 27 August 2024.
2. A response was received from the newspaper’s acting editor, Ngwako Malatji, on 18 October 2024, in which they offered to retract and apologise for one element of the article but stood by the rest.
3. AfriForum on 21 October responded by saying they wanted the rest of the complaint to be adjudicated.
4. I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter.
The article
5. The article names AfriForum the “Moegoe of the Week” on the basis that they are quick to complain about murders of white farmers and make claims of a white genocide when appealing for funds in the US. However, they “refuse to cry foul” about murders of black people.
The complaint
6. The complainants argue that the article is in breach of clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
7. They argue that they have never claimed there is a white genocide and that they have condemned murders of black people on farms also.
Complaint 1: White genocide
8. The respondent has accepted it was wrong to say that AfriForum asserts the existence of a white genocide and has offered to retract and apologise. They accept that previous rulings by the Press Council (complaint 4366 against the Mail & Guardian, in December 2018, and complaint 8395, against TimesLive, in January 2021) have found the claim without foundation.
9. They are undoubtedly correct to do so. Accordingly, I do not need to consider the matter any further.
Ruling
10. This element of the complaint is upheld. Sunday World is in breach of clause 1.1 of the Press Code by falsely stating that AfriForum claims the existence of a genocide of white farmers.
Complaint 2: Refusing to condemn murders of black people
Arguments
11. The complainants argue that they did not “refuse to cry foul” about the murder of black people. In fact, they say the newspaper, in another article in the same edition, quoted them as condemning all farm murders, irrespective of the race of the victims. They say this puts the newspaper in breach of clause 1.1 as it is inaccurate and in breach of 1.3 in that it presents opinion as fact. The article also breaches clause
1.2 by claiming the organisation is shown to have double standards when its condemnation of all murders on farms in fact shows consistency.
12. The newspaper argues that the claim is valid as AfriForum only made the statement in response to an inquiry from a journalist. The organisation proactively condemns murders of white people but only makes a statement after inquiry when black people are involved.
13. In their rejoinder, the complainants say it would only be valid to accuse them of refusing to condemn a murder if they had in fact refused to say anything. The organisation says it considers a range of factors when deciding whether to make a statement, and race is not one of them.
Discussion
14. The claim that AfriForum refused to condemn murders of black people is a strong one. Though it appears in an item that is clearly identifiable as comment, it is a claim of fact.
15. We are again dealing with the difficult question of how to deal with factual claims made in the context of an opinion piece.
16. This office has made the point more than once that claims of fact need to be justified, even in opinion writing. (See particularly the Appeal decision in Patriotic Alliance vs Media24.) The office has acknowledged that the Press Code allows considerable latitude for the expression of opinion, but where assertions of fact are made to support an opinion, those assertions need to be justifiable.
17. It is noteworthy that the respondent does not defend the statement on the basis that it is an expression of opinion, but on the basis that it is true. They claim, in effect, that the behaviour of the complainant can properly be described as a refusal.
18. However, the word “refuse” clearly means to decline entirely. The newspaper may well feel that AfriForum’s statement was insufficient as it was made in response to a query and in very general terms. However, the organisation cannot be said to have “refused” to say anything.
19. Accordingly, the newspaper is in breach of clause 1.1 of the Press Code.
20. However, I do not accept that the article breached section 1.3 of the code by presenting opinion as fact, as alleged. Taken as a whole, the article is clearly an opinion piece. And though the claim of a refusal to condemn the murder of black people is presented as a fact, that point has been adequately dealt with in terms of clause 1.1.
21. I also do not accept that the accusation of double standards rises to the level of a breach of clause 1.2 of the code. It is the newspaper’s opinion, to which it is entitled.
Ruling
22. This element of the complaint is upheld, to the extent discussed above.
Rulings
23. I uphold the complaint that the article breached clause 1.1 of the Press Code by reporting that AfriForum supports claims of genocide against white farmers.
24. I uphold the complaint that the article breached clause 1.1 by reporting that AfriForum refused to condemn the murder of black people.
25. Other elements of the complaint are dismissed.
26. I direct the newspaper to publish an apology and correction of the report, both in print and online. The note should
26.1. Be published in the next print edition of the newspaper.
26.2. Be published at the foot of the online article, with a line inserted under the headline referring readers to the correction.
26.3. Provide a brief summary of this ruling.
26.4. Make it clear it is in line with a ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud, Franz Krüger, and link to the full text of this ruling on the Press Council of SA website.
26.5. Be published with the PCSA logo.
26.6. The headline should include the terms “apology” and “AfriForum”.
26.7. A draft of the note should be provided for approval by the Deputy Press Ombud before publication.
Appeal
27. The 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 [email protected]
Franz Krüger
Deputy Press Ombud 18 November 2024
ENDS
Issued by Ernst van Zyl, Head: Public Relations, AfriForum, 19 November 2024
