Action SA vs Rapport and Others

7 April 2024

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Date of publication:

10 March 2024

Headline of publication:

Eksklusief: Zuma se party loop nou voor in KZN (Rapport)

MK Party could rule KZN as it enjoys mounting support, threatening ANC (City Press)

Author: Dawie Boonzaaier

Particulars

1.      The complaint was lodged by Michael Beaumont, national chairperson of ActionSA.

2.      The complaint was lodged on March 15 against Rapport, as well as News24 and City Press who also carried the report. In fact, the article was also published online by Rapport on the Netwerk24 platform.  

3.      As the article complained about was originally published in Rapport, Albert Weideman, deputy editor, responded to the complaint on 20 March. As all the publications are in the Media24 stable, it is accepted that they will publish a sanction, if any, ordered regarding this complaint.

4.      The complainant supplied a rejoinder on 3 April 2024.   

5.      I considered the following documents:

5.1 The complaint;

5.2 The original report;

5.3 The newspaper’s response to the complaints; and

5.4 The complainant’s rejoinder.

The report

6.      The report reveals polling data indicating a surge of support for the new party supported by former President Jacob Zuma, uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) in KwaZulu-Natal, placing it narrowly ahead of the ANC with 28% support.  The report says the poll has a good track record, having previously provided accurate forecasts of electoral support. Some technical detail on the poll is supplied. However, it does not identify the organisations that commissioned and that carried out the poll, saying the data was shared confidentially.  The report then goes on to discuss various controversies around the MKP.

The complaint

7.      The complaint is that Rapport breached clause 1.2 of the Press Code by omitting to mention the source of the poll.  This is important contextual information, the complainant argues.

Arguments

8.      The complainant says there are strong indications that the poll was conducted by the Democratic Alliance, and that this means the figures should be read with caution as parties use polling figures to mislead the electorate about their levels of support. The failure to name the DA as the organisation behind the polling amounts to the omission of a material fact, he says.

9.      The respondent outlines the approach it applies to anonymous sources, saying several attempts were made to get the source of the polling data to go on the record, but without success.  The information then had to meet higher standards before making it into print, and the editorial team satisfied themselves of the reliability of the polling, having access to details of methodology as well as the identity of the organisation involved. Later polling yielded similar results. The paper does not confirm or deny that the DA was behind the poll, but argues that the party is peripheral to the report.  If the intention of the leak was to boost the DA, the report did a poor job, the respondent says.

10.   In response, the complainant accepts the need to protect the identity of confidential sources but says that the link to the organisation behind the poll is a different matter. He does not accept the newspaper’s argument that they evaluated the data themselves, saying such data can easily be manipulated and that readers should be given enough information to make their own judgment of reliability. He also rejects the argument that the DA did not feature extensively in the report, saying that sometimes a party may benefit by a narrative that talks up the opposition to their opposition. The media should never publish polling data without reference to the organisation behind it, the complaint says.  

Discussion

11.   While simple, the question at the heart of this dispute is not easy to answer: how to balance the duty to protect confidential sources against the obligation to provide sufficient context to readers in the context of a poll of political opinion.  

12.   The complainant states as fact that the DA is behind the poll in question.  The respondent neither confirms nor denies this but argues that the article cannot be read as pro-DA propaganda as the party hardly appears in it.  However, I am persuaded by the complainant’s argument that a party’s ends may be served indirectly.  Highlighting the success of the MKP may assist the DA by underlining the weakness of the ruling party, the DA’s main opposition, and driving more conservative voters into their camp.  I make the point not as a definitive claim, just to illustrate that party interests and agendas may be very complex.

13.   At the same time, I do not believe that the complainant has established the DA’s authorship. The fact that an analyst who is or was linked to the party says so does not constitute sufficient evidence. Nor is there evidence to support any claim of deliberate bias by the publication.

14.   Polls are recognised as having the potential to impact on elections.  For this reason, South African electoral law prohibits the publication of exit polls completely, and the SA National Editors’ Forum recently called on members to approach the reporting of poll results with “meticulous scrutiny”. 

15.   Rules and guidelines in various countries govern the use of political and other opinion polls, including identification of the organisation commissioning a poll. The British Polling Council, which represents the industry, has extensive rules on disclosure, including a requirement to state the identity of the commissioning organisation of any research placed in the public domain.  Though private surveys can be kept confidential, if the results find their way into the public domain the general rules of disclosure apply. The Canada Elections Act requires the publication of any survey data to include the name of its  sponsor (section 326). In India, the Press Council advises members to be cautious about the possibility of manipulative use of poll data and advises members to “preface (any reports) conspicuously” by indicating the organisations that have commissioned and carried out any poll.  Meanwhile, the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell University in the US says the first question a journalist should ask of any poll is who conducted it. “If the person providing poll results can’t or won’t tell you who did it, the results should not be reported as their validity cannot be checked.”

16.   Of course, the specific question before me is whether Rapport breached the SA Press Code and cannot be judged by these few examples of international approaches. They simply illustrate how various authorities approach the issue of polls of voter attitudes. It is clear that for many, the question of who sponsored a specific poll is of considerable importance.

17.   It is difficult to argue against the claim that a poll conducted internally by a political party has a different level of credibility to one conducted by an entirely independent polling organisation. Readers are likely to attach much greater significance to a fully independent poll.  Anonymity itself can be politically used to create a false impression of independence and therefore greater reliability.

18.   Rapport argues it took steps to check the reliability of the poll information and had access to the full data set, but that its informant’s insistence on anonymity had to be respected. The newspaper deserves credit for providing important technical detail about how the poll was conducted, and it was also helpful to outline this particular poll’s track record. Both of these helped readers assess the strength of the information provided.

19.   Clearly, the individual who passed on the information had the right to claim anonymity, even if, as Rapport says, they did not find the person’s fears and arguments particularly persuasive.

20.   However, the question is whether a distinction can or should have been made between the person who leaked the data and the organisation behind the poll. Would it have been possible to say something about the poll’s context without infringing the demands of the person who supplied the information?

21.   I feel that the question of who is behind the poll is of such importance that a form of words should have been found to indicate the poll’s positioning.  I do not assume this was a DA poll; as argued above, I do not believe there is clear evidence one way or another.  Nor do I argue that the poll did not warrant reporting; the figures are certainly important and of interest. But the paper could and should have said something to the effect that the poll was carried out by a fully independent organisation (if that was the case), or alternatively by one of the parties or other interest groups.  A statement of this kind would not go any further than the details of the poll already published in drawing attention to the person who passed it on, and so would not jeopardise the confidentiality granted them as an individual.

22.   Failing to report this important detail amounts to a distortion.

Ruling

23.   I find that Rapport breached clause 1.2 of the Press Code by omitting material information on the provenance of the poll.   

24.   Accordingly, the publishers, being Rapport, in print and online on Netwerk24, and City Press in print and online on News24, are directed to add a prominent statement about the responsible organisation, indicating whether it is fully independent or has any direct stake in the upcoming election, as party or otherwise.

25.   The addition should be clearly linked to a note at the foot of the online report, which includes “Correction” in the headline and explains the reason for the change.  The note should make it clear it is in line with a ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud, Franz Krüger after a complaint lodged by ActionSA, and link to the full text of this ruling on the PCSA website.

26.   Similar notes should be published in the next edition of both Rapport and City Press.

27.   The publication is to provide the draft notes for print and online (in Afrikaans and English) for approval by the Deputy Press Ombud before publication.

Appeal

28.   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]

Issued by Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud, 7 April 2024