Renaldo Gouws vs IOL
Fri, Aug 23, 2024
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
Date of publication: 19 June 2024
Headline:
WATCH: ‘Kill the k*ffirs, kill all the f**ing n*ggers!’: New racist video of DA MP Renaldo Gouws surfaces
Author: Roscoe Palm
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint lodged on behalf of Mr Renaldo Gouws by his spokesperson, Ms Laurynne Gouws; a written reply on behalf of IOL by its editor, Mr Lance Witten; and a written response by Ms Gouws on behalf of Mr Gouws.
Complaint
The complainant submits that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.9 and 2.1 of the Press Code:
“1. The media shall:
“1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;
“1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarisation; …
“1.7 verify the accuracy of doubtful information, if practicable; if not, this shall be stated; …
“1.9 state where a report is based on limited information, and supplement it once new information becomes available; …
“2.1 not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism; …”
The complainant subsequently added Clauses 1.3, 1.8 and 10.2 to his complaint in his reply to the respondent’s submission:
“The media shall:
“1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; …
“1.8 seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated; …
”10.2 Photographs and video/audio content shall not misrepresent or mislead nor be manipulated to do so.”
1. Summary of article
1.1. According to the article, a new video has emerged of Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Renaldo Gouws “appearing to spew hate speech”.
1.1.1. The article quotes him as saying on the video published on YouTube: “Alright so there’s a couple of things I want to say. Kill the f**ing k*ffirs, kill all the f*ing n*ggers. That’s all I gotta f*ing say. Kill all the k*ffirs! Kill all the f*ing n*ggers!”
1.1.2. He has reportedly come under fire previously as well for utterances that were “racial and homophobic in nature”.
1.2. DA leader John Steenhuisen referred to Gouws’ earlier comments as “young and irresponsible”, while DA federal chairperson Helen Zille said she would check the veracity of the latest video before commenting.
1.2.1. However, she added that Gouws had no recollection of making such a video and that he suggested that it could have been generated by means of Artificial Intelligence (AI). She said the video would be sent to be tested.
1.3. The latest video was allegedly published by Gouws on 11 March 2010 under the title “Kill all black people”. It was subsequently deleted, but reportedly not before its content was archived on the Internet.
1.3.1. According to analyst Andrew Fraser, the video was “legitimate” and it is unlikely it was generated through AI. He pointed out that “deepfake technology” has, in general, been available for less than five years.
1.3.2. When Gouws was contacted for comment, he denied he had made the video or that he would have used those terms.
1.3.3. He further claimed that a smear campaign was conducted against him in the days following the publication of the IOL article. An online petition with close to 50 000 signatures called for his removal as an MP.
1.3.4. While Gouws has apologised for other videos that have resurfaced since he was elected to Parliament, the new video could reportedly open him up to criminal prosecution.
1.4. The article was subsequently updated with the following note: “UPDATE: IOL has subsequently been made aware of, and has seen the full video Gouws has claimed provides context for his use of the words ‘kill the f***ing k*ffirs, kill all the f***ing n***ers’.”
1.4.1. IOL added a link to an article which questioned Gouws’ “argument of context”.
2. Arguments
Renaldo Gouws
2.1. The complainant submits that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.9 of the Press Code.
2.1.1. While he accepts that information can sometimes be incomplete, and that this should not prevent the media from publishing, he contends that the Press Code requires this to be stated clearly in the article. He says this was not done in this instance.
2.2. The complainant goes on to state that the article relies on a 15-second clip of a much longer video. He believes IOL downloaded the full 6 minutes and 22 seconds of the clip, but decided to cut it down in order “to create shock value, which robbed the story of the full context”.
2.2.1. He maintains that he knows IOL received the full video based on “the steps mentioned in the article itself on how the full video was obtained”.
2.3. The complainant further points out that he discussed the rise in farm murders in the video and that he accused Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema of inciting hate speech through the song “Kill the Boer”.
2.3.1. By using hyperbole, Gouws states, he sought to do “something similar”. However, immediately after doing so, he pointed out that he did not mean anything he had just said. However, he says, IOL did not put this or the rest of the video on its website to provide a context.
2.3.2. He states that the “Kill the Boer” lyrics are hurtful to white people and that the 15-second portion of the video asks how black people would feel if the roles were reversed and similar words were directed at them.
2.3.3. He notes that the longer video has since been posted on social media and offers the context of what was said in the 15 seconds posted by IOL. He adds that the article has not been updated even though IOL states at the end that “This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available”.
2.3.4. He submits that this is unfair and indicates that the news was not produced truthfully, accurately and fairly. He believes that, by omitting the context, the article misleads readers and unfairly damages his reputation.
2.4. The complainant also notes that IOL allowed him only one hour in which to respond. He believes this was unfair given “the implications of the video” and given the fact that he had made “thousands of videos over the years”.
2.4.1. As a result of the limited time given to him to respond, he says he barely had an opportunity to review the video in question and added that IOL refused to provide it to him. Eventually IOL sent him a screenshot and the 15-second clip for his response.
2.4.2. He submits that IOL’s refusal to show him the full video – “whilst the reporter had it” – brings into questions the integrity of the article as a whole. This forced him to give a statement that was “not accurate”.
2.4.3. He contends that he would have sourced the video and given a proper comment if given a reasonable amount of time. He maintains that media outlets must present balanced and accurate information, “especially when dealing with sensitive topics”.
2.5. The complainant requests that the article be updated to provide the necessary context. He further requests an apology for its failure to do so and for offering him just one hour in which to respond.
2.5.1. He adds that the way IOL broke the story “affected many other outlets to also report on it in an unfair … way”.
2.5.2. In light of the above, he seeks an apology and a retraction of the entire article, and requests this to be visible on the front page of the affected IOL websites as well as on its YouTube page.
2.6. The complainant subsequently added information to his initial complaint which suggests that the author of the IOL article made a statement “on his social media that might be considered as lying about where and when he got the videos from”.
2.6.1. He states that the author threatened him with these videos in a tweet four years ago, and regards this as very problematic.
2.6.2. In view of the above, he calls for Clause 2.1 of the Press Code to be taken into account as well. He suggests that this aspect of his complaint is of concern for an unbiased and free media in South Africa.
IOL
2.7. The respondent notes that, according to the complainant, the IOL article focuses on a 15-second clip of a much longer video and that the context of his comments are contained “outside” of this clip.
2.7.1. However, IOL contends that the very use of the word “k*ffir” by the complainant is, by its nature, hate speech and quotes from the Constitutional Court case South African Revenue Service v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (2016) that being called “a k*ffir is the worst insult that can ever be visited upon an African person in South Africa”. In this case, it submits, the context in which the comments were made are of little consequence.
2.7.2. It adds that the fact that the complainant is a public representative with a large
following makes his use of such language “all the more abhorrent, and newsworthy”.
2.8. The respondent further rejects the claim that IOL had downloaded the full clip of the video before it published its article. It maintains that it only received the 15-second clip and that, even then, it did not take the clip at face value but conducted its own investigation to establish its veracity before it approached the complainant to confirm its authenticity.
2.8.1. It says the complainant initially denied ever having made such a video and claimed it was either generated or manipulated through AI. His response was carried in full in the initial article.
2.8.2. IOL argues that the complainant’s claim that the clip was part of a longer video – “in which the context of the clip somehow lessens his glib use of hate speech” – only serves to verify the clip’s authenticity and brings into question his initial response that the clip had somehow been manipulated.
2.8.3. IOL further denies that its journalist has any vendetta against the complainant and maintains that the story was investigated, researched and written on the basis of its merits alone.
2.9. The respondent submits that the complainant was given “a tight deadline” to respond to its queries because rumours of the clip had been circulating on social media and because his profile as a DA member and MP made the story even more newsworthy.
2.9.1. It further argues that “speed is of the essence” in digital publishing. Despite these considerations, it maintains, it spent additional time authenticating the clip through external sources.
2.9.2. It adds that, even though the complainant was initially given a 2pm deadline, the story was only published at around 6pm – “we wanted to be sure we had all the elements of the story, and were not going to publish an incomplete report”.
2.9.3. It further says the complainant had more than enough time to submit a detailed response after he saw the 15-second clip and before the IOL article was published. He also made no attempt to offer any further response after the article was published and opted instead to lodge a complaint with the Press Council.
2.9.4. IOL repeats its argument that, given the growing interest in the story and the pressure to publish “fast and first”, the complainant was given a fair right of reply and his reply was carried in full.
2.10. The respondent rejects the complaint that it did not update the article even though IOL stated that it would do so. It points out that it published further follow-up articles and provides three URL links as examples.
2.10.1. It contends that these follow-up articles “are update enough” and, furthermore, maintains that its initial article was complete.
2.10.2. The respondent goes on to reject the claim – based on a Twitter message from August 2020 – that the IOL journalist was then already in possession of the video in question. It says that the video referred to in 2020 “contained homophobic slurs, not racist ones”.
Renaldo Gouws
2.11. In his reply to the respondent, the complainant states that the article in question was not updated despite a notice at the bottom of the article that this would be done “as more information becomes available”.
2.11.1. He maintains that IOL’s failure to update the original article or the video on its YouTube channel, as well as its failure to provide an update on its social media platforms, are in breach of Clause 1.9 of the Press Code.
2.12. With regard to the respondent’s reference to the Constitutional Court case SARS v CCMA and Others, and to its contention that the context of the utterances in question are of little consequence, the complainant replies that context is important when reporting.
2.12.1. He adds that the IOL is a media outlet – not a court of law – and that he regards its reference to case law as a defence as problematic when it should be addressing breaches of the Press Code instead.
2.12.2. Even so, he submits that IOL is not being truthful, and contends that “there is a difference between mentioning a racial slur to illustrate a point and using such a slur to insult a particular individual”.
2.12.3. He argues that the mere mention of a word is protected by law and does not constitute hate speech. As evidence, he cites the fact that IOL itself used the slur to illustrate a point and that, in SARS v CCMA and Others, the slur is mentioned 46 times.
2.13. The complainant further submits that he has not been found guilty of hate speech by any court of law and therefore questions how IOL could make such an accusation or allegation against him.
2.13.1. He then refers to Constitutional Court cases on hate speech that he maintains contradict IOL’s statements in this regard, namely Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another (2021) and South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku and Another (2022).
2.13.2. He repeats his complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.9 and 2.1 of the Press Code, and adds that it is in breach of Clauses 1.3, 1.8 and 10.2 as well.
2.14. In reply to the respondent’s comment that he is a public representative – which “makes his use of the language [in question] all the more abhorrent, and newsworthy” – the complainant states that the video was made in 2010 when he did not hold any political position nor was he part of any political party at the time.
2.14.1. He adds that he was then a university student and a political activist, “with a small social media presence”. He maintains that there was “no outrage” at the time about the video because viewers could see the complete version.
2.14.2. He says he removed the video because it could be taken out of context if snippets were created from it – “as was done by IOL”.
2.14.3. He argues that it is problematic and disingenuous to report on a 14-year-old video and to insinuate that he made these statements recently. Furthermore, he again suggests that IOL intentionally cut down the original video to 15 seconds.
2.14.4. He reiterates that the context of the full video spoke out against Malema singing “Kill the Boer” in 2010. If the full video was viewed, he says, it would be clear that he did not mean what he said, but only wanted to “evoke a response”.
2.14.5. He adds that the viewer would have heard him say that “racism against any race is wrong and should be condemned”. He says this raises questions about why IOL did not include the full context, and deems this to be a breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
2.14.6. He further points out that since 2010 he has apologised three times for his earlier videos from 2008 to 2012. He notes that he did so as a result of “education, experiences and maturity”, and not due to any external pressure.
2.15. The complainant disputes the respondent’s claim that IOL only received the 15-second clip and that it conducted its own investigation to establish the veracity of the clip. He states that IOL’s own explanation in the article clearly illustrates how implausible this is.
2.15.1. He believes IOL would have found the full video if it had indeed conducted its own investigation. In light of this, he insists that IOL is being “untruthful” by claiming it did not have the full video.
2.15.2. He says he found the full video by “using the exact method” described by IOL in its article, and claims that IOL “more than likely” took the full video and made a 15-second snippet from it.
2.15.3. He finds it a matter of concern that IOL refuses to admit from the outset that it had the full video. In light of this, he contends that IOL breached Clause 10.2 of the Press Code in that it altered or manipulated the video and then reported on it to misrepresent his view.
2.16. The complainant states that IOL initially refused to give him “anything other than the text [it] sent” and refused as well to provide him with further details during a voice call. Only after he refused to comment, he says, did IOL share a screenshot of the video and afterwards a 15-second snippet.
2.16.1. He says it was at this point that he responded that the video must have been doctored or faked “as this had been done to him previously”. He again blames his response on time pressure – he says he was given “less than 1 hour” to respond – and regards it as a breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
2.16.2. He repeats his assertion that the full video demonstrates that there was no hate speech and that, instead, he used hyperbole to illustrate a point. He again states that IOL accuses him of hate speech when no court has found him guilty of this.
2.17. Regarding the respondent’s denial that the IOL journalist has some kind of vendetta against him, the complainant refers to the journalist’s personal social media account “in the past and even after the article was written”.
2.17.1. The complainant says he blocked the journalist on social media in 2020 due to the fact that “the journalist belittled, insulted and attacked [him] on numerous occasions”. At the time, he says, the journalist was an EFF member and the party’s head of communications in the Western Cape.
2.17.2. He believes this clearly demonstrates that the journalist had a vendetta against him and the DA, and brings into question the journalist’s integrity and ethics.
2.17.3. He adds that, less than a day after the IOL article was published, some people created a crowdfunding campaign for him through a website called BackaBuddy for his legal costs against the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and to potentially fund any legal action against the IOL for reputational harm.
2.17.4. He says the IOL journalist became aware of this campaign and questioned how BackaBuddy could support such an initiative. The website eventually shut down the campaign due to public pressure generated on social media by IOL and the journalist.
2.17.5. He contends that these actions demonstrate the journalist’s lack of impartiality and conflict of interest – a breach of Clause 2.1 of the Press Code.
2.18. With regard to the respondent’s explanation that the complainant was given a tight deadline to respond to IOL’s queries because rumours of the clip had been circulating and because he was an elected MP, the complainant suggests that it is surely better to be scooped than to get something wrong.
2.18.1. He also points out that no other media house contacted him during the four to five hours after IOL’s first call and when it published its article.
2.18.2. Only after IOL published the article, he says, did other outlets start reporting on it – “with many only using the 15-second clip that IOL released”. However, he adds that some media houses did report on the full video and provided the full context.
2.18.3. He says that “[e]ven now” – after the full video has been circulated by other media outlets – IOL has still not updated its original article nor written a follow-up to provide further context.
2.19. The complainant also takes issue with the respondent’s claim that he had more than enough time to submit a detailed response after he saw the 15-second video and that, after the article was published, he did not make any attempt to offer any additional response to IOL.
2.19.1. He states that he was at the swearing-in of President Cyril Ramaphosa in Tshwane on that day. He says that he could not verify the claims made by IOL as he did not have access to his computer/laptop and was more than 1 000km from home.
2.19.2. He adds that, when IOL called him, he was on his way to the hotel to get his luggage in order to be taken to the airport to board his return flight to Nelson Mandela Bay.
2.19.3. He says IOL would have received a full response if he had been given enough time. He adds that IOL’s failure to mention the full video in its original article or in any follow-up article is the reason he approached the Press Ombud.
2.19.4. According to him, he did so in order to ensure his concerns were addressed through a formal and unbiased review process. The reason he did not approach IOL directly was because the damage was done almost instantly when it published its article.
2.19.5. Within hours, several articles were written about the 15-second snippet and started trending on social media. Even a correction an hour after the IOL article was published “would have done little to nothing to change the accusations that [were] hurled [my] way”.
2.19.6. He adds that, after he saw the name of the IOL journalist who authored the article, he did not have any faith that he would receive “a fair chance at IOL correcting their story”. He says evidence of this is IOL’s response to his complaint to the Press Ombud and its failure over a period of a month to reference the full video in the original article or in any subsequent articles.
2.20. The complainant rejects the respondent’s claim that it “was likely he would have used hate speech” in the thousands of videos he had made over the years, and says this assumption illustrates why IOL’s ethics are questionable.
2.20.1. He reiterates that, due to the advances of technology over the years, it was reasonable for him to want to verify whether the footage was altered or whether AI was used. He says his concern was justified in view of the fact that IOL shared only part of the video.
2.20.2. He adds that if IOL had provided him with the full video, and had given him sufficient time to verify it, he would have been able to give a more comprehensive and accurate comment.
2.20.3. He further claims that the SAHRC is taking him to the Equality Court based on the 15-second video and that this decision could have been altered if IOL had released the full video. This illustrates how damaging the article has been to his reputation, he says.
2.21. The complainant repeats his complaint that IOL did not update its original article, but instead refers to its follow-up articles. He adds that IOL does not once mention the full video in any of its follow-up articles.
2.21.1. He argues that IOL did not do so because it would then have to admit that it had failed to report “truthfully, accurately, fairly” and to provide “news in context” in accordance with the Press Code. He suggests that IOL’s intention was to create “sensationalism” right from the start.
2.22. In conclusion, the complainant requests a retraction, correction and apology for the article as well as on every social media page on which IOL published a link to the article. In addition, he requests the removal of the 15-second video uploaded to IOL.
3. Analysis
3.1. A key aspect of the complaint relates to the complainant’s claim that IOL uploaded only 15 seconds of a 6-minute video on its website with the express intention of misleading viewers about its motive and context.
3.1.1. The respondent maintains that it did not have the longer video in its possession when it first posted its article (see point 2.8 above).
3.1.2. On the basis of the information available, this claim cannot be refuted with absolute certainty. As a result, it cannot be found that IOL is in breach of either Clause 1.1 or Clause 1.2 of the Press Code in this regard.
3.1.3. It is of concern, though, that IOL did not upload the longer version of the video even when, by its own account, it subsequently came into its possession – despite a notice at the end of its article that it would be updated “as more information becomes available”.
3.1.4. Of further concern is that, even when IOL did subsequently update its original article, it did not upload the longer video. It merely noted that it “has subsequently been made aware of, and has seen the full video”, and added a link that questioned the complainant’s “argument of context”.
3.1.5. The issue at stake here is not whether or not the longer video does indeed provide an acceptable explanation or context for the remarks uttered in the 15-second video. The point is that the full version should have been available to viewers in order to allow them to make up their own minds about this.
3.1.6. In view of its failure to upload the longer video when it received it, IOL is therefore in breach of Clause 1.9 of the Press Code: it failed to include new information when it became available.
3.2. The complainant does not specifically identify in which respect the IOL article is in breach of Clause 1.3 of the Press Code, and only raises this aspect in relation to the reference in the article to hate speech (see his response to the respondent’s reply in points 2.13 and 2.13.2).
3.2.1. However, the reference to hate speech in the article is not presented as a matter of fact. The sentence in question claims that the complainant is “appearing to spew hate speech” (my emphasis); in other words, the reference is clearly presented as an opinion.
3.2.2. As such, the reference to hate speech sufficiently meets the requirement specified in Clause 1.3: it is not presented as a statement of fact, but as an opinion.
3.3. There is no evidence that IOL is in breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code – in other words, that it failed to verify the authenticity of the 15-second video.
3.3.1. It maintains that it did make efforts to check the authenticity of the video and, as a result, only published the article four hours after the 2pm deadline it gave to the complainant to provide a response to its questions (see points 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 above).
3.3.2. There are no verifiable grounds on which to dispute this claim. IOL’s assurance that it made efforts to verify the authenticity of the video must therefore be accepted in good faith.
3.4. The complainant further maintains that IOL is in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code in that it just gave him an hour in which to respond to its questions about the video.
3.4.1. He provides credible reasons why he was unable to provide a fully informed response to IOL’s questions (see points 2.19.1 and 2.19.2).
3.4.2. While there is some merit in IOL’s argument that speed is of the utmost importance in digital publishing (point 2.9.1), the complainant rightly argues that this consideration should not be at the expense of accuracy and fairness.
3.4.3. Furthermore, the respondent withheld certain background information about the video from the complainant (point 2.16). No doubt this made it difficult for him to provide an informed response to IOL’s questions.
3.4.4. It is only when the complainant refused to give IOL a comment that it provided him with a screenshot and the 15-second clip (see points 2.4.1 and 2.16). This is unreasonable and unfair, and suggests that IOL deliberately made it difficult for the complainant to offer an informed response.
3.4.5. This is at odds with the obligation imposed on the media by Clause 1.8 of the Press Code to allow the subject of critical reportage a reasonable opportunity to reply, and is therefore in breach of this clause.
3.5. The complainant also accuses IOL – and, in particular, the author of the article in question – of bias, in contravention of Clause 2.1 of the Press Code. He claims, for instance, that the author first threatened him with this video four years ago.
3.5.1. In support of his claim, the complainant attaches a WhatsApp message from the author dated 11 August 2020 in which he refers to a YouTube video of the complainant allegedly “indulging in homophobic slurs”.
3.5.2. The complainant then asks via a WhatsApp message on the same date whether this refers to “a 12 year old doctored video that has surfaced again” – in other words, to a video that was published in 2008.
3.5.3. In view of the fact that the video at the centre of the current complaint was published on 11 March 2010, this suggests that the “12 year old doctored video” is not the same video that the complainant claims that he was threatened with in 2020.
3.5.4. Consequently, there are no grounds to support the claim that the author first threatened the complainant with the current video four years ago.
3.6. The complainant further claims that the author put pressure on the website BackaBuddy on social media after it carried a crowdfunding campaign in support of him, and cites this as another example of his bias.
3.6.1. However, this aspect of the complaint falls outside the ambit of the Press Ombuds. In terms of the Press Code, their domain is limited to complaints about editorial content that is published by subscriber members.
3.7. The complainant refers to the author’s erstwhile activities in the EFF as another example of his bias (see point 2.17.1).
3.7.1. At the risk of stating the obvious, journalists – like all other human beings – have their own opinions and beliefs on a wide range of subjects, including on politics. The critical issue, however, is whether or not a journalist allows those personal views to compromise his or her independence and professionalism.
3.7.2. The respondent’s breach of Clause 1.9 suggests that this is indeed the case with regard to the video in question.
3.7.3. IOL did not upload the longer version of the video on its website even after it became aware of it. Instead, it merely noted it and added a link to an article which takes issue with the contents and context of the longer video.
3.7.4. The preferential treatment of the viewpoint expressed in this article also brings into question the independence and professionalism of the respondent. As such, it is in breach of Clause 2.1 of the Press Code.
3.8. Lastly, the complainant claims that IOL is in breach of Clause 10.2 of the Press Code, which enjoins the media not to misrepresent or manipulate video/audio content.
3.8.1. As stated in point 3.1.2 above, on the basis of the information available there is no conclusive evidence that disproves IOL’s claim that it was not in possession of the full 6-minute video when it published its article.
3.8.2. Nevertheless, it is a matter of grave concern that IOL did not upload the longer version of the video when it came into its possession.
3.8.3. Furthermore, when IOL updated its article, it again failed to upload the longer video and simply noted that it has been made aware of it and that it has seen it. To compound this omission, it included a link to an article that disputed the complainant’s argument that the longer video provided a “context” for the complainant’s remarks.
3.8.4. As stated above in point 3.1.5, the issue is not whether or not the longer video does indeed provide an acceptable explanation or context for the remarks in the 15-second video. The point is that the full version should have been uploaded when it became available to enable viewers to make up their own minds.
3.8.5. For this reason, IOL’s failure to upload the longer video when it obtained it is a transgression of Clause 10.2 of the Press Code.
4. Finding
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is dismissed (see the reasons set out in points 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of my Analysis).
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is dismissed (for the same reasons outlined in points 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of my Analysis).
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed (see the reasons set out in points 3.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of my Analysis).
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.7 is dismissed (for the reasons outlined in points 3.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of my Analysis).
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.8 is upheld (see the reasons set out in points 3.4.1 to 3.4.5 of my Analysis).
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.9 is upheld (for the reasons outlined in points 3.1.3 to 3.1.6 of my Analysis).
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 2.1 is upheld (see the reasons set out in points 3.7, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3 and 3.7.4 of my Analysis).
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 10.2 is upheld (for the reasons outlined in points 3.8.1 to 3.8.5 of my Analysis).
Firstly, IOL is required to publish an apology to the complainant for breaching Clauses 1.8, 1.9, 2.1 and 10.2, and should:
- be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
- be published online, on IOL’s landing page for five days, as well as on all platforms where the article was published;
- be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Renaldo Gouws”;
- be published with a link to the updated online article;
- refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
- apologise for not uploading the full 6 minutes and 22 seconds of the video when it became available and for not giving Gouws an opportunity to comment on the full video as this could lead readers to doubt IOL’s independence and professionalism;
- end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;
- be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
- be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud named below.
Secondly, the updated article should publish a note under the headline: NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Renaldo Gouws.
The update should include the full 6 minutes 22 seconds of the video, with comment from the complainant on the longer video.
The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Gouws as directed above.
The final updates to the article should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud prior to publication.
Appeal
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]
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombud
23 August 2024
