THIS IS A PROPAGANDA PAMPHLET, NOT A NEWSPAPER

Note: The New Age last week refused to publish this opinion piece, despite originally offering to publish an 800-word rebuttal of an article the DA complained to the Ombudsman about in February. This is the second time that The New Age reneged on a commitment to deal with the complaint. Full correspondence with The New Age follows after the opinion piece.

If you are reading this in a copy of The New Age, you are probably an official in a government department. Because we all know that government subscriptions make up the bulk of copies of The New Age distributed. Few people actually buy The New Age.

This is why The New Age refuses to become a member of the Audit Bureau of Circulations of South Africa (ABC), an independent organisation established to provide accurate and comparable circulation figures. The owners of The New Age don't want people to know just how dismally it performs in the marketplace.

On 2 March, The New Age opted out of another body that mainstream newspapers subscribe to - the Press Ombudsman system. The Office of the Press Ombudsman is an independent entity mandated by The Press Council to ensure fair and accurate reporting in accordance with The Press Code.

The New Age's withdrawal from the Press Ombudsman followed a DA complaint to the Ombudsman regarding a front-page article published on 2 February. The article, entitled ‘DA sees conspiracies where there are none', was designed to discredit the DA's claims that government advertising expenditure is skewed in favour of The New Age.

The article breached at least four sections of The Press Code because it:

• Failed to reflect a multiplicity of voices;
• The reporter did not attempt to solicit the views of the subject of critical reportage;
• The headline presented the opinion of Minister Faith Muthambi as fact; and
• The reporting was slanted as a result of political and commercial considerations.

There is no doubt that the timing of The New Age's withdrawal from the Ombudsman system was related to the DA's complaint. As the Press Ombudsman, Joe Thloloe, said: "Now, when we got the complaint about The New Age from the DA, The New Age was quite reluctant to respond to the complaint and when we contacted them, they sent a note stating they are pulling out of the system."

In other words, rather than face the prospect of publishing a retraction and an apology, The New Age opted to pull out of the Press Ombudsman system altogether. In a statement on the matter, the CEO of The New Age, Mr Nazeem Howa promised to deal with the DA's complaint "through an independent third party."

When I forwarded the complaint to The New Age, the newspaper offered me an 800-word opinion piece to respond to the article in question. This is hardly a satisfactory resolution because it means that The New Age can avoid the embarrassment of apologising and retracting the story.

The alternative, however, was to wait three or four months for The New Age to appoint its own ombudsman to deal with the complaint. Even then, there is no way that an ombudsman appointed by The New Age, and on the payroll of the New Age, can be either independent or a third party. Under these conditions, the chances of a fair adjudication are nil.

So, let me take this opportunity to set the record straight.

The New Age is owned by a family with close links to President Zuma, and its editorial policy is to publish stories that present the Zuma administration in a positive light. SABC Chief Operating Officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng described The New Age's editorial policy at a New Age Breakfast Briefing on 13 February:

"We as the public broadcaster, we are different to New Age but, at least, while we have this relationship with New Age, they share the same views with us: 70% good story to tell. And we must do that."

Motsoeneng went on to berate Cabinet Ministers who still advertise in independent media outlets: "I don't understand why you are spending money on people who are not even appreciating what government is doing," he said.

These sentiments are not new. It was back in 2011 when then government spokesperson, Jimmy Manyi, declared that government-friendly media outlets would be rewarded with a greater share of government advertising expenditure.

This explains why the Department of Communications spent R 10.2 million or 11.2% of its advertising budget in The New Age in the last financial year, despite its small readership of 153,000 people. By comparison, significantly less (R 7.8 million) was spent on the Daily Sun, for example, which has a readership of 5.3 million people.

The New Age supports the government, so the government supports The New Age. But this is not government's money to do what it likes with. Your hard-earned tax money - money that should be spent on healthcare, housing and schools - is being used to keep this propaganda pamphlet afloat. In the end, the only consolation is that relatively few people read it.

Gavin Davis MP is the DA's Shadow Minister of Communications

Correspondence with The New Age:

I

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Kevin Humphrey wrote:

Dear Mr Davis

Your email today to the Editor of The New Age refers. See the statement issued to Sapa today by the paper's CEO, Nazeem Howa.

Among other things, he stated that the paper was in the process of appointing its own but independent ombudsman to deal with the complaints of readers against the paper.

However, to deal expeditiously with your complaint, Mr Williams asked me, as the paper's opinion editor, to offer you space for a 800-word article in which you can rebut the article you had complained to the Press Ombudsman about. If you are agreeable, the article will be published on our oped or Leader page.

I await your response.

Yours

Kevin Humphrey

Opinion editor, The New Age

II

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015, Gavin Davis  wrote:

Dear Kevin

Thanks for this. Please send me Mr Howa's press statement.

Kind regards

Gavin

III

On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Kevin Humphrey wrote:

Hi Gavin - below Mr Howa's statement:

"We confirm notifying the Press Ombudsman of our decision to withdraw The New Age from the jurisdiction of the Press Council.

This decision was not taken lightly but followed much internal debate. Our reasons are a matter for discussion between the Ombud and ourselves.

We are in the process of appointing an independent ombudsman to deal with complaints against the paper.

We have asked the Press Ombudsman to forward to the paper all existing complaints and will ensure that they are dealt with through an independent third party. We will naturally stand by that ruling and invite the DA to forward its complaint to us."

IV

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Gavin Davis  wrote:

Dear Kevin

Thanks for this.

I see that Mr Howa has committed to deal with the complaint through an independent third party.

Please let me know:

1. Whether this independent third party will still investigate the complaint if I accept your offer of an opinion piece.

2. Who this independent third party is.

Kind regards

Gavin

V

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Kevin Humphrey wrote:

Dear Gavin

We have notified the Ombud only this week of our decision to withdraw from the Press Council. We are now embarking on a process to identify a "Public Editor" who can deal with future complaints against the paper. It may take some time.

As regards the offer of the oped space that still stands.

Thanks

Kevin

VI

On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Gavin Davis  wrote:

Dear Kevin

The New Age has publicly committed to deal with my complaint, and I will hold the newspaper to that commitment.

One way of dealing with this is for the New Age to publish an apology on its front page in the same position as the article in question, and of the same proportions. This is the remedy that I requested of the Ombudsman in my complaint.

If you are not prepared to do that, please answer these questions (which I repeat here) so that I can make an informed decision about the next step to take:

1. Whether this independent third party will still investigate the complaint if I accept your offer of an opinion piece.

2. Who this independent third party is likely to be.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Gavin

VII

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Kevin Humphrey wrote:

Dear Gavin

As regards your two questions.

1. Whether this independent third party will still investigate the complaint if I accept your offer of an opinion piece.

The answer to this is that we would like to bring this matter to a conclusion as soon as possible in a way that suits both parties and not let it linger on. It will take some time to find the ombud/public editor. Its the reason we are suggesting you use the oped piece to make you concerns public and then leave it at that.

2. Who this independent third party is likely to be.

The answer to this is that we are in the process of finding this person, which is expected to take several months - so - as yet we do not know who it will be.

Thanks

Kevin

VIII

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Gavin Davis wrote:

Dear Kevin

In his statement that you sent (below), Mr Howa made a public commitment to deal with my complaint through an "independent third party".

Why are you reneging on that commitment?

Kind regards

Gavin

IX

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Kevin Humphrey wrote:

Dear Gavin

Hope you are well and having a great day.

We are very happy to stick to our commitment of the complaint being dealt with by our new ombud when he or she is appointed. As soon as this is confirmed then this matter would be the first thing that they would address.

We would inform you as soon as the person is in place and can start work.

Thanks

Kevin

X

---- Forwarded message ----
From: Gavin Davis
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: The New Age and your complaint to the Press Ombudsman
To: Kevin Humphrey
Dear Kevin

Thanks for this.

In his statement, Mr Howa promised that my complaint would be investigated by an independent third party.

An ombud appointed by the The New Age, and on the payroll of the New Age, is neither independent nor a third party.

In other words, even if we wait for the new ombud to be appointed so that he or she can investigate, this will not constitute an investigation by an "independent third party."

So please can you explain precisely how Mr Howa will keep his public commitment to have my complaint investigated by an independent third party.

Kind regards

Gavin

XI

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Gavin Davis  wrote:

Dear Kevin

Given that there is no way that my complaint can be fairly adjudicated by an ombudsman appointed by, and on the payroll of, The New Age, I will take up your offer to publish an opinion piece.

I will send you an 800-word article tomorrow to be published on your opinion page.

Kind regards

Gavin

XII

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Gavin Davis  wrote:

Dear Kevin

Please find attached my opinion piece, as requested.

Please let me know when it will be published.

Kind regards

Gavin

XIII

On Thursday, March 12, 2015, Kevin Humphrey wrote:

Thanks Gavin tomorrow's pages are already done so the first available slot will be Monday (16th March) I hope that ok with you.

Kevin

XIV

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Gavin Davis  wrote:

That's fine, thanks. Gavin

XV

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Kevin Humphrey wrote:

Dear Mr Davis

The editor has had sight of your opinion piece and is not prepared to publish it in its present form.

He says our offer to you was a rebuttal of the article of February 2nd about which you complained to the Press Ombudsman.

In its present form, your piece is defamatory of The New Age with particular reference to the first two paragraphs. His request is that you confine yourself to the points your raised in your complaint to the Press Ombudsman. To refresh your memory they are:

The article breached at least four sections of The Press Code because it:

• Failed to reflect a multiplicity of voices;
• The reporter did not attempt to solicit the views of the subject of critical reportage;
• The headline presented the opinion of Minister Faith Muthambi as fact; and
• The reporting was slanted as a result of political and commercial considerations.

We would still like to publish your rebuttal article on Monday if you could let me have it by Sunday morning.

Thanks

Kevin

XVI

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Gavin Davis  wrote:

Dear Kevin

1. The opinion piece submitted earlier today is a rebuttal of the article of 2 February that claimed government advertising expenditure on The New Age was above board. My opinion piece rebuts this by showing how government rewards The New Age for its pro-government editorial policy, which is an abuse of public money.

2. I have never heard of a newspaper offering a right of reply and then dictating what should be in that right of reply. Surely the entire point of the exercise is to give me the right to exercise my opinion?

3. The New Age is refusing to publish my opinion piece on the grounds that it is "defamatory". Yet The New Age had no such qualms when it impugned my character in the 2 February article.

4. There is nothing defamatory about the claims made in the first two paragraphs of the opinion piece submitted.

In the first paragraph I claim that the bulk of The New Age's distribution is to government entities. There are a number of sources that provide evidence of The New Age's reliance on government subscriptions to boost circulation. However, if you provide me with an audited breakdown of your circulation figures indicating that government subscriptions are not the bulk of The New Age's distribution, I will gladly remove that paragraph.

In the second paragraph, I claim that The New Age does not have its circulation figures audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. I can point to numerous articles and sources (including the ABC itself) that make the same claim. However, if you provide evidence that The New Age does have its circulation figures audited, I will gladly remove that paragraph.

5. This will be the second time The New Age has reneged on a commitment.

The New Age's first commitment was to have my complaint investigated by an "independent third party". You could not uphold this commitment because an ombudsman appointed by you and on your payroll cannot be an independent third party.

The second commitment was to publish an opinion piece of 800-words rebutting the article of 2 February. Now that you have received the opinion piece, and don't like its contents, you are reneging on that commitment as well. This points to a fundamental lack of integrity on the part of The New Age.

* * *

My suggestion is for The New Age to publish my opinion piece in its present form. You can always give yourself space to rebut my claims, just as you promised to give me space to rebut yours. Failing that, you can do what every serious newspaper in the country does: allow an independent Press Ombudsman to investigate and adjudicate the complaint.

Kind regards

Gavin

Gavin Davis is DA Shadow Minister for Communications. This article first appeared on his website.

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