Ombud finds IOL breached press code

IOL’s failure to offer the News24 journalists it attacked in an article the right to reply is “a glaring oversight”, says the Ombud. Illustration: Lisa Nelson

The latest salvo in the ongoing war of attrition between News24 and Independent Media to come before the Press Council concerns IOL’s publication of what IOL calls a “storified press statement issued by Sekunjalo”.

News24 characterises the published piece as a news report that “consists entirely of extracts and paraphrasing” from the press statement and says a “storified press statement” is not journalism. Sekunjalo is the majority shareholder of Independent Media, which publishes IOL.

The press statement was issued in response to a report published by News24 titled “Inside Iqbal Survé’s glitchy propaganda machine: Goebbels, AI and slippery writers”. In their report, journalists Nick Wilson, Jan Cronje, and Jeff Wicks said “Survé is waging a public-relations war, using a team of pliant journalists, PR staffers, and seemingly fictitious opinion writers to polish his image and attack journalists critical of him.” Dr Survé is the chair of Independent Media and Sekunjalo.

At the heart of the complaint brought by News24 and the three journalists is that IOL failed to grant them the right of reply – to which they were entitled – in respect of allegations levelled against them in the press statement. Among others, these included allegations of a News24 “long-standing disinformation and smear campaign” against Sekunjalo, attempts to influence ongoing court processes involving Sekunjalo, and its undermining of “the principles of fair journalism.”

The basis of the complaint was clause 1.8 of the Press Code, which reads as follows: “The media shall … 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”.

At the heart of IOL’s defence was the argument that its piece was a “direct response from Sekunjalo addressing criticisms previously published by News24” (in the Wilson, Cronje, and Wicks article), and was published by IOL “to ensure that its audiences had a balanced view of the criticisms raised in the News24 article”. In IOL’s view, the response that it published served the purpose of clause 1.8 – to afford the subjects of criticism (in this case Sekunjalo) an opportunity to respond.

In their response, the complainants disputed that IOL made “any effort to present its readers with a balanced view”, suggesting “that this could have been achieved by reporting on the contents of News24’s preceding investigation, interrogating Sekunjalo’s claims or approaching News24 for comment on Sekunjalo’s ‘new claims’.” Central to their position was the assertion that their views on Sekunjalo’s new allegations were not already in the public domain, as IOL had suggested.

While recognising that “rewritten press statements are a standard feature in many publications”, the Deputy Press Ombud made it clear that as soon as “any party is the subject of critical reportage, the media are obliged to offer that party a right to reply”. It matters not where the critical reportage is contained; clause 1.8 applies with equal force to “storified” press statements. And in this case, IOL did not offer News24 or any of the three authors a right to reply.

In response to IOL’s argument that it didn’t ask the complainants for comment prior to publication because of a desire not to compromise “the timeliness and relevance of the response in the eyes of the public”, the Deputy Press Ombud agreed with the complainants that such concerns “do not necessarily justify … [being treated] with the same urgency as matters involving the health and safety of a party.” And, to make matters worse, IOL did not offer any right to reply after publication.

Regarding the argument that a “storified” press statement was required to provide the other side of the story, in contrast to what the three journalists had reported, the Deputy Press Ombud noted that News24 had contacted Sekunjalo for comment prior to publication of its report. Because Sekunjalo had made use of that opportunity, resulting in “its views on a range of issues … [being] duly reflected”, the Deputy Press Ombud did not see the need for it to issue the press statement.

He continued: “It appears, therefore, that the most likely reason for Sekunjalo’s press statement is that it wanted to provide an unfettered response to the News24 article, not subject to any other views or comments. IOL erred in allowing it to do so.”

But in any event, as the Deputy Press Ombud noted, the IOL article contained a number of new allegations.

“In light of the aspersions that these allegations cast on the integrity and ethical conduct of the complainants”, he reasoned, “IOL’s failure to offer them the right to reply is a glaring oversight.”

Having found IOL to have breached clause 1.8 of the Press Code, the Deputy Ombud set out his remedy: the publication of an apology; and an updating of the article that includes the complainants’ right to reply. Both of these were to be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud before publication. Given the recent expulsion of Independent Media’s by the Press Council, it appears quite unlikely that IOL will ever comply.

Donate using SnapScan.