Press ombud rules on Pretoria school race row articles

Most of the complaints about two articles on race issues at Pretoria High School for Girls were dismissed, but the Daily Maverick was directed to publish an apology and update the online article. Illustration: Lisa Nelson

Two rulings, issued just a couple of days apart, deal with complaints lodged in respect of a pair of articles published in the Daily Maverick in late July and early August.

Concerned with the manner in which the articles reported on the response to and fallout from allegations of racism at Pretoria High School for Girls, a group of parents of white learners at the school sought relief from the Press Council.

The rulings are quite dense, with each providing a detailed summary of the article in question, as well as the arguments and counter-arguments put up by the parties to the complaint, and covering multiple alleged breaches of the Press Code.

As is to be expected in racially-charged matters of this sort, the narratives of the parties to the conflict at the school differ widely.

The two rulings can be read here and here.

This article is not a comprehensive analysis of each ruling. Rather, its aim is to draw attention to those parts of the complaints that were upheld. It is important to recognise that large parts of both complaints were dismissed, and that to the extent that its news reporting was found wanting, Daily Maverick was not found to have acted in bad faith. Mistakes happen.

Central to both complaints were concerns regarding inaccuracies in the two articles, which had been authored by the same journalist.

The first article, published under the headline “‘It’s heartbreaking,’ says Pretoria Girls High parent as school faces fresh allegations of racism”, focused on the nature and detail of the allegations made by black learners about racism at the school, the views shared by their parents, and the disciplinary process initiated by the School Governing Body (SGB).

The complaint lodged in response to this article alleged breaches of clauses 1.1 to 1.3 of the Press Code. Collectively, these clauses place an obligation on the media to report news accurately and fairly, in context and in a balanced manner, and to present only the truth with opinions and rumours “presented clearly as such”.

The complaint was made up of six legs

• first, that the use of the phrase “whites-only” to describe a WhatsApp group of white learners (who were said to have exchanged racist messages) was in breach of the Code because it suggested (wrongly) that membership of the group was officially restricted to white learners;
• second, that the article misrepresented what was actually posted on the WhatsApp group, and lacked balance in that no white learners were quoted;
• third, that no white parents were quoted in the article;
• fourth, that the “racism incident” in 2016 referred to by the article had not been proven to have taken place, and that there was no school rule “requiring pupils to chemically straighten their hair”;
• fifth, that the parents did not call in lawyers to represent the learners being disciplined, as the article alleged; and
• finally, that “the article constructs a biased narrative”.

The complaint was only partially successful.

Regarding the single breach of clause 1.1, dealing with the “racism incident” in 2016, the Deputy Press Ombud held as follows:

“There are indeed grounds for this complaint. The publication cannot make an unqualified reference to ‘the racism incident’ when an investigation did not find any evidence of racism. There is a significant difference between allegations of racism and a confirmed incident of racism, and this distinction should be clearly acknowledged and reflected.”

And on the breach of clause 1.2, dealing with legal representation, he held that it was incorrect to report that parents had “called in” lawyers to represent the white pupils, suggesting “that the parents approached lawyers to provide legal assistance”, when it was the lawyers who had approached the parents to offer their assistance.

All the other legs of the complaint were dismissed.

In terms of relief, the Deputy Ombud directed Daily Maverick to publish an apology in the manner ordinarily required, to update the online article (including an editor’s note drawing attention to the updating), and to get approval of the text of both from his office before publication.

The second article, published under the headline “Pretoria High School for Girls racism row — independent probe to be launched”, focused once again on the disciplinary process, its outcome, and the launch of an independent investigation into racism at the school by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE).

As with the first complaint, there were alleged breaches of clauses 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code, but also clauses 3.1, 3.3, and 8.1.

Clause 3.1 deals with the media’s obligation to “exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives of individuals”, with clause 3.3 dealing with the same issue “in matters involving dignity and reputation”. Both clauses allow for the overriding of rights in the public interest, with the latter largely reflecting the common law position (on defamation). Clause 8.1 requires the media to “exercise exceptional care and consideration when reporting about children”.

This complaint was made up of four legs

• first, that the article “misrepresents the charges against the 12 white pupils who were suspended as well as the reasons for their acquittal by the SGB’s disciplinary inquiry”;
• second, that the “article misrepresents the reason for the GDE’s new inquiry into racism at the school and they dispute the reason offered by … [its spokesperson] for the launch of the inquiry”;
• third, that the article breached the code’s provisions dealing with privacy, dignity, and reputation; and
• fourth, that the article breached the provision dealing with children’s rights.

Once again, the parent group was only partially successful. In his ruling, the Deputy Ombud upheld parts of the first and second legs of the complaint, finding that in respect of each of them, the code had been breached by the author’s inaccurate reporting of news. Put simply, Daily Maverick got some of the key facts wrong, and had no good reason for having done so.

On the misrepresentation of the charges, the Deputy Ombud upheld the first part of the complaint on the basis that Daily Maverick had no good reason for failing to “take account of the text of the disciplinary hearing published on … Politicsweb … which provides details of the charges against the 12 suspended pupils and the reasons for their acquittal”.

He expressed concern that once additional information became available, a follow-up article was not published.

For the same reasons, the Deputy Ombud upheld the second part of the complaint. In his view, Daily Maverick ought not to have “chose[n] to continue to rely solely on the account of the GDE and … [its spokesperson] even when additional information subsequently became available.”

All the other parts of the complaint were dismissed.

In terms of relief, the Deputy Ombud again directed Daily Maverick to publish an apology in the manner ordinarily required, to update the online article (including an editor’s note drawing attention to the updating), and to secure approval of the text of both from his office in advance of publication.

Donate using SnapScan.