By: ANG Reporter
In a ruling released on Thursday, the media ombud’s appeals panel chaired by Judge Bernard Ngoepe found that News24’s editor-in-chief, Adriaan Basson breached the Press Code.
This was over an opinion article Basson wrote in January mentioning Patriotic Alliance (PA) president Gayton McKenzie.
News24 was ordered to publish an apology to the Patriotic Alliance.
Taking to Twitter after the verdict was published, McKenzie wrote: “I would like to thank Judge Bernard Ngoepe and the media appeals panel for their finding today that @AdriaanBasson should apologise to myself and the PA for writing that we ‘have been blunt about the fact that they are in it for the tenders’. This was, indeed, nothing but a lie.”
In the article on 30 January 2023, Basson had expressed anger over the election of Al Jama’ah’s Thapelo Amad as the executive mayor of Johannesburg and criticised the PA’s inclusion in a new coalition government in the city.
He wrote: “Gayton McKenzie and the PA have been blunt about the fact that they are in it for the tenders. Their aim will be squarely to capture departments with the highest budgets and opportunities for rent-seeking.”
PA NEC member Charles Cilliers took issue with this statement and complained to the press ombud that Basson was using his platform on the biggest news website in the country to misrepresent both McKenzie and his party.
In his complaint, he wrote: “It is one thing for opposition political leaders to speak such drivel in the pursuit of votes but quite another when a respected journalist heading up the most influential SA website says it. Yes it’s an opinion piece, but even opinion pieces must be factual when they claim to be relying on proven facts in their statements.
“What Basson wrote was not phrased as opinion, but rather as fact, and many readers would assume that he was basing his comment on some hard evidence that he may have come across. I would appreciate being shown the ‘blunt’ occasions when McKenzie and the PA have stated that they are ‘in it for the tenders’. That has never been a campaign message from the party, nor is it what the party would like to achieve.”
Cilliers asked Basson to provide factual evidence and the basis for his assertions or tender an apology and correction.
Basson refused to apologise and instead offered five examples of statements McKenzie had made that had led Basson to conclude that McKenzie was after tenders.
The matter went to arbitration and the press ombud found in Basson’s favour, arguing that McKenzie had made numerous controversial comments at various points and that Basson was entitled to his opinions.
Cilliers appealed this, arguing that “the Ombud has been too generous towards Mr Basson …I do not believe that the journalist has “clearly distinguished” between what is fact and what is merely his opinion in this matter, and that lack of clarity is what has brought us to this impasse. It has undermined Mr McKenzie’s dignity and standing, unfairly and unnecessarily so. At no point did he or anyone else in the PA factually express what Mr Basson claims was expressed, and therefore this opinion piece was misleading, unfair and prejudicial. One cannot simply invent facts as and when one sees fit.
“It is, quite simply, wrong. As a matter of principle, I would appreciate it if Judge Ngoepe could intervene and restore basic everyday dignity and sanity to this matter. It is not, and should not be, acceptable to produce a highly insulting comment about another human being, describe it as a ‘fact’ and then attempt to confuse the matter by saying, ‘But it’s just my opinion’ when challenged to produce any evidence whatsoever of said ‘fact’ – which Mr Basson was unable to do.”
Basson and News24 hired a team of top media lawyers to represent them at the appeals hearing, while Cilliers appeared on his own for McKenzie and the PA.
Ultimately, the appeals panel found that Basson had failed “to clearly distinguish between fact and opinion, and also that there was a misrepresentation of what Mr McKenzie had said and thus a distortion”.
“In the circumstances, we find that the impugned statement is in breach of Clause 6.”
The panel set aside the ombud’s ruling and replaced it with the following: “News24 breached Clause 6 of the Code.”
“News24 must publish an apology to the Patriotic Alliance. News24 must, within 7 days of receipt of this Decision, submit to the Executive Director of the Press Council a draft apology for her approval prior to publication. The Executive Director shall determine the date of the publication.”
P.A always good becouse is hear to give service delivery to our people