3 September 2024
The Press Ombud has found that IOL violated the Press Code on four counts in an article about Renaldo Gouws’s infamous video. Photo: Juliette Garms.
Renaldo Gouws is not to everyone’s liking. Like Marmite. So when IOL published a video clip in which he is seen and heard spewing racist hate speech, supporters and detractors of the controversial politician both lined up to have their say. It mattered little to both sides when the full video from which the 15-second clip was taken, providing some context, made it into the public domain.
In a written complaint to the Press Council, Gouws submitted that the publication of the video – together with an article titled: “WATCH: “Kill the k*ffirs, kill all the f**ing n*ggers!”: New racist video of DA MP Renaldo Gouws surfaces” – transgressed various provisions in the Press Code.
In a reply, filed after IOL’s editor had sought to justify the publication, Gouws added more allegations.
In a ruling handed down on 23 August, the Deputy Press Ombud cut the baby in half.
Gouws alleged violations of eight separate clauses, and the Ombud found in his favour on four:
The key problem, the Ombud found, is that only a short clip of the original six-minute video was uploaded, and – “despite a notice at the end of its article that it would be updated ‘as more information becomes available’”, “IOL did not upload the longer version of the video even when, by its own account, it subsequently came into its possession”. This, the Ombud found, was in breach of clauses 1.9 and 10.2.
Clause 1.8 was violated because of the manner in which IOL sought comment from Gouws, making it difficult for him “to provide a fully informed response to IOL’s questions”.
The violation of clause 2.1 arose because instead of uploading the full version of the video when it became available, IOL “added a link to an article which takes issue with the contents and context of the longer video”.
The ruling explains: “The preferential treatment of the viewpoint expressed in this article also brings into question the independence and professionalism of the respondent.”
For IOL, the ruling could have been much worse.
The complaint in respect of clause 1.1, requiring the media to “take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”, was dismissed because there was no evidence to refute IOL’s claim “that it did not have the longer video in its possession when it first posted its article”.
For the same reason, the complaint regarding clause 1.2, which requires news to be presented “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”, was also dismissed.
In respect of clause 1.3, which states that the media shall “present only what may reasonably be true as fact”, with “opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions … be[ing] presented clearly as such”, the Ombud found that the phrase “appearing to spew hate speech” was “clearly presented as opinion”.
And finally, in respect of clause 1.7, which ordinarily requires the media to “verify the accuracy of doubtful information”, the Ombud found no evidence to show that IOL had “failed to verify the authenticity of the 15-second video”.
Having found for Gouws on half of his grounds of complaint, the Ombud ordered IOL to publish an apology for breaching the clauses in question. In particular, the apology is “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”.
IOL was also ordered to publish a note that the article has been updated, and – in its update – include both the full video and comment from Gouws on that video. The note “should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Gouws as directed”.
IOL is not happy. “NO APOLOGY”, a recent headline roars; “IOL will appeal Renaldo Gouws racist video press council ruling”.
The matter will now go to retired Judge Bernard Ngoepe, chair of the appeals panel, who will be asked to decide on whether to grant leave to appeal. Given the nature of the ruling, as well as IOL’s stated position, it is quite possible that both sides could seek to have the matter as a whole taken on appeal. And it’s also quite possible that leave to appeal will be denied, or the appeals, if heard, dismissed.
Nobody will walk away from this messy saga with clean hands. It is hard to see how Gouws’s partial vindication will do anything to convince his detractors that he’s not the nasty racist they perceive him to be. To many, he’s just a right-wing pod bro who should stick to his lane. As for IOL, found yet again to have breached the Press Code, the ruling will – for many – merely confirm that it cannot be trusted.