Daily Maverick must apologise for PHSG misreporting – Press Ombudsman – DOCUMENTS

–>

“1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;

“1.2 present news 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;

“1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; … ”

“3. The media shall:

–>

“3.1 exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives of

individuals. The right to privacy may be overridden by legitimate public interest;…

“3.3 exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation, which may be overridden only if it is in the public interest and if:

“3.3.1 the facts reported are true or substantially true; or

“3.3.2 the reportage amounts to protected comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are either true or reasonably true; or

“3.3.3 the reportage amounts to a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, Parliamentary proceedings or the proceedings of any quasi-judicial tribunal or forum; or

“3.3.4 it was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct; or “3.3.5 the content was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the complainant was a party;…”

“8. In the spirit of Section 28.2 of the Bill of Rights* the media shall:

“8.1 exercise exceptional care and consideration when reporting about children. If there is any chance that coverage might cause harm of any kind to a child, he or she shall not be interviewed, photographed or identified without the consent of a legal guardian or of a similarly responsible adult and the child (taking into consideration the evolving capacity of the child); and a public interest is evident; …

“* Section 28.2 of the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution says: ‘A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.’”

1. Summary of article

1.1. The article reports that the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) is set to launch an independent investigation to determine whether a culture of racism exists at the Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) after a School Governing Body (SGB) disciplinary hearing cleared 12 pupils of misconduct.

1.1.1. According to the article, the probe will not investigate the 12 pupils who were

previously suspended for statements in a “whites-only” WhatsApp group that allegedly contained racial connotations and displayed “microaggressions”, but will be a broader investigation into allegations of racism.

1.2. On August 2, the SGB reportedly found the implicated pupils not guilty on charges of violence and bullying, disruptive behaviour and violating school rules due to insufficient evidence.

1.2.1. GDE spokesperson Steve Mabona said that, according to the SGB, the content of the messages on the WhatsApp group was inconclusive. The SGB also found inconsistencies in the testimonies and that a “lack of solid evidence” from the WhatsApp group contributed to the SGB’s decision to find the learners not guilty.

1.3. Mabona further said that the decision to launch the probe was motivated by the fact that the SGB’s ruling does not mention discrimination against pupils even though “there has been a strong presumption of the existence of such at the school”.

1.3.1. According to the article, the probe is called in terms of Section 9(1) of the Gauteng Education Act 6 of 1995 which allows education MEC Matome Chiloane to appoint an

inquiry into issues that are in the interest of education in the province. Its terms of reference will be communicated once an independent investigative body has been appointed.

1.4. The article further states that there have been at least two other racial incidents at the

school, including in 2016 when pupils reportedly staged a protest against a long-standing rule that pupils with Afro hairstyles have to chemically straighten their hair because such

hairstyles were considered untidy.

1.4.1. Several black pupils told Daily Maverick the previous week that they had seen leaked messages from the “whites-only” group that suggest they wanted “special treatment” and that they should “get over apartheid” or else South Africa would never move forward.

1.4.2. At the time of the 2016 incident, then Gauteng education MEC Panyaza Lesufi said he wanted to address the situation before it got out of hand. However, eight years later the

school reportedly finds itself in the same situation.

1.5. Following the latest allegations of racism, the GDE placed principal Phillipa Erasmus on a three-month precautionary suspension. She allegedly failed to act on these allegations when they were brought to her attention last year.

1.5.1. Mabona was not available to comment on what Erasmus’s fate would be after the 12 pupils were cleared by the SGB’s disciplinary probe.

1.5.2. However, Chiloane’s spokesperson, Xolani Mkhwente, told Sowetan: “The principal’s suspension is a different labour relations issue and not [made] by the SGB, but by the HOD [head of department]. Her precautionary suspension will only be lifted by the HOD after the labour relations investigation.”

1.5.3. Chiloane appealed for calm after some education activists strongly objected to the

outcome of the SGB’s disciplinary hearing and called for the school to be allowed to conduct its business before the September exams.

2. Arguments

Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls

2.1. The complainants submit that the article contains two important factual errors.

2.1.1. Firstly, they contend that the article misrepresents the charges and deny that any of the 12 pupils were charged with violence, bullying or disruptive behaviour.

2.1.2. They submit that the pupils were charged with expressing “inappropriate opinions” under the school’s learner Code of Conduct and Social Media Policy, which refers to “racism, sexism, sexual harassment, or public use of hate speech, or expression of opinions to cause spread of hate”.

2.1.3. They also submit that the pupils were charged under section 9.2.8.4, which refers to “any content that amounts to hate speech or discrimination … [and] include[s] comments that are threatening, harassing, illegal, obscene, defamatory, slanderous or hostile towards any individual or entity …”.

2.1.4. They state that all 12 pupils were found not guilty of these charges.

2.1.5. They add that the SGB also found that the charge that the prefects did not comply with certain clauses in the PHSG Student leadership policy was rendered “obsolete” as they were found not guilty of the two charges referred to in points 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 above.

2.1.6. The complainants further contend that the article misrepresents the reasons for the acquittal of the pupils and deny that it was “due to insufficient evidence”. They also take issue with Mabona’s quote that the pupils were acquitted because of “inconsistencies in the testimonies and lack of solid evidence”.

2.1.7. They state that the full text of the WhatsApp conversation was made available to the disciplinary panel and that all 12 pupils provided oral evidence to the inquiry.

2.1.8. They maintain that the 12 were found not guilty simply because the comments made in the WhatsApp group did not contravene the school’s social media policy nor did it constitute racism or hate speech of any kind.

2.2. Secondly, the complainants argue that the article misrepresents the reason for the launch of the GDE’s new inquiry.

2.2.1. They state that the reason offered by Mabona – “the report of the SGB’s ruling makes no mention of racism or discrimination against learners, whereas there has been a strong presumption of the existence of such at the school” – is false.

2.2.2. They contend that, as indicated in the ruling, the whole purpose of the inquiry was to investigate whether the content of the WhatsApp group’s messages was racist.

2.2.3. They believe that the respondent’s failure to interrogate Mabona’s comments allowed disinformation to be presented as if it were “factually sound”.

2.3. In light of these two errors, the complainants maintain that the article failed to comply with Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code and argue that these errors were “deeply prejudicial” to the 12 pupils concerned.

2.3.1. As a result, they submit, the article was also in breach of Clauses 3.1 and 3.3 of the Press Code.

2.4. The complainants further point out that the full record of the disciplinary hearing was published by Politicsweb¹ on August 2 – three days before Daily Maverick’s article. For this reason, they argue, the publication should have known that its article was inaccurate.

2.4.1. Alternatively, the publication should have requested a copy of the ruling from the GDE or PHSG.

2.5. The complainants add that many of the 12 pupils are under the age of 18 and are therefore children. As such, they suggest that “the distress” which the pupils suffered as a result of the article must be viewed in light of Section 28(2) of the Constitution.

2.6. In conclusion, the complainants refer to Clause 1.10 of the Press Code, which provides for redress, and request a full retraction of the article.

2.6.1. They also request Daily Maverick to state explicitly that the 12 pupils were found not guilty of racism; that they were never accused of violence, bullying and disruptive behaviour; that they were found not guilty because the content of the WhatsApp group did not amount to racism or hate speech and not because there was “insufficient” or “inconclusive” evidence; that Mabona’s statement that the ruling does not mention racism or discrimination against pupils is untrue; and that, through these factual errors, the publication was misled by Mabona.

2.6.2. In addition, they demand that the publication and the journalist issue an apology to the 12 pupils and express remorse for any harm suffered.

2.6.3. Lastly, they request that the retraction and apology should be published on Daily Maverick’s website and on all its social media platforms.

Daily Maverick

2.7. In reply, the respondent states that it prides itself on being accurate and fair.

2.7.1. It says that the GDE is the authoritative body responsible for communication on behalf of schools in the province and adds that it also made several requests to the school for comment and requested to be put in contact with the SGB as well.

2.7.2. As it did not have access to the SGB or to the parents of the white pupils concerned, the publication states that it was forced to rely solely on information from the GDE, “which aligned with what parents and students had shared with [it]”. It asks who else it should have consulted if quoting the GDE was problematic.

2.8. The respondent further states that PHSG consistently referred it to the GDE and that the school did not correct any public statements made by the Department. The publication argues that this suggests that the school accepted the accuracy of those statements.

2.8.1. The respondent also argues that the complaints mentioned are not directly related to the publication, especially in view of the fact that the GDE has not retracted the statements in question. It recommends that the complainants’ concerns should be taken up directly with the GDE’s spokesperson.

2.9. Regarding the relief sought by the complainants, the respondent points out that it published several follow-up stories stating that the 12 pupils were found not guilty of racism and were cleared of any wrongdoing, and refers to two articles published on August 2² And August 5.³

2.9.1. It adds that it refrained from using information from other websites “as it goes against journalistic ethics, due to the risk of inaccuracies”.

2.9.2. It reaffirms its commitment to continue to cover the story in a fair and responsible manner, and says it will continue to try to contact all relevant parties “in the hope that they will state their side of the story”.

Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls

2.10. In response, the complainants state that they do not believe the publication responds adequately to their complaint. Furthermore, they do not believe that the respondent’s reply raises any further issues which require a response.

2.10.1. They reiterate that they stand by their initial complaint.

3. Analysis

3.1. Complaint one is 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.

3.1.1. In response, the respondent states that it made several requests to the school for comment and also requested to be put in touch with the SGB. In view of the fact that these attempts were unsuccessful, it relied solely in the end on the GDE for information.

3.1.2. The publication points out – quite correctly – that the GDE is the authority responsible for communication about schools in the province. Furthermore, the publication notes that the GDE’s information squared with that provided by some of the black parents and pupils.

3.1.3. Nevertheless, it is unclear why the publication did not also take account of the text of the disciplinary hearing published on the website, Politicsweb, on August 2, which provides details of the charges against the 12 suspended pupils and the reasons for their acquittal.⁴

3.1.4. In its response to the complainants, the publication merely states that it refrains from using information from other websites due to the risk of repeating inaccuracies.

3.1.5. While this is certainly a valid consideration, it does not explain why the publication did not even attempt to confirm the authenticity of the text published by Politicsweb and, instead, appeared to simply disregard it.

3.1.6. Furthermore, there are indeed instances when a publication refers to information published elsewhere and, when doing so, acknowledges the original source. In fact, Daily Maverick itself followed this convention in its article on August 5 when it published a quotation from the Sowetan newspaper (see point 1.5.2).

3.1.7. Of further concern is that, even if the respondent was unable to obtain the verdict of the disciplinary inquiry or was unaware of the documents published by Politicsweb before it ran its own article on August 5, it failed to publish a follow-up article when additional information subsequently become available on the charges against the pupils and the reasons for their acquittal.

3.1.8. This contradicts the publication’s declaration in its response to the complainants that it “will continue to try and contact all relevant parties in this matter in the hope that they will state their side of the story”.

3.1.9. Instead, the publication continued to rely unduly on the GDE’s account of the matter even when additional information became available.

3.1.10. And while it is beyond the purview of the Press Ombuds to investigate the veracity of Mabona’s comments on the charges and the reasons for the acquittal of the pupils, it would be remiss not to note that the Thabo Mbeki Foundation has questioned the accuracy of his comments on Newzroom Afrika in this regard.⁵

3.1.11. In light of the aforegoing, the publication did not sufficiently meet the requirements set out in Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.1.12. There is no compelling evidence that warrants an additional ruling in terms of Clause 1.3. The breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2.

3.2. Complaint two is that the complainants believe the article misrepresents the reason for the GDE’s new inquiry into racism at the school and they dispute the reason offered by Mabona for the launch of the inquiry.

3.2.1. Although the publication unsuccessfully tried to obtain information directly from the school and its SGB, again it is unclear why the publication did not take account of the text of the disciplinary hearing published by Politicsweb on August 2 (see points 3.1.3 to 3.1.9 above).

3.2.2. Instead, the respondent chose to continue to rely solely on the account of the GDE and Mabona even when additional information subsequently became available.

3.2.3. And although it is outside the jurisdiction of the Press Ombuds to investigate the veracity of Mabona’s comments, it is worth noting here once again that the Thabo Mbeki Foundation has raised questions about the accuracy of his comments on Newzroom Afrika about the reasons for the general inquiry into racism at the school.

3.2.4. In light of the above, the publication did not sufficiently meet the requirements set out in Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code.

3.2.5. There is no compelling evidence that warrants an additional ruling in terms of Clause 1.3 as the breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2.

3.3. There is no merit in Complaint three that the article is in breach of Clause 3.1 of the Press Code. There is undoubtedly legitimate public interest in an inquiry into allegations of a culture of racism at a government school.

3.3.1. Related to this complaint is the claim that the dignity and reputation of the 12 pupils were not sufficiently taken into consideration as required by Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.

3.3.2. No compelling evidence is provided to support this claim. The complainants essentially suggest that, because the article breached Clauses 1.1 to 1.3 of the Press Code, the article was ipso facto therefore also in breach of Clause 3.3.

3.3.3. However, even though some aspects of the article may be open to question, it was nevertheless in the public interest to report on an inquiry announced by the GDE on allegations of a culture of racism at a government school.

3.4. There is no evidence to support Complaint four that the article is in breach of Clause 8.1

of the Press Code.

3.4.1. As noted, it is in the public interest to report on an inquiry launched by the GDE into a culture of racism at a school.

3.4.2. Furthermore, none of the pupils was interviewed or identified, which avoids causing unnecessary harm to any of the children involved.

4. Finding

Complaint one: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.1.3 to 3.1.9 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed. The breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2; there is no compelling evidence that warrants an additional ruling in terms of Clause 1.3.

Complaint two: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 is upheld for the reasons set out in points 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed in view of the fact that the breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2. There is no compelling evidence to warrant an additional ruling under Clause 1.3.

Complaint three: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clauses 3.1 and 3.3 is

dismissed (see points 3.3 to 3.3.3 of my Analysis).

Complaint four: The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 8.1 is dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.4 to 3.4.2 of my Analysis.

Firstly, Daily Maverick is required to publish an apology to the complainants for breaching Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 for misrepresenting the charges against the 12 pupils who were suspended and the reasons for their acquittal by the SGB’s disciplinary inquiry as well as for misrepresenting the reasons for the GDE’s new inquiry into racism at the school, and should:

– be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;

– be published online, on Daily Maverick’s landing page for five days, as well as on all platforms where the article was published;

– be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “12 pupils of Pretoria High School for Girls” (or a recognisable alternative);

– be published with a link to the updated online article;

– refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;

– end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;

– be published with the logo of the Press Council; and

– be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud named below.

Secondly, the updated article should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated after a finding by the Deputy Press Ombud. See EDITOR’S NOTE below.” The “EDITOR’S NOTE: Update and apology to 12 pupils of Pretoria High School for Girls” should state when and how the article has been updated.

Thirdly, the final update to the article should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud prior to publication.

Appeal

The Complaints Procedures lay down that, within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Tyrone August Deputy Press Ombud 30 October 2024

Footnotes:

¹ Politicsweb describes itself as “a website focused on the news and politics of Southern Africa. It aims to provide its readers with breaking news, informed comment and opinion, and easy access to key online resources” (see https://www.politicsweb.co.za/about).

² See “Gauteng education department ‘disappointed’ as 12 Pretoria High School for Girls learners cleared” (https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-08-02-pretoria-racism-department-disappointed-as-schoolgirls- found-not-guilty/).

³ The August 5 article is the subject of this adjudication.

⁴ See /documents/twelve-pupils-cleared-of-gdes-racism-charges–phsg, published in the Politicsweb section on “DOCUMENTS”.

⁵ See https://press-admin.voteda.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/President-Mbekis-Report-1.pdf

***

EARLIER RULING:

Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls vs Daily Maverick (1)

Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August

28 October 2024

Finding: Complaint 31990

Date of publication: 31 July 2024

Headline:

‘It’s heartbreaking,’ says Pretoria Girls High parent as school faces fresh allegations of racism

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-07-31-its-heartbreaking-says-pretoria-girls- high-parent-as-school-faces-fresh-allegations-of-racism/

Author: Nonkululeko Njilo

Particulars

This finding is based on a written complaint lodged by a group of parents representing a number of pupils at Pretoria High School for Girls, along with a redacted record of the

School Governing Body’s disciplinary inquiry; a written reply on behalf of Daily Maverick by its journalist, Ms Nonkululeko Njilo; and a written response by the group of parents

representing a number of pupils at Pretoria High School for Girls.

Complaint

The complainants submit that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code:

“1. The media shall:

“1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;

“1.2 present news 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;

“1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; … “

1. Summary of article

1.1. According to the article, the Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) is facing new

allegations of racism and, as a result, some parents of black pupils have expressed concern about the mental wellbeing of their children.

1.1.1. It further reports that a group of black pupils held a protest the previous week to

demand action against white pupils who allegedly made statements about them with racial connotations and displayed “microaggressions” in a “whites-only” WhatsApp group.

1.1.2. It also notes that disciplinary proceedings against 12 white pupils started on July 23, and that eight of them were removed as prefects.

1.2. Political parties protested outside the school on July 31. Gauteng education MEC

Matome Chiloane also visited the school and subsequently briefed the media on the latest developments regarding the matter.

1.2.1. He reportedly said that new evidence emerged that the latest incident was not isolated and that there had been complaints since 2023 that some black pupils were being victimised by some of their white peers.

1.2.2. As a result, he said, the department decided to place the principal, Phillipa Erasmus, on a three-month precautionary suspension while the disciplinary process was under way.

1.3. Several black pupils told Daily Maverick that they had seen leaked messages from the “whites-only” group suggesting they wanted “special treatment” and that they were allowed to get away with “having afros and dy[e]ing [their] hair”.

1.3.1. They were reportedly also told to “get over apartheid” or else South Africa would never move forward.

1.4. Black parents told Daily Maverick of their concern about the impact of these “racial connotations” on the wellbeing of their children.

1.4.1. Jane Nyalungu said she had encouraged her daughter, a Grade 11 pupil, to report some of the incidents but was shocked when the principal did not take any action. She said this

suggests that the principal “does not see anything wrong with these problematic remarks”.

1.5. Daily Maverick approached the school about the latest allegations of racism as well as those in previous years, and asked what had been done to address them since an earlier

protest in 2016.

1.5.1. The school’s marketing manager, KL du Toit, referred queries to the provincial education department.

1.6. In 2016, pupils reportedly staged a protest against a long-standing rule which required them to chemically straighten their hair because Afro hairstyles were deemed to be untidy.

1.6.1. At the time, then education MEC Panyaza Lesufi said he wanted to address the

situation before it got out of hand. Eight years later, however, the school reportedly finds itself in the same situation again.

1.6.2. Chiloane echoed Lesufi’s sentiments and said the education department needed to set a precedent “so the message goes out … that racism will not be tolerated in our schools in any way”.

1.7. Nyalungu said a suitable sanction would be to expel the perpetrators, while Basetsana Monareng, the parent of a Grade 8 pupil, welcomed the stripping of eight girls of their roles as prefects and associated privileges.

1.7.1. Chiloane said the department would conduct a diversity and social cohesion programme that would be monitored regularly, and would include pupils, parents and teachers.

1.8. Gauteng education spokesperson Steve Mabona further said that a Grade 12 pupil was suspended after she allegedly made racial remarks on a video that was purportedly made in February.

1.8.1. He added that the department was “firmly committed to fostering a safe and inclusive environment for all learners”.

2. Arguments

Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls

2.1. A group of parents representing a number of PHSG pupils who were recently implicated in a “race scandal” complained that the article was one-sided.

2.1.1. They note that the article first appeared under the heading “Maverick News” and was therefore not an op-ed piece expressing subjective opinions. As such, they submit that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.

2.2. The complainants point out that all references to the WhatsApp group on which some of the 12 suspended PHSG pupils allegedly expressed “inappropriate opinions” are prefaced with the words “whites-only”.

2.2.1. They argue that there is a big difference between a WhatsApp group that comprises only white pupils and one that actively restricts membership to white pupils. They submit that the phrase “whites-only” suggests that the group falls into the latter category.

2.2.2. However, they contend, there is no evidence to support this interpretation and add that placing the reference in quotation marks “does not diminish its harmful effect”.

2.3. The complainants further submit that the postings on the WhatsApp group were misrepresented. For example, they state, the claim that the group said black girls needed to “get over apartheid or South Africa would never move forward” is an overstatement. Instead, they say, the actual posting was more temperate: “Everybody is treated the same … if they keep going back to race then this country will never move forward.”¹

2.3.1. They believe that this inaccuracy was prejudicial to the 12 white pupils.

2.4. The complainants also point out that the article does not record the views of any white pupils at the school nor does the article record the views of any pupils “of whatever race” who express sympathy with the 12 white girls or who agree with their opinions. They argue that this indicates a lack of balance.

2.5. The complainants take issue as well with what they regard as the one-sidedness of the interviews with black parents and ask why the article does not reflect the concerns of many white parents about what they viewed “as an act of racial bullying” by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE). They believe the failure to do so suggests bias.

2.6. The complainants go on to dismiss as false the following statement in the article: “In the racism incident in 2016, pupils staged a protest against a long-standing rule which required them to chemically straighten their hair because afro hairstyles were deemed to be untidy.”

2.6.1. They question the reference to a racism incident in 2016. They maintain that the only incident that year was a protest against alleged racism, but that an independent firm of lawyers did not bring any charges against any pupil or staff member and that no racism was found.

2.6.2. They also challenge the claim that a school rule ever existed that required pupils to “chemically straighten their hair”. While there are school rules regarding hair, they state, “none come close to what is claimed” in the article.

2.7. The complainants further argue that, in light of the fact that the school was prohibited from communicating with the media, it was particularly important to take care in reporting fairly and accurately on the school’s actions. They believe the article failed in this respect.

2.8. The complainants also object to the following sentence in the article: “Daily Maverick understands that parents of the 12 suspended pupils have since called in lawyers to represent their children at the disciplinary hearings and appeal for lenient sanctions.”

2.8.1. They submit that no lawyers were called in, and say that a group of advocates approached the parents of the 12 pupils and offered their services free of charge.

2.8.2. They also dispute the claim in the article that parents brought in lawyers to “represent their children at the disciplinary hearings and appeal for lenient sanctions” (emphasis in the original).

2.8.3. They state that there was no appeal for lenient sanctions as all 12 pupils had pleaded not guilty to the charges and all of them were ultimately acquitted on all charges.

2.9. The complainants submit that the article constructs a narrative of “stoical black school children that are the victims of repeated acts of racism”, a school management that is indifferent to this racial abuse, a group of white pupils whose social media postings caused injury to their black peers and an education department that has acted firmly and is committed to eradicating white racism in schools.

2.9.1. They argue that, in order to construct such a narrative, the article “has had to colour (and in some cases invent) facts in ways that are deeply prejudicial to the school and the 12 white girls”, and selectively records only the opinions of those whose views reinforce this narrative. They regard this as bias.

2.10. In conclusion, the complainants ask that Daily Maverick be instructed to retract the article and publish an apology to the 12 white pupils who were suspended (“and subsequently found not guilty”) for the errors in the article.

Daily Maverick

2.11. The respondent denies that it violated any provisions of the Press Code, and says that it drove to the school to speak to pupils, teachers and members of the School Governing Body (SGB), but that this was in vain as tensions were high and security was strengthened in and around the school.

2.11.1. It adds that it deliberately used the “whites-only” phrase in inverted commas to indicate that this was not its own choice of words and to suggest that the phrase was invented by others, including the school’s black pupils, parents and protesters.

2.12. In reply to the complaint that it did not record the views of any white pupils at the school or any views which sympathised or agreed with their WhatsApp posts, the respondent again points out that it visited the school with the intention of getting accounts from all individuals, but was prevented from gaining access due to heightened security measures.

2.12.1. It says the only pupils it was able to approach were black and points out that some of them were participating in a protest outside the school.

2.12.2. Furthermore, it felt it was irresponsible to interview some of the white pupils on such a sensitive issue without parental consent as they were effectively minors. (It adds that the parents of the black pupils mentioned in the article approved their children’s interviews.)

2.12.3. The respondent adds that none of the pupils interviewed expressed any sympathy for the 12 white pupils. In fact, it notes, one “Indian” student was strongly opposed to them.

2.13. In response to the complaint that the article does not reflect the views of any white parents, the respondent reiterates that it was unable to contact any white parents at the time due to heightened security during the disciplinary investigation and subsequent protests.

2.13.1. However, once tensions eased and the 12 pupils were cleared of any wrongdoing, the publication says it made two additional attempts to visit the school and briefly spoke to two white parents.

2.13.2. These parents expressed opposing views, which were recorded in a follow-up article, “How SA schools are tackling the nuances of racial clashes”.²

2.13.3. These interviews took place in the school’s parking bay/drop-off point. However, as the publication attempted to speak to a third parent, security was called and the publication was asked to vacate the premises and told that media queries should be sent to the GDE.

2.14. The respondent reiterates that allegations of racism against the school are not new and that similar issues were widely reported in 2016, including by international media.

2.15. The respondent further states that it was fully aware that the school was restricted from communicating with the media. For this reason, it contacted the GDE to obtain “the school policy” and requested the school to provide information on its policies. However, it says, the school’s marketing manager did not provide the information requested.

2.15.1. In light of these circumstances, the publication argues, it did not have any option but to rely on the information provided by its sources. It believes the school can, or should be able to, approach the GDE regarding any inaccuracies in the information it shared with the media.

2.16. The respondent states that it was informed that lawyers were brought in to represent some of the pupils. The publication says it is not concerned about how the lawyers were brought in and merely reported on the fact that they had been roped in.

2.16.1. It also denies that a statement in the article implies that the parents of the 12 pupils believed they were guilty and therefore brought in lawyers to argue in mitigation for a more lenient sentence. It describes this as the interpretation of the complainants and disputes that this implication is contained in the article.

The respondent further takes issue with the claim that it tried to construct a particular narrative in the article and views this as another example of a misinterpretation of the article by the complainants.

2.16.2. It emphasises that it has never directed its readers to take any particular side and suggests that to do so would be an insult to the intelligence of its readers.

Parent Group Pretoria High School

2.17. In reply to the respondent, the complainants state that they do not believe the publication responds adequately to their complaint. Furthermore, they do not believe that the respondent’s reply raises any further issues which require a response.

2.17.1. They reiterate that they stand by their initial complaint.

3. Analysis

3.1. Complaint one objects to the use of the phrase “whites-only” in relation to the WhatsApp group on the grounds that it implies that the group is restricted to white pupils and that placing those words in quotation marks to suggest that they were created by others does not diminish their harmful effects.

3.1.1. There is no merit in this claim. If the publication did indeed want to suggest that the WhatsApp group’s membership was restricted to white pupils, it would not have been necessary to place the phrase in quotation marks.

3.1.2. The employment of quotation marks is a standard practice to indicate that certain words were uttered by someone else. In its reply to the complaint, the publication clearly identifies those who used the phrase as, among others, the school’s black pupils, parents and protesters.

3.1.3. This reason why the publication used the phrase in quotation marks is, therefore, perfectly legitimate. To suggest otherwise would be to impose an unreasonable interpretation on the conventional use of quotation marks in the article.

3.2. Complaint two is that the article misrepresents the postings on the WhatsApp group. However, in the example cited by the complainants, Daily Maverick is not paraphrasing nor summarising the posting; it is reporting what it was told by black pupils about the content of the postings.

3.2.1. A related complaint is that the article lacks balance in that no white pupils are quoted in the article nor are the views recorded of anyone sympathetic to them. In this regard, too, the publication provides a reasonable explanation – that access to the school was restricted due to heightened security measures at the time.

3.2.2. By contrast, it was easy to obtain the views of black pupils quoted in the article as they were protesting outside the school, and their parents – who were presumably also outside the school premises – granted permission for the publication to quote them.

3.3. Complaint three relates to the fact that no white parents are quoted in the article. The explanation once again offered by the publication is that security measures prevented it from gaining access to the school.

3.3.1. However, when tensions subsequently eased, it did attempt to solicit the views of white parents and spoke briefly to two of them before being asked to leave the school’s premises while speaking to a third parent. The views of the two parents were duly published in an article on August 10, “How SA schools are tackling the nuances of racial clashes”.

3.3.2. The publication of the views of white parents in a follow-up article indicates that there was no intention to deliberately exclude the views of white parents from the article published on July 31, but was due to the practical difficulty of contacting white parents at that stage.

3.4. In complaint four, the complainants deny that there was a “racism incident” in 2016 and point out that no charges were brought against any pupil or staff member after an investigation into alleged racism.

3.4.1. 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.

3.4.2. Related to this complaint is a denial that there was ever a school rule requiring pupils to chemically straighten their hair.

3.4.3. Be that as it may, some black pupils did express dissatisfaction about the school’s policy on hair in 2016. Daily Maverick published an article recording their views on 30 August 2016, “Pretoria Girls High: A protest against sacrificed cultures and identities”.³

3.4.4. And, before publishing the article on July 31, the publication approached both the GDE and PHSG for a copy of the school’s policies. However, their requests went unanswered. The publication therefore cannot be sanctioned for failing to obtain information on the school’s policies when it did make attempts to do so.

3.4.5. Related to this complaint is that the publication was aware that the school was prohibited from communicating with the media and that, in the circumstances, it was particularly important to take care in reporting fairly and accurately.

3.4.6. As noted under point 3.4.4 above, the publication did contact PHSG but did not receive a response to its request for a copy of its policies. For this reason, the respondent’s only sources of information ended up being the GDE and some black parents and pupils.

3.4.7. Despite this, the respondent was nevertheless justified in publishing the information at its disposable for the following reasons: one, it made efforts to reach additional sources of information and, two, a protest about allegations of racism at a school was in the public interest and could therefore not be ignored.

3.5. Complaint five concerns the statement in the article that the parents “called in” lawyers to represent the white pupils. This is clearly a misrepresentation of what transpired: the words in question suggest that the parents approached lawyers to provide legal assistance.

3.5.1. This was certainly not the case as it was the lawyers who, in fact, approached the parents. It is disingenuous for the publication to claim that it does not matter who approached who and to argue that the fact remains that lawyers were roped in.

3.5.2. There is an important difference between approaching someone and being approached by someone; one relates to an act with deliberate intent in pursuit of a specific objective; the other is an entirely passive role.

3.5.3. Related to this complaint is the complainants’ denial that the lawyers were approached to appeal for lenient sanctions for the 12 suspended pupils. In view of the fact that the parents did not approach the lawyers in the first place, there is no factual basis for this claim either (never mind the fact that all 12 pupils pleaded not guilty to the charges).

3.6. The sixth complaint is that, in general, the article constructs a biased narrative. However, there is insufficient evidence to support a claim that the article wilfully attempted to provide a misleading narrative: it relied on the information at its disposal at the time.

3.6.1. As noted in point 3.4.4 above, the respondent made reasonable efforts to obtain information from various sources and, even though there was limited information at its disposal, it could not ignore a protest about a matter that was in the public interest and not report on it.

4. Finding

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is upheld for the reason set out in point 3.4.1 of my Analysis.

The other complaints that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 are dismissed for the reasons outlined under points 3.1.1 to 3.1.3 and 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is upheld for the reasons set out under points 3.5 to 3.5.3 of my Analysis.

The other complaints that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 are dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.2 to 3.2.2, 3.3 to 3.3.2 and 3.4.2 to 3.4.4 of my Analysis.

The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed. The breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2, and there is no compelling evidence that warrants an additional ruling in terms of Clause 1.3.

Firstly, Daily Maverick is required to publish an apology to the complainant for breaching

Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 in the instances mentioned, and should:

– be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;

– be published online, on Daily Maverick’s landing page for five days, as well as on all platforms where the article was published;

– be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Pretoria High School for Girls” (or a recognisable alternative);

– be published with a link to the updated online article;

– refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;

– end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”;

– be published with the logo of the Press Council; and

– be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud who adjudicated the complaint.

Secondly, the updated article should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Pretoria High School for Girls.”

The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Pretoria High School for Girls as directed above.

Thirdly, the apology and the final updates to the article should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud prior to publication.

Appeal

The Complaints Procedures lay down that, within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Tyrone August Deputy Press Ombud

28 October 2024

Footnote:

¹ This quote is from a redacted record of the Disciplinary Inquiry transcript (PHSG statement, 2 August 2024).

² See https://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-8-10/education-transformation-sa-schools-try-to-navigate-the- nuances-of-racial-clashes-in-the-classroom/

³ https://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-8-30-pretoria-girls-high-a-protest-against-sacrificed-cultures-and- identities

ENDS