A second media house has been found to be in violation of the press code in as many weeks for running a story without a named source.
”This is another example of the reckless use of anonymous sources,” read a statement from ombudsman Joe Thloloe.
The press ombudsman released a ruling on Thursday relating to a story the Times had run on a mealtime conversation overheard between former presidency director general Frank Chikane and former public enterprises minister Alec Erwin during the ANC’s elective conference in Polokwane in 2007.
According to an unnamed source, former president Thabo Mbeki was reportedly asked to take himself out of the running for the ANC presidency in the face of open hostility by supporters of Jacob Zuma, who was eventually elected.
Chikane had complained that he did not discuss this with Erwin while the two were reportedly sitting next to each other at lunch during the conference.
The panel hearing the matter heard that the journalists Wally Mbhele, Ndivhuho Mafela, Xolani Xundu, Moipone Malefane and Mpumelelo Mkhabela had tried to contact Chikane to confirm the information passed on to them by someone who heard the conversation.
They could not get hold of him and did not try to contact Erwin.
Other national executive committee members confirmed the original meeting had taken place, and editor Ray Hartley said they had no reason to mistrust their source, who had subsequently been contacted and stood by his information.
But, the ombudsman said: ”Not a single person who was at the Sunday meeting is quoted and nobody corroborates the lunchtime source on the Chikane-Erwin conversation.”
The ombudsman also rejected the ”journalistic device” of ”is understood to have said” as an explanation that the public should ”take it with a pinch of salt”.
Chikane’s evidence was accepted by the ombudsman who said: ”A source tells the Times he overheard a conversation and the newspaper rushes to publish without making the effort to corroborate the facts”.
The panel felt that ”[the] Times should have traced at least one other person who was at the table and asked about the conversation”.
The panel also rejected the argument by Hartley that this type of writing was in the nature of political journalism.
”It is particularly when the environment is volatile and tempers are high that journalists should take extra care in their writing,” continued the ombudsman.
The publication was found to be in breach of the Press Code for not checking that the story was accurate, and for not asking for Chikane’s views before publication.
Hartley was not available to speak directly to the South African Press Association but Susan Smuts, legal and production editor of the Sunday Times, the Times‘s sister newspaper, said he had indicated he would abide by the finding.
The publication has to run an apology and an abbreviated version of the ombudsman’s decision.
They noted that Chikane rejected the offer of space for a letter to the editor to put across his side of the story, and said the press code stated that a publication should make amends for publishing inaccurate information and that ”the code does not throw the ball back into the offended subject’s court”.
In a complaint relating to a Mail & Guardian article by Adriaan Basson on alleged bribery of Telkom executives, based on what he considered an impeccable source, the ombudsman wrote recently: ”The South African National Editors’ Forum’s guidelines on confidential briefings and sources states: ”Anonymous sources should generally be used only as a last resort — ie, when there is no other way to get and publish the story.”
For that complaint, the ombudsman also pointed out that a figure of a contract was incorrectly reported, and that it was not enough to say that the same figure had appeared in many other reports.
”There is no reason to use figures because everybody else is using them. It is the responsibility of the journalists to get the facts and figures right,” the finding noted.
M&G editor Nic Dawes commented on Saturday: ‘We have rigorous policy on the use of unnamed sources which recognises their importance to our work while attempting to ensure that adequate mechanisms are in place to guarantee accuracy.
‘In this particular case we believe the panel erred, and that the story was substantially correct. We have requested leave to appeal.†– Sapa