4 December 2024
A complaint about the headline on a story in The Citizen – “Cuban doctors took my job” – has been dismissed by the press ombud. Illustration: Lisa Nelson
Hassen Lorgat seems to like hats; he certainly wears many of them. And he seems equally fond of the Press Council’s complaints mechanism, having used it on a number of occasions, with somewhat mixed results. Lorgat has locked horns with the South African Jewish Report, more than once, acting on behalf of the SA BDS Coalition and/or the General Industrial Workers’ Union of SA; with the Daily Maverick, in his personal capacity; and this time with The Citizen, on behalf of the Bench Marks Foundation, the People’s Media Foundation, and the Friends of Cuba Society (Focus).
At issue in this complaint was a headline in the print edition on an article published in February 2024. The headline was: “Cuban doctors took my job”, but the article was not focused on Cuban doctors, but on a local doctor who – after having completed his internship and community service – was unable to find a job in the public service. According to the then Minister of Health, the department could not afford to appoint the hundreds of unemployed doctors who had just completed their community service into public service positions.
Among a range of factors advanced for the shortage of funds, both by the former Minister and the young doctor, are claims for negligence against hospitals, corruption and wasteful expenditure. After capturing the young doctor’s views on new doctors’ salaries and their contractual obligations, the article states that “[h]e is not happy that about 50 Cuban doctors are employed in state hospitals, saying they hold back posts that should go to South African doctors.” Nothing further is mentioned about either Cuba or its doctors.
The complaint alleged two breaches of the Press Code: clause 10, which – in sub-clause 1 – requires headlines, captions to photographs, and posters not to mislead the public, and to “give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or photograph in question”; and clause 1.1, requiring the media to “take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”. Although the Public Advocate had initially declined to accept the complaint, that decision was overturned on appeal.
Both elements of the complaint were dismissed.
In support of the complaint that the headline breached clause 10.1, Lorgat alleged it was inaccurate and incomplete, considering the broader context within which Cuban doctors are employed, and enquired whether the young doctor had applied for a job that was given to a Cuban. He also argued that because the reference to Cuba in the article was so brief, it was wrong for the headline in the print edition only to focus on that issue.
For the Deputy Ombud, the question to be answered was “simply whether the headline accurately reflects the content in the article”. This is despite clause 10.1 being comprised of two parts, with the first – which was not squarely addressed – dealing with the obligation not to mislead the public in headlines, captions to photographs, and posters.
Noting that the headline clearly reflected the doctor’s opinion, the Deputy Ombud had this to say about the wording of the headline:
“It is irrelevant whether this is a minor point in the overall article. The newspaper has the right to decide where it wants to place emphasis as long as it does not distort the thrust of the report.”
The thrust of the report is on the difficulties that hundreds of recent medical school graduates have faced in finding employment, with a consideration of the various factors that appear to have resulted in such widespread unemployment among this group of professionals. In contrast, the headline – “Cuban doctors took my job” – does not in any way give a sense of what the Deputy Ombud refers to as “the thrust of the report”. Rather, it focuses on what is really nothing more than a throwaway line.
The complaint about the alleged breach of clause 1.1 was quickly – and correctly – dismissed. For purposes of his analysis, the Deputy Ombud was prepared to accept that “the view that blaming Cubans for this doctor’s difficulties is simplistic”. But even then, he held, the correct question to ask “is whether the report breached the Press Code’s requirements for accurate reporting.” And what was being reported was the young doctor’s opinion, which was correctly reflected.
In his complaint, Lorgat had wanted the Press Ombud to go further, seeking an outcome that would have recognised an obligation on the publication to “have fact-checked the opinion, researching and presenting additional contextual information”. Rejecting this submission, the Deputy Press Ombud notes that while media are “increasingly … building such mechanisms into their processes, … it cannot be the role of the [Press Council] to decide for editors when this would be appropriate”.
On the facts of this complaint, the Deputy Ombud had good reason to dismiss the alleged breach of clause 1.1. That said, the fair reporting of news may very well, in certain circumstances, require exactly what Lorgat proposed: fact-checking, and the provision of contextual information. If the Minister of Labour, for example, had unfairly blamed foreign nationals for high unemployment in South Africa, it would not be sufficient for a news report merely to parrot his speech, without saying anything more.