BCC Ruling SAFM Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma: Unverified Claims Violated Code

• SAFM was found by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC) to have breached its Free-to-Air Code by airing unverified claims about immigrants.
• Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma of March and March made several specific, unverified factual assertions during a June 3 broadcast on 'The National Pulse'.
• Social justice activist Christopher Rutledge lodged the complaint, arguing the claims were presented as fact without evidence or clear indication of being opinion.
• Advocate Ben Winks, BCC commissioner, ruled that SAFM breached the code in each instance, despite the SABC's defense of providing a 'right to reply' and overall program balance.
• The SABC has apologized and committed to using the findings to improve guidance for its presenters and producers, emphasizing the need for robust media regulation.

This BCC ruling SAFM Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma reinforces broadcasters' obligations under the Free-to-Air Code to clearly distinguish between opinion and fact, and to verify factual claims or explicitly state their unverified nature, even in interviews intended as a right to reply.

The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has publicly apologized after its radio station, SAFM, was found to have breached broadcasting regulations. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC) ruled that SAFM aired unverified claims regarding immigrants during an interview with Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, leader of the March and March movement. The broadcast, which took place on June 3 on the program 'The National Pulse,' presented these assertions as factual without clearly identifying them as opinions.

This ruling by Advocate Ben Winks, who was a commissioner for the Broadcasting Complaints Commission South Africa at the time, followed a complaint lodged by social justice activist Christopher Rutledge. Rutledge contended that SAFM had contravened a specific clause within the Free-to-Air Code, which mandates that any opinion must be explicitly presented as such to listeners. The interview, conducted by presenter Ashraf Garda, was framed as a 'right to reply' segment, following a previous discussion with Daniel Steyn, deputy editor of GroundUp, who had challenged certain claims made by March and March concerning immigrants in South Africa.

Rutledge's complaint highlighted that SAFM broadcast a series of serious and inflammatory factual allegations concerning migrants, crime, civil society organizations, corruption, and national security. Crucially, the broadcaster failed to demand evidence, verify these claims, or inform its audience that the allegations were disputed and unverified. Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma made several specific assertions, including that 60% of serious crimes in Gauteng were committed by foreign nationals, that foreign-funded organizations in South Africa were using their resources to acquire arms, that bombs and explosives were entering the country, that foreign military bases were operational within South Africa, and that foreign nationals evaded prosecution by bribing the police.

Rutledge argued that these were not mere expressions of political opinion but rather factual allegations pertaining to statistics, corruption, national security, organized criminal activity, and civil society organizations. He emphasized that the broadcaster did not request any evidence from Ngobese-Zuma to substantiate these claims, nor were listeners informed that the allegations had not been independently verified. The Free-to-Air Code explicitly requires that information based on opinion, supposition, rumor, or allegations must be presented in a manner that clearly indicates its nature, a requirement that Rutledge asserted was not met in this instance.

The SABC defended its broadcast by stating that Ngobese-Zuma's statements represented her personal views and that the preceding interview with Daniel Steyn had ensured listeners were exposed to alternative and contradictory perspectives before hearing her opinions. The broadcaster maintained that, when viewed in its entirety, the program achieved balance. However, Rutledge countered that this response did not address the core of his complaint: that SAFM failed to comply with sections of the Free-to-Air Code requiring comment to be 'truly stated' or 'fairly indicated.' He pointed out that Ngobese-Zuma's statements were 'factual propositions' capable of verification or refutation, and the prior interview with Steyn demonstrated that the broadcaster was aware that several 'facts' underpinning her argument were disputed.

Advocate Ben Winks, in his ruling, meticulously examined each of Ngobese-Zuma's statements. His assessment focused on whether each assertion constituted an honest expression of opinion, clearly presented as such, and based on facts that were truly stated or fairly indicated and referenced. Winks concluded that in every instance, the broadcaster had breached the code. Following this determination, both parties were invited to submit proposals regarding appropriate sanctions for the violation.

This BCC ruling SAFM Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma reinforces broadcasters' obligations under the Free-to-Air Code to clearly distinguish between opinion and fact, and to verify factual claims or explicitly state their unverified nature, even in interviews intended as a right to reply. The SABC has committed to utilizing these findings as a valuable learning opportunity to enhance guidance for its presenters and producers, indicating a recognition of the need for improved SABC Free-to-Air Code compliance. This decision underscores the critical role of media regulation in maintaining journalistic integrity and preventing the dissemination of unverified claims ZA.

Compliance officers and legal teams in media organisations should review their editorial guidelines and presenter training to mitigate risks of similar breaches and potential sanctions. The case highlights that even when providing a platform for a 'right to reply' or engaging with controversial public figures, broadcasters retain a fundamental responsibility to ensure that factual assertions are treated with due diligence and presented transparently to the audience. The Advocate Ben Winks ruling serves as a significant reminder of the stringent standards expected of media outlets in South Africa.

This ruling reinforces broadcasters' obligations under the Free-to-Air Code to clearly distinguish between opinion and fact, and to verify factual claims or explicitly state their unverified nature, even in interviews intended as a right to reply. Compliance officers and legal teams in media organisations should review their editorial guidelines and presenter training to mitigate risks of similar breaches and potential sanctions.

Source: Original reporting via GroundUp