Cornerstone College and Sally-Ann Hurlin vs City Press

Fri, Dec 15, 2023

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud

Dates of publication:

3 & 17 September 2023

Headline of publication:

Child ‘humiliated’ and forced to urinate on herself at a Pretoria private school (3 September)

School where girl was forced to urinate on herself allegedly left a boy suicidal (17 September)

Author: Vicky Abraham  

Particulars

1. The complainants are Cornerstone College and Sally-Ann Hurlin, the college’s principal
2. The complainants lodged a complaint against City Press on 20 September 2023.  It was written by the complainants’ legal representative, David Short of the firm Fairbridges, Wertheim Becker.
3. A response from City Press was received on 15 November 2023.  It was written by Timothy Molobi, the news editor, and signed off by Rapule Tabane, the deputy editor. Substantial supporting material was made available to the Ombud’s office, including audio material from interviews and documentation.
4. The complainants supplied a rejoinder on 24 November 2023.
5. I considered the following documents:

5.1 The complaint;

5.2 The original reports;

5.3 The newspaper’s response to the complaints;

5.4 The complainant’s rejoinder; and

5.5 A large quantity of supporting documents supplied by both sides, including audio recordings of interviews conducted by the reporter.

The reports

6. The first report describes claims about how Cornerstone College handled an incident in which an unnamed 14-year-old learner wet herself in class when she was allegedly denied the opportunity to go to the lavatory. She was given detention for using a friend’s cellphone to call her mother, and for misrepresenting a teacher, and was also made to apologise to the teacher.  The school is quoted as denying the claims.
7. The second report deals with an incident from two years ago when another student was allegedly left feeling suicidal because of treatment by the school. Again, the school is quoted as denying the report. The Gauteng Department of Education is also quoted.

The complaint

8. The complaint makes many points and allegations, though they are only infrequently linked to specific sections of the Press Code.  As far as possible, I have identified the particular sections involved.  Some claims fall clearly outside the ambit of the code.
9. The response from the newspaper does not respond to the complaint point by point. In dealing with the matter, I have sought to identify the newspaper’s defence as clearly as possible.
10. In the newspaper’s response and the complainant’s rejoinder, a number of additional matters are raised which did not form part of the original reporting or the complaint as initially filed. Much of the exchange focuses on the rights and wrongs of the school’s handling of the incidents rather than the reporting. Though some issues could fall under provisions of the code, I deal here only with matters raised in the original complaint as it would be unfair to consider matters that the newspaper did not have a chance to respond to. 
11. The complaint says the headline on the first article breaches clause 10 of the Press Code, requiring headlines to reflect accurately the content of an article.  Various aspects of the report are described as untrue, therefore in breach of clauses 1.1 to 1.3 of the Press Code.  The complaint is also that Hurlin was not given sufficient opportunity to respond, and that her responses were not reflected fully, which would amount to a breach of clause 1.8 of the code. There is also mention of clause 3.1, which deals with individuals rights to privacy.
12. The complaint on the second article once again takes issue with the headline, arguing breach of clause 10. This complaint again says that the complainants were not given adequate opportunity to respond, a breach of clause 1.8.

Complaint 1: Inaccurate headline

Arguments

13. The complainant argues that the facts do not support the headline, which says the child was “’humiliated’ and forced to urinate on herself”. Their account of the incident differs from that reflected in the article: they say that the teacher had given permission to the child to leave a few minutes before the end of the lesson, as initially requested. When the learner then suddenly needed to go urgently, she was busy and did not see the learner’s hand.  The complainants say that the teacher immediately helped the child by covering her with a dri-mac, taking her to the bathroom and organising a change of clothes.
14. The claim refers to section 10 of the Press Code.
15. City Press does not respond to the claim that the teacher simply did not notice the child’s hand. However, they say the teacher did not help the child in class after the incident.
16. In their rejoinder, the complainants reiterate that the teacher helped the child – in other words, that due sensitivity was displayed.

Discussion

17. The way in which the incident in class was handled is clearly central to the report and to the complaint. City Press has provided an account that shows the college as remarkably insensitive to the situation of a young girl suffering an incident that must have been acutely embarrassing.
18. It is unfortunate that City Press does not engage fully with the version put forward by the college, that the teacher simply did not notice the child’s urgent need to go to the lavatory, as it makes a significant difference.
19. On whether the teacher covered her and took her to the toilet, the versions are also different. The school says she did, the child says she did not.  In the report, the child is quoted as saying the teacher came “when I got to the bathroom”, suggesting she came soon after. 
20. It should be noted that in the version provided by the girl, the humiliation does not only refer to the way the incident was handled at the time, but also the imposition of punishments for cellphone use, criticism in a meeting with teachers and disclosure to the wider school community.
21. The complainants argue that the headline should have reflected the facts, by which they mean their version of the facts (see section 7.1 of the complaint.)  This is a misunderstanding of the Press Code.  What is required in section 10 is for headlines to ”give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or picture in question”. 
22. In this case, the headline did reflect the key claims of the report.
23. I will return to the question of whether the newspaper adequately reflected the college’s version of events, in a comprehensive discussion of the issue below as it arises several times in the complaint.

Ruling

24. This element of the complaint is dismissed. 

Complaint 2: Inaccuracy - detentions

Arguments

25. The complainants say that the child did not receive three detentions for use of her cellphone. In fact, two detentions were given for this reason while the third related to the accusation that she misrepresented a teacher.  
26. The complainant also says that the second child, who lent the 14-year-old her cellphone, was only given one punishment for allowing the use of her cellphone, the other was given for not reporting to the office.
27. The claim refers to clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
28. City Press does not respond to these specific points.
29. In their rejoinder, the complainants do not return to the point either.

Discussion

30. In dealing with this flurry of punishment for a child who was in distress, the report is a little confusing about whether there were three or four detentions. At one point it refers to “another detention” after having mentioned three.  But it then returns to a total of three.
31. The complainant’s argument that the third detention given to the 14-year-old was not related to cellphone use relies on drawing a very fine distinction, since the third detention clearly related to what was said on the call.
32. All three relate to the same call the child made to her mother, which is covered by the way the newspaper has formulated the claim. The detentions were given “for using her 15-year-old friend’s cellphone ‘during the break’ to call her mother for emotional support as she was in distress”.
33. It would be splitting hairs to find the newspaper in breach of the code’s provisions requiring accuracy on this basis.
34. With regard to the detentions given to the friend, there is no dispute that one was for lending her cellphone. However, it is not clear from the various accounts exactly how the other related to the incident. Though the complaint said it was unrelated, no detail is provided to contradict the report’s version that it had to do with late delivery of the homework book in which such punishments are recorded.

Ruling

35. This element of the complaint is dismissed. 

Complaint 3 – Inaccuracy: embellishments

Arguments

36. The complainants say that the insertion of the phrase “because she did not let me go” in a quote from the girl amounts to improper embellishment.
37. The claim refers to clauses 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
38. City Press does not respond to this specific point, and the complainants do not return to it in their rejoinder.

Discussion

39. The extract used in the complaint in fact misquotes the article as published. In the print version of the article, only the words “on myself” are added into the quote.  The rest of the quote continues “…as I was calling out Mam, wanting her to give me a permission card to go to the toilet.”
40. The online version is slightly different, with the rest of the sentence also appearing as an insertion.
41. The difference is unfortunate, but does not materially affect the matter.
42. The print version does not include the insertion complained about. The only insertion is the phrase “on myself” which is not contentious.
43. The insertion in the online version is somewhat more significant. However, it does not ascribe blame and simply clarifies the account. It is also in line with the various versions available: the incident happened as she was attempting to get the card she apparently needs to take to the toilet.

Ruling

44. This element of the complaint is dismissed. 

Complaint 4 – Inaccuracy: public announcements

Arguments

45. The complainant denies that the wider school community was informed of the incident via an intercom announcement. In their account, a general announcement was made about cellphone use.
46. The claim refers to clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
47. City Press does not directly deal with the point, though the newspaper refers repeatedly to the Intercom announcement. At one point, the response describes it as including information on “how (the director) dealt with the matter”. At another, they talk about “threats” to pupils wanting to use their cellphones, and “indirectly” informing the school community of the incident.
48. In their rejoinder, the complainants draw attention to the fact that the reporter referred to an announcement about the matter at the school assembly, which was denied.  That response from the college confirmed that a general announcement on cellphone use was made.

Discussion

49. It is to be expected that an incident of this kind will quickly become general knowledge in a relatively small school community.  So even if no specific reference was made to the individual pupils, it can be expected that the pupil’s class mates and the wider school community would know what had led to the announcement and what was being referred to. Even if that were not the case, one can imagine that a 14-year-old would be embarrassed by even indirect reference of this kind.
50. The story makes it clear the announcement was made in general terms, though it reflects the pupils’ awareness that their classmates would know enough to understand what was being referred to. The story is not at odds with the college’s version. 
51. The fact that the reporter in an early inquiry referred to an announcement at the school assembly is not material.  The purpose of reporting is to get to the facts, it can be expected that some mistakes will emerge on the way. What matters is that they do not find their way into the published report.

Ruling

52. This element of the complaint is dismissed. 

Complaint 5 – Legal commentary

Arguments

53. The complainant says that it was inappropriate to include a sidebar article with legal commentary on the case, including information on possible redress. They also complain of the use of the image of a fist, which they regard as a form of commentary on the rights and wrongs of the incident. The inclusion of the sidebar is an attempt to present the incident as an intentional infringement of the child’s rights, they argue.
54. The claim refers to clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
55. City Press responds to an aspect of the point by saying that the lawyer quoted would have formulated a view after taking note of the facts.
56. In their rejoinder, the complainants point out that the lawyer quoted did not talk to them, and so did not have access to all the information, and call the use of the image of a fist inflammatory.

Discussion

57. The inclusion of commentary from a lawyer is well-established journalistic practice. It is clear that the lawyer is expressing an opinion on the matter.

Ruling

58. This element of the complaint is dismissed. 

Complaint 6 – Privacy

Arguments

59. The complainants argue that the article breaches clause 3.1 of the Press Code by drawing unwarranted negative attention to them.
60. The respondent does not deal with this specific point, though argues extensively that it was the school who breached the learner’s privacy in various respects.
61. The complainants do not return to it directly in their rejoinder, though say that the learner’s privacy was infringed by reporting of the matter.

Discussion

62. The issue at stake in this context is whether the newspaper breached privacy rights, not the school’s behaviour.
63. With respect to the learner, it is material that she is not identified in the article, as well as that she willingly co-operated in the compilation of the report.
64. With regard to the school, there is a clear public interest in the treatment of learners, even at private schools.  Coverage of the incident is legitimate.

Ruling

65. This element of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 7 - Right of reply

Arguments

66. The complainants argue extensively that the newspaper failed to reflect their version of events, either adequately or at all. In some cases, they say they were not asked. Instances include:

66.1 The school’s explanation that the teacher simply did not notice the child’s hand.

66.2 That the teacher accompanied the child to the bathroom.

66.3 That the child confirmed this version of events at a meeting with the school.

66.4 That the college was not asked about the three detentions.

66.5 That the college was not asked about the apology allegedly demanded of the child.

66.6 That the newspaper only broadly records the school’s response on the question of what was said on the Intercom, without sufficient detail.

67. This would refer to clauses 1.3 and 1.7 of the Press Code.
68. In their response, the newspaper says they did ask for comment and reflected the college’s version.  It was not necessary to put every paragraph to the college, which would have amounted to censorship, the respondents say.
69. In their rejoinder, the complainants deny they are expecting the right to censor, but say full and fair reporting requires full inclusion of the other side where there is a material dispute of facts. This is particularly strong where, in their view, two mothers are using the newspaper to fight a war with the school.

Discussion

70. As the documentation supplied shows, there was an extensive email exchange between the college and the reporter before the report was compiled. Also, the published report refers extensively to the college’s version of events.
71. It is not necessary for every element of a response to be covered, nor that every small detail is put to the subject of critical reportage. What is important is for their position to be reflected fairly, which means that the major elements need to be reflected.
72. Was this done here?  In most respects, the college’s version is given.  With respect to the issue of what was said on the intercom, the college’s version does not differ substantially from that given by the pupils. In respect to the detentions, the college’s version is in fact provided. One or two other issues are not material.
73. However, the description of the original incident does lack the college’s version, which is that the teacher simply failed to notice the child’s hand in time and that the teacher herself took her to the bathroom.  This is material and should have been reflected.

Ruling

74. This aspect of the complaint is upheld, with respect to the college’s account of the incident in class.  

We come now to the Second article.

Complaint 8: Misleading headline   

Arguments:

75. The complainants argue that the headline links two incidents that occurred two years apart; and that repeating reference to the urination incident perpetuates a sensationalised version of the event reported on earlier.
76. This refers to Section 10 of the Press Code.
77. The newspaper does not respond to the complaint specifically, though it defends the headline in general terms as reflective of the content of the article.
78. The complainants do not return to this issue in their rejoinder.

Discussion

79. Though the two incidents occurred two years apart, it is legitimate to link them as they occurred at the same institution.
80. The headline uses the word “allegedly”, making it clear that claims are being reported.
81. Above, I considered the way in which the newspaper referred to the urination incident in the headline of the first story, and concluded that the reference fairly reflects the contents of the article. The same logic applies here.

Ruling

82. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 9: Bias – toxic environment  

Arguments:

83. The complainants say that the use of the term toxic to describe the environment at the school, in the introduction and elsewhere, is unjustified and serves to predispose the reader against the school.
84. This would refer to clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
85. The newspaper does not respond to this point.
86. The rejoinder does not return to the issue either.

Discussion

87. The term ‘toxic’ occurs three times in the published article. In the caption to the picture, there is reference to the school “being labelled as toxic”, while in paragraph 12 the word occurs in a quote from a letter written to the Gauteng Education Department by the boy’s mother.  Both these cases clearly indicate that the term is used by a source for the story.
88. The third instance deserves a little more consideration. The introductory paragraph says: “A mother has described how her son was left suicidal as a result of the toxic atmosphere at Cornerstone …” The sentence can be read in two ways, either that the mother is only describing her son’s difficulties in an environment that is objectively toxic, or that she describes both his situation and the atmosphere. In context, the second reading is the stronger.  The word is, in other words, attributed to the mother – as is borne out by the fact that it comes from a letter she wrote, quoted later.

Ruling

89. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 10: Distortion through material omission – student’s academic improvement 

Arguments:

90. The complainants argue that the student’s academic record shows improvement in several subjects, which shows their management of the boy was positive. The newspaper was told this, and the fact they left it out amounts to a material omission which distorts the account.
91. This would refer to clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
92. City Press again does not respond to this point.
93. The complainants’ rejoinder also does not come back to the point.

Discussion

94. The details of the boy’s record are provided in a lengthy email responding to questions about the case from the reporter.  Though the newspaper does not use the detail, it does quote the school as mentioning improvements in the boy’s performance. This is adequate.

Ruling

95. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint 11: Right of reply  

Arguments:

96. In this case, also, the complainants argue strongly that the report is deficient as important elements were not put to the college, or that their version is not properly reflected. This point is made in almost every paragraph of the complaint. Instances include claims that:
    1. The atmosphere at the school was toxic;
    2. The dispute about who was allowed to sign the boy’s homework book;
    3. The son was intimidated;
    4. The son was bullied and felt suicidal;
    5. The school put students in detention over unpaid fees.
97. In a somewhat different category is the complaint that claims contained in correspondence with the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) should have been canvassed with the complainants.
98. This points to the right of reply provision of the Press Code, paragraph 1.8.
99. City Press do not respond to the specific points listed above. On the question of the correspondence with the authorities, their response is profoundly unclear.   
100. In their rejoinder, the complainants argue that City Press has distorted the thrust of their complaint about the communications with government: it is not about complaining on behalf of the Gauteng Department of Education, but that these claims should have been put to the college. They refer back to the original complaint as setting out their argument.

Discussion

101. Again, it is clear that the respondents’ version was reflected, but the question is whether it captured the important elements. 
102. By way of capturing the college’s position, the article quotes the director, Rob Hurlin, in the following way:
     1. As confirming they were informed the boy was depressed.
     2. That the boy’s guardian and the husband of his mother was accepted as a legitimate signatory on the boy’s homework book.
     3. That the school was surprised by a request for a transfer of the boy.
     4. That the school was not told of the boy’s suicidal feelings or of claims he was mistreated. Claims of mistreatment are denied.
     5. That outstanding fees do not lead to detention.
103. It is noteworthy that the response as quoted seems to regard “feeling suicidal” as the same as attempting suicide, which is inaccurate.
104. The points made in Hurlin’s response satisfactorily covers the ground in terms of the allegations made. There are no significant gaps.
105. With regard to the correspondence with the authorities, the essential points relate to the boy’s unhappiness, to claims he was being poorly treated and felt bad. Even though Hurlin’s response is mainly that the school at the time did not know about these matters, his voice on the issues is in the report. 

Ruling

106. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

Rulings

107. I uphold the complaint against City Press in respect of their failure to reflect the school’s version that the teacher inadvertently failed to notice the 14-year-old pupil’s difficulties, but gave her full assistance after the urination incident.   This constitutes a breach of clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
108. I dismiss the rest of the complaint.
109. Accordingly, City Press is directed to:
     1. Publish an apology and correction to the report, in the next available print edition of the newspaper and online.
     2. The print note should appear on the same page as the original report.
     3. The online version should appear at the foot of the existing report.  A line should be inserted below the online headline, reading: Apology and Correction: see bottom of report.
     4. The headline for both versions of the note should include the words: “Apology”, “Correction” and “Cornerstone College”.
     5. The note should briefly summarise the ruling, provide the college’s version of the urination incident, as described above, and apologise for failing to reflect it.
110. The note should make it clear it is in line with a ruling by the Deputy Ombud, Franz Krüger, and refer readers to the full text of this ruling on the PCSA website. It should be published with the Press Council’s logo.
111. The publication is to provide a draft note for approval by the Deputy Ombud before publication.

Appeal

112. 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]

Franz Krüger
Deputy Press Ombud
15 December 2023