Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Gouws vs News24

, ,

Complaint 000452

Ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud 

Date of publication:

18 December 2025

Headline of publication:

“Exposing Kriel, Afriforum’s Maga playbook”

Link:  https://www.news24.com/opinions/columnists/pieter-du-toit-masters-of-disinformation-exposing-kriel-afriforums-maga-playbook-20251217-0968

Author: Pieter du Toit

Particulars

  1. Mr Renaldo Gouws complained against the abovementioned column by Pieter du Toit.
  2. The Public Advocate, Mr Thabo Leshilo, on 7 January declined to accept the complaint on the grounds that the piece was clearly marked as an opinion and was therefore entitled to comment in the way that it did. He said he saw no prospects of success.
  3. Gouws persisted in the complaint, and the matter was forwarded to me.
  4. News24 provided a response on 26 January, including some online material.
  5. The complainant provided a rejoinder on 2 February.
  6. I take into account the various submissions filed in this matter.

The article

  1. The article discusses claims made by Kallie Kriel, the chief executive of AfriForum, that journalists were being paid by the government to slander the organisation. The claims were dissected extensively in the light of a framework developed by Philippines editor and Nobel laureate Maria Ressa for how disinformation is used and spread.
  2. The brief reference to the complainant comes towards the end of the article, where he is described in the following terms: “Malignant echo chamber actors like Renaldo Gouws, the FF-Plus podcaster, … engaged with the narrative on social media and helped normalise the lie.”

The complaint

  1. The complaint is that the article breaches clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.3, 6 and 7 of the Press Code.

Complaint: Comment making use of untrue claims

Arguments

  1. The complaint is that the article makes false, unverified assertions about Gouws’s actions. No examples of his “engagement with the narrative” are provided, and so there is no basis for describing him as a “malignant echo chamber actor”.
  2. On the basis of this claim, Gouws argues that the article breaches Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 in the Press Code that require accurate reporting; Clause 3.3 by failing to exercise care with regards to his dignity and reputation; and fails the test for protection of advocacy (Clause 6) or comment (Clause 7). The factual basis for the critical comments directed against him is simply not established, he argues.
  3. He further argues that the publication falls foul of Clause 2.1, on the basis that News24’s history of sharply critical comment directed against him on social media as well as on its own platforms proves a conflict of interest. The history of conflict shows that “personal considerations … appear to have slanted (Du Toit’s) opinion piece”.
  4. In a lengthy response, News24 makes many points about Gouws’s online actions and his own attacks on them. They point to a history of behaviour they say proves that he is guilty of spreading disinformation, justifying the label the column applied to him. They also argue Gouws has long been hostile to the company and the writer.
  5. Of immediate relevance is News24’s argument that the article was clearly comment. The response draws on a podcast the complainant posted on his YouTube channel on December 15, a few days before the column appeared, in which he discussed the claims about journalists being paid by the government. That podcast, News24 argues, shows he engaged with the claims in a way that amplified them, providing sufficient evidence for the way in which he was described.
  6. In his rejoinder, the complainant argues that the identification of the article as comment is not sufficient to allow the claims against him to stand. He points to the wording of the relevant clause as well as several Press Council rulings that comment must have a reasonable basis in fact.
  7. His podcast does not in fact support the claims made by Kriel, he says, but asks questions about them. Also, referring to the podcast at this stage amounts to after the fact justification – the article needed to show its evidence.
  8. In his request for adjudication, Gouws also argues that the history of critical statements about him made by Du Toit and others at News24 is evidence of malice, which also removes any protection the column may enjoy as comment. And previous Press Council rulings that were partially in his favour establishes that News24 displays systematic bias against him.

Discussion

  1. There is clearly a history of conflict and resentment between the parties, some of which has played out before the Press Council. Large parts of the submissions in the present complaint refer to a long history of attacks between the two.
  2. The question I need to consider is a limited one: was the columnist entitled to refer to the complainant in the way that he did in terms of the provisions of the Press Code?
  3. It is not in dispute that the piece was comment and must be judged in those terms.
  4. At the same time, the complainant is correct to point out that the leeway given to comment by the Press Code is not limitless. Clause 7.2 of the Press Code says:

Comment or criticism is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it is without malice, is on a matter of public interest, has taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true, and is presented in a manner that it appears clearly to be comment.

  1. Several rulings have grappled with how to find the balance between the freedom to comment and the need to do so fairly.  Some of them have involved the present complainant (see Renaldo Gouws vs News24, case 32176, and Renaldo Gouws vs IOL, case 31853). See also the Appeal Ruling in News24 vs Gayton Mackenzie, case 32077/11/2024).
  2. These and other rulings have established the “safe harbour” approach, whereby commentary loses its protection if it fails to meet the clause’s conditions.
  3. In the present case, there is no question that the issue is of public interest, and that the column is identifiable as comment.
  4. The question is whether the column has “taken fair account of all facts that are true or reasonably true”.
  5. It is very clear that the complainant’s podcast gave significant support to the claims of journalists being paid. It is also reasonable to describe Kriel’s claims, deliberately placed into the public discourse without evidence, as disinformation.
  6. Though there are places where Gouws’s engagement with the claims is couched in conditional terms, other statements include:

“… what a lot of people already know, which is that some journalists are allegedly paid by government to write negatively about specific individuals or specific organisations.”  

Though the term “allegedly” is inserted, it is overshadowed by the claim that “a lot of people already know” about payment.

“So, believe me when I say that I truly believe Kallie Kriel and AfriForum when they say that there are these journalists that are paid for by the government to pretty much speak ill and spread mis- and disinformation about the people that are critical of the government …”

“So, I 100% believe that there are journalists in South Africa that are paid for by the government or by other businesses perhaps that do not want uh the narrative, uh, that white people are being discriminated against in this country …”

“… it is just it it’s not even a question of is it true? It’s a question of how many journalists are being paid.”

  1. Gouws’s own criticisms of media coverage about him and others are raised, which, he says, leads him to believe Kriel’s claims.
  2. Contrary to his own characterisation of the podcast as interrogative, viewers are left in no doubt as to his full support for Kriel’s claims. There is no question that the complainant supported and amplified the claims made by Kriel to his sizeable podcast audience.
  3. Describing Gouws as a “malignant echo chamber actor” is undoubtedly very sharp. The term draws on Ressa’s terminology, which refers to “malignant actors” and “echo chambers”. If disinformation is harmful, spreading it deliberately can be seen as a malignant action.
  4. An echo chamber is understood to be an environment where a person encounters only views they agree with. In Ressa’s framework and other approaches, echo chambers have raised concern globally as playing an important role in spreading disinformation and fostering polarisation. A 2025 background document by the Council of Europe explicitly identifies the phenomenon as problematic for free expression.
  5. News24 has argued that Gouws’s YouTube channel can be seen as such an environment, with comments posted underneath the video showing overwhelming support for Kriel’s claims. In that way, they argue his own content on issues of the day and comments by his followers creating a mutually reinforcing cycle.
  6. The aim of Du Toit’s column was to describe how disinformation spreads by being normalised, and was illustrated by reference to the ways in which Kriel’s claims were treated on the podcast.
  7. The respondents have shown sufficient basis to describe the channel as an echo chamber.
  8. Of course, Gouws is entitled to express his views. He is also right to point out that he does not have control over the comments made by his followers, and that as an independent commentator, he is not bound by the provisions of the Press Code. Nevertheless, it is also legitimate to point out the “echo chamber” pattern in and around his channel.
  9. Gouws also argues the evidence should have been presented in the article itself and cannot be brought forward after the fact.
  10. The Press Code does not require every piece of evidence to be presented in a piece of commentary, just that facts must be taken into account.
  11. Du Toit’s article applied a model for understanding disinformation to the claims made by Kriel and how they were spread. The reference to Gouws was very brief and not central to the argument.
  12. It should also be noted that Gouws is a public figure who stands to be scrutinised.
  13. Under the circumstances, there was no need to produce every piece of evidence taken into account in the writing. It is enough to show that facts were considered.
  14. Gouws also cites what he says is evidence of malice, which would render the column unprotected. The claim of malice also underlies the complaint that the article breaches Clause 2.1 in that it was influenced by improper considerations.
  15. Though there have been sharp comments Du Toit and News24 directed at Gouws – matching the tone of attacks he has launched on them – I do not consider them to be evidence of malice. A history of sharp criticism does not prove malice, which would require an ulterior motive or agenda.
  16. Gouws also cites my ruling in Renaldo Gouws vs News24, case 32176, as establishing that News24 shows systemic bias against him. However, this overstates the case. The ruling was simply that reference to his 2010 video should have included his qualification that the racist statements he made were intended to provoke. The video became the subject of an investigation by the SA Human Rights Commission which ended with Gouws issuing an unconditional apology for the “violent language” and “racial slurs” he used. My finding was limited to a particular column and made no findings of a general or systematic nature.
  17. Accordingly, the column satisfies the conditions imposed by Clauses 7 of the Press Code and reaches the “safe harbour” as protected comment. The same logic protects it under Clause 6.
  18. As the complainant has said, the other elements of the complaint are interlinked with the basic question whether the columnist was justified in describing the complainant as he did. Once the core issue has been settled, they do not require additional consideration.

Ruling

  1. The column satisfied the requirements for being protected as comment, did not therefore take insufficient account of the complainant’s dignity or reputation and was also not influenced by improper motives.

Finding

  1. I find that the article did not breach the Press Code.

Appeal

  1. 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 Khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Ruling by
Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
17 February 2026

 

Related Posts