Between reporting and comment
These guidelines have been developed to assist Press Council members. They are not binding and they do not extend the Press Code. No complaint may be lodged in terms of these guidelines.
Traditionally, journalists have held to a strong distinction between fact-based reporting and commentary. CP Scott, editor of The Guardian, famously wrote in 1921: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” The deep divide is reflected in the Press Code, which deals separately with reporting and with commentary. Advocacy – forceful support for a particular cause – also has a section, but the relevant considerations are similar to those for comment. Nevertheless, the distinction is often far from neat in practice and frequently leads to complaints. The note is an attempt to offer some guidance to journalists as they navigate this difficult territory. The Press Code remains the authoritative document, and its existing rules apply.
First, it is important to point out that the growing problem of misinformation makes it more important than ever to be clear about the difference between reporting and comment. The information ecosystem is poisoned by a growing flood of misinformation drawing on lies, distortion and sensationalism to support specific, often polarising, agendas. Journalists mark themselves out as reputable by making clear the distinction between verifiable fact and commentary. It has become disturbingly normal for political and other actors, even at the highest level, to claim outright falsehoods to be true. Journalists have an obligation to call out dubious “facts” and to be very clear on the degree of reliability of any factual claims they report.
It is established practice to allow commentary more latitude than reporting, and the SA Press Code accordingly says commentary is protected even if it is extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated or prejudiced. However, it may not be malicious, must deal with a matter of public interest, must have taken fair account of all material facts and must be clearly identifiable as commentary. Similar points are made in section 6, on advocacy. These provisions have been called a “safe harbour”: if an article meets these standards, it need not satisfy requirements that apply to reporting elsewhere in the code.
However, it is important to note that the provisions don’t only apply to entire articles, but to particular statements, comments, or phrases within them. Some forms of writing include both reporting and commentary. A piece of commentary often contains factual claims, and the “safe harbour” principle does not cover inaccurate claims simply because the piece as a whole is commentary. Similarly, news reporting may include commentary. Factual claims may be made, analysed as well as commented on in a single article, or the writer may suddenly shift gear from reporting the facts to commenting on them. The question will always be whether a reasonable reader would have read the phrase in question as opinion / commentary or as a statement of fact.
Individual styles and traditions of writing vary, and sometimes unconventional approaches offer great value. As new and social media take on an increasingly important role in breaking hard news, news publishers are placing increasing emphasis on interpretive and analytical writing to help audiences to make sense of developments. These may blur the lines between traditionally distinct forms. The Press Code does not attempt to prescribe to any publication what writing style it ought to adopt. What the Press Code demands, irrespective of writing style, is to distinguish between fact and opinion.
It should always be clear to the audience what they are dealing with. There are different ways to do so: articles may be identified as comment through a label or through placement, such as on an op ed page. Sometimes, the style of writing or the name of the writer may be enough to indicate that the article is commentary, as they are known for commentary. Online publications have some different tools to indicate what is on offer, and the important question is simply whether the identification is clear enough. Where commentary is included in what is otherwise a news report, it is even more important to ensure the reasonable reader understands that the particular phrase or sentence does not purport to be factual reporting. Quotation marks or attribution of the comment to a specific person is a common device to introduce comment from a source. Where it is the journalist themselves doing the commenting, other ways must be found to make it clear to the audience what is going on so that the “safe harbour” commentary provisions of the Press Code apply. If a particular statement does not fall within the “safe harbour”, it is merely factual reporting which is judged according to the strict accuracy requirements of factual reporting.
Once it is established that the item in question, whether a whole article or a single phrase, was clearly understood to be comment, there are additional requirements to be met to enjoy the “safe harbour” protections.
Firstly, commentary must have taken fair account of all relevant facts. The facts must either be stated in the same piece or must have been notorious or well known amongst the audience. Such factual statements are naturally judged in accordance with the standards for factual reporting. In several cases before the ombud, rulings have gone against a publication because a comment was based on claims of fact that did not stand scrutiny. In addition, the commentary must demonstrate fairness by taking account of all the relevant facts available: it cannot ignore important but inconvenient facts.
The requirement of public interest is as important here as it is in other areas: the issue being commented on must matter to the readers as citizens.
The provision that it may not involve malice is also important. In practice is it common for malice to be alleged, but much more difficult for it to be clearly shown, as Johan Retief says in Decoding the Code. The Ombuds have interpreted “malice” to mean doing something with an ulterior motive or agenda, rather than the common misconception that it is malicious if the writer acted with intent.
