Separate complaints were lodged against the two newspapers by Hassen Lorgat, a member of inter alia the Palestine Solidarity Alliance (PSA), on 17 June 2025 (Sunday Times) and 20 June 2025 (The Citizen).
On 17 July, The Citizen published a “Clarification and apology to readers” online and on p2 of the printed newspaper. The text was also added to the bottom of the articles online.
Earlier, Lorgat had corresponded directly with Sunday Times. The publication published a “Matter of fact” in print and online. Lorgat was not satisfied with this and then lodged the complaint with the Press Council. On 24 July, the Sunday Times published a revised “Clarification and apology” on the matter on its website. On 27 July, the same text appeared on p16 of the printed edition of the newspaper. The text was also added to the bottom of the online article.
In the light of these developments, the Public Advocate (PA) closed the complaint as resolved. However, the complainant found the responses inadequate and insisted on the matter being forwarded for adjudication.
Note that I consider the two complaints together as they are substantially the same. Where necessary, I will differentiate between the two matters.

The articles

The articles that form the subject of the complaints covered conflict in the Middle East and were all written as a result of a trip to Israel that was sponsored by the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD).
In the first of the three articles, The Citizen quotes a former Israeli MP as saying Israel is not responsible for actions taken against South Africa by the US.
The second and third articles are features that focus strongly on the effects on Israelis of Hamas’s attacks of October 7 2023.

The complaint

The complaint is about one aspect only: that neither The Citizen nor Sunday Times initially disclosed that the reporting was sponsored by the SAJBD.
Under the heading “Independence and conflicts of interest”, Section 2 of the Press Code reads:

The media shall:

2.1 not allow commercial, political, personal or other non-professional considerations to influence reporting, and avoid conflicts of interest as well as practices that could lead readers to doubt the media’s independence and professionalism;

2.2 not accept any benefit which may influence coverage;

indicate clearly when an outside organisation has contributed to the cost of newsgathering; and
keep editorial material clearly distinct from advertising and sponsored events.

Of specific relevance is clause 2.3, which requires members to disclose any sponsorship.
The complainant also says the two newspapers conspired together to breach the Press Code, together with a third publisher, BizNews.
I note that BizNews also published a report that it later acknowledged arose from a trip sponsored by the SAJBD. The acknowledgement was published after direct correspondence between Lorgat and the editor. BizNews is not a member of the Press Council of SA and so not subject to the council’s jurisdiction.

Discussion

It is clear that the newspapers were in breach of clause 2.3 when the reports were first published, as both respondents have acknowledged.
Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider the question of breach at any length.

Finding

Both The Citizen and the Sunday Times breached clause 2.3 by initially failing to acknowledge that the reporting in question arose from a trip sponsored by the SAJBD.

Sanction

The complainant regards the apology and correction published by the Sunday Times as insufficient, in that:
- In print, the placement of the apology at the bottom of an inside page was not prominent enough.
- online, the use of the same image as was used in the original article undermines its sincerity. The image shows memorials of those who died in the October 7 attack.
- the publication’s social media accounts were not used to draw attention to the apology and correction, he argues.
On the other hand, he accepts the apology and correction published by The Citizen both in print and online.
The complainant has also called for a public seminar on the issue to be held, as well as for the respondents to make a donation to a suitable Palestinian cause.

Discussion

First, the importance of the principle of independence should be noted. Public trust in journalism is undermined when it is open to manipulation by vested interests or can be seen to be open to manipulation. Reporting simply cannot be for sale and sponsorship is rarely, if ever, disinterested.
The Press Code accepts that there are situations where reporting is only possible with some outside support, insisting only that such support be disclosed so that readers can judge what to make of the article for themselves.
The failure to disclose the SAJBD sponsorship by the respondents was a serious breach with important ramifications for the relationship of trust the media must maintain with audiences.
The complainant goes further and alleges that there was a conspiracy between the two titles, together with BizNews, to hide the financial support by the SAJBD.
Though it is surprising that three publishers all failed to mention the sponsorship, it is in my view not enough to prove there was an active conspiracy. Nor does the combined experience of the editors involved prove that the omission cannot have been an error but must have been deliberate, as the complainant argues.
Both respondents deserve credit for having published corrections and apologies when the matter was brought to their attention.
However, the prominence of the explanation and apology needs some consideration. The breach was a serious one, going beyond the minor errors of fact or spelling that fall under Tier 1 in the hierarchy of sanctions. It is a serious breach of the code, falling under Tier 2.
The corrections and apologies in the printed editions and on the homepages online of both newspapers were sufficient.
The Citizen’s published clarification and apology was noted in paragraph 2 above. In addition, posts on X and Facebook, where the original articles were promoted, drew attention to the apology.
The Sunday Times’s clarification and apology was noted in paragraph 3 above. The publication wrote in an email to the PA that posts on their social media accounts had been made and included links to posts on Facebook and X.
However, the links provided take the reader to posts drawing attention to the original article. Though that article now includes the clarification and apology note, there are no posts making mention of the correction.
In addition, the online articles in both The Citizen and the Sunday Times lack a line at the top drawing attention to the correction, as is usual practice. (See paragraph 3 of the guidance note on the publication of apologies and corrections.)
The published notes should be adjusted to fill these gaps.
At the same time, I cannot agree that the use of the previously published image with the Sunday Times correction undermines its sincerity, as the complainant says.
The calls for a public seminar and for donations to be ordered fall outside the ambit of the sanctions that can be imposed by this office.

Ruling

The Citizen is ordered to add a line under the headline at the top of the online version of both the articles that are the subject of this complaint, drawing attention to the clarification and apology at the end of the articles.
In addition, The Citizen is ordered to add a line to the note at the bottom, clarifying that the change was made after an order of the Deputy Ombud, Franz Krüger. The note should link to the full ruling on the PCSA website and include the PCSA logo. At the same time, the error in referring to the SAJBD as the SA Board of Jewish Deputies should be corrected. The revised draft submitted to the Deputy Ombud for approval before publication.
The Sunday Times is ordered to add a line at the top of the online version of the article that is the subject of this complaint, drawing attention to the clarification and apology in the note at the end of the article.
In addition, the Sunday Times is ordered to add a line to the note at the bottom, clarifying that the change was made after an order by the Deputy Ombud, Franz Krüger. The note should link to the full ruling on the PCSA website and include the PCSA logo. At the same time, the error in referring to the SAJBD as the SA Board of Jewish Deputies should be corrected. The revised draft submitted to the Deputy Ombud for approval before publication.
The Sunday Times is also ordered to post a note about the correction on all the social media accounts where attention was drawn to the original report.
Proof of the above publications must be supplied to the PCSA office.

Appeal

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@ombudsman.org.za

Franz Krüger, Deputy Press Ombud
24 September 2025

Hassen Lorgat vs Sunday Times and The Citizen

Related Posts

Rafik Mohamed and others v Sunday Times/TimesLIVE

Werner Human v News24

News24 vs Maroela Media