CASE NO: 22/2006 – STOBIE VS etv – NEWS

The relevant words read as follows: “Claims that the complainant is a liar aren’t new in this trial as it enters its final days. But what is new, is some evidence to back up Jacob Zuma’s claims that she is. Ben Said, e-News, Johannesburg.” The question is whether the report expressed a view on the veracity of the evidence by referring it as having “backed up” the evidence. If that were the case, the report would be biased in the sense that it would be expressing a view on the evidence which is not supported by what took place in Court, but was for the Judge to decide. The Tribunal is of the view that the insert merely reported that there was evidence which was in line with other evidence which referred to the complainant as a liar. The term “backed up” did not convey that this would also be the position which the Judge would ultimately take. It simply stated that there was more evidence which related the same point of view. In the result the Tribunal was of the view that the Broadcasting Code had not been contravened by the broadcaster. The complaint was not upheld.