News24 | Description of Renaldo Gouws as ‘malignant echo chamber’ factual – Press Ombud

• The Press Ombud has found that News24 columnist and editor Pieter du Toit’s linking Renaldo Gouws to normalising disinformation spread by AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel was factual.
• Gouws complained about Du Toit’s reference to him as a “malignant echo chamber actor”, but the ruling stated that while this constituted sharp criticism, it was factual.
• In an email to the Press Ombud, Gouws indicated that he accepted the ruling.
• Read the Press Ombud ruling here.

Deputy Press Ombud Franz Krüger has found that News24 columnist and senior editor Pieter du Toit did not breach the Press Code in referring to Renaldo Gouws, a political figure and podcaster, as a “malignant echo chamber actor” in a recent op-ed.

On 18 December, News24 published a piece by Du Toit in which he set out how disinformation was normalised, drawing on a talk by Maria Ressa, a renowned journalist and Nobel laureate from the Philippines.

Gouws complained about the op-ed, saying Du Toit’s description of him was not factual, was malicious and driven by an ulterior motive and therefore did not amount to protected comment.

Krüger dismissed these arguments, finding that Du Toit’s description of Gouws had taken account of the facts, his dignity and reputation and amounted to fair comment.

Using the framework set out by Ressa, Du Toit examined how a public statement by AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel, in which he claimed that journalists were being paid with public money “to discredit AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement and to polish the image of President Cyril Ramaphosa”, fell into the category of disinformation.

Kriel’s statement, accompanied by a video widely released on social media platforms, provided no evidence of the claims, instead saying only that a singular former senior journalist had told him it was so.

READ | Pieter du Toit: Masters of disinformation: Exposing Kriel, AfriForum’s MAGA playbook

He stated that AfriForum had filed Promotion of Access to Information Act applications seeking information to support the claim.

“Kriel’s campaign of disinformation represents a reckless assault on the role of an independent and free media, is an attack on one of the foundations of democracy and is a deeply dishonest and cynical ploy to undermine the press,” Du Toit wrote in the column.

Kriel and AfriForum have not filed complaints with the Press Council since the publication of the piece.

Krüger ruled that it was “reasonable to describe Kriel’s claims, deliberately placed into the public discourse without evidence, as disinformation”.

Du Toit identified Gouws as one of the “malignant echo chambers” who amplified and normalised the disinformation due to a video Gouws had published two days prior to the column appearing.

Gouws argued in his complaint and response to News24’s submissions that because the op-ed had not explicitly referred to the video in the piece, it fell short of the Press Code.

READ | George Claassen - Ernst Roets’ hypocrisy: Fighting ‘fake news’ while spreading it

He argued in the complaint that News24 had failed to show he engaged with Kriel’s narrative – but did not reference his own video in which he amplified and supported Kriel’s version.

After the content of this video was pointed out in News24’s response, Gouws said it was a post facto justification by News24 and should not be allowed.

But Krüger – referencing previous rulings – said “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”.

“The reference to Gouws was very brief and not central to Du Toit’s argument, and he [Gouws] is a public figure who stands to be scrutinised. Under such circumstances, there was no need to produce every piece of evidence taken into account in the writing,” Krüger’s ruling sets out.

“It is enough to show that facts were considered,” the ruling states.

The podcast

In the video Gouws published in the aftermath of Kriel’s public statement, a clip of Kriel’s own video is shared, along with commentary by Gouws.

Gouws said “… 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,” Krüger sets out.

Gouws said in another part of the video:

He later said he “100% believe[s]” that there were journalists in South Africa being paid by the government or businesses “that do not want the narrative… that white people are being discriminated against in this country”.

At the end of the video, Gouws stated, “... it is not even a question of is it true. It’s a question of how many journalists are being paid.

“It is very clear that the complainant’s podcast gave significant support to the claims of journalists being paid,” Krüger’s ruling read.

READ | ANC calls on South Africans to defend democracy against AfriForum’s ‘racist disinformation’

“Gouws’ own criticisms of media coverage about him and others are raised, which, he says, leads him to believe Kriel’s claims,” it is stated later in the ruling.

“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,” Krüger continued.

‘Malignant echo chamber actor’

He said Du Toit’s description of Gouws as a “malignant echo chamber actor” was “undoubtedly very sharp” and that it drew on Ressa’s terminology of “malignant actors” and “echo chambers”.

“If disinformation is harmful, spreading it deliberately can be seen as a malignant action,” the ruling read.

Krüger described echo chambers as an environment where a person encountered only views they agreed with, and that, in Ressa’s framework and that of others, echo chambers were seen as a global concern in terms of “spreading disinformation and fostering polarisation”.

“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. The respondents [News24] have shown sufficient basis to describe the channel as an echo chamber,” he ruled.

Krüger’s conclusion was that the op-ed satisfied requirements in the Press Code for being protected comment, did not take insufficient account of Gouws’ dignity or reputation and was also not influenced by improper motives.

“We welcome the ruling by the Press Ombud,” said News24 editor-in-chief Adriaan Basson on Thursday.

Basson added:

“This was the point of Pieter’s column, whose arguments the Ombud found are fair and based in fact. In a view the Ombud has now declared was reasonable, he challenged disinformation by Kallie Kriel, amplified by Gouws. We welcome Gouws’ decision to accept the ruling and reiterate that those who make claims about journalists who take money should provide evidence. If not, they should refrain from distributing disinformation,” he said.