Andreij Horn, head of 24.com, has announced that editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post SA, Verashni Pillay, has resigned.<\/p>\n
Horn said control of the site has been assigned to Ferial Haffajee, editor-at-large, and Pieter du Toit, the site\u2019s deputy editor. A new editor will be appointed.<\/p>\n
The news comes after the\u00a0The Huffington Post was\u00a0ordered to apologise to the public for publishing a \u201dracist and sexist\u201d blog that incited hate speech, titled \u201cCould It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?\u201d.<\/p>\n
In a strongly worded finding, Press Ombudsman Johan Retief said editor Verashni Pillay had violated numerous sections of the Press Code, and had \u201ccontributed to the erosion of public trust in the media\u201d.<\/p>\n
The publication, which was launched last year as a sister to News24 in the Media24 stable, has already complied fully with the ombud\u2019s order to publish an apology of equal prominence and position to the blog, and has included a linked copy of the full finding, as ordered.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Press Ombudsman of South Africa has found the Huffington Post South Africa guilty of the publication of hate speech.<\/p>\n
\u201dHuffPost SA apologises unreservedly for the publication of the blog titled Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise on 13 April 2017.\u201d<\/p>\n
It also quoted Andreij Horn, head of 24.com, a division of Media24, as saying the company regretted the incident.<\/p>\n
\u201cA number of in-depth interventions will be, and in some instances, have already been, implemented to address processes and attitudes that caused this situation. The investigation into the incident is at an advanced stage and will be concluded early next week,\u201d Horn said.<\/p>\n
The Ombud\u2019s investigation was in response to complaints from AfriForum\u2019s Deputy CEO Ernst Roets, Dr Christopher McCreanor and Mr Shean King, after Huffington Post published work by supposed feminist researcher Shelley Garland. It emerged that Garland was a pseudonym for Centre for Development and Enterprise researcher Marius Roodt, who said he had wanted to make a point about the media. He has since resigned.<\/p>\n
Retief cut straight to the chase.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet me be short and sweet: if disenfranchisement of anybody (whether white males or black females, for that matter) is not discriminatory, the meaning of discrimination should be redefined. Moreover, the reasons given for such a malicious suggestion certainly were denigratory.<\/p>\n
\u201cI do not believe that this statement needs any further justification.\u201d<\/p>\n
He continued: \u201cI do not believe for one moment that such discriminatory and denigratory opinions can be described as being in the public interest \u2013 especially given this country\u2019s history of its struggle for liberation. To disenfranchise a section of the population once again would indeed represent a huge step backwards \u2013 one that may have some serious unforeseen consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n
He found that the blog contained hate speech and breached Section 5 of the Press Code, for being \u201cinflammatory, discriminatory and targeting a specific group of people\u201d.<\/p>\n
He felt it did not specifically propagate violence, but that if the actions advocated in the piece were put into practice, it would do just that.<\/p>\n
\u201cI therefore have little hesitation in labelling the contents of the blog as hate speech, and therefore in breach of the code.\u201d<\/p>\n
As comment it was not protected because, although freedom of speech allowed \u201cluxuries\u201d such as extreme speech, it was not protected if it was against the public interest, and if material facts \u2013 such as allegations about the ownership of the JSE in the blog \u2013 were wrong.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt should have refused to publish the blog \u2013 that is, if it wanted to adhere to the Code of Ethics and Conduct,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Retief wrote that, when Pillay responded to questions about the blog, she had stated that Garland was \u201can activist and feminist currently completing an MA degree in philosophy\u201d, leaving no doubt about the person\u2019s identity, or any hint that Huffington Post had not identified the writer.<\/p>\n
The publication, not the writer, had published the blog, Retief continued, having earlier explained that some platforms allowed writers to self-publish.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut the situation gets worse,\u201d he said, referring to Pillay\u2019s defence of the ideas in the blog as \u201cpretty standard for feminist theory\u201d. Because of this, she should not blame the reader for thinking she supported the gist of Garland\u2019s piece.<\/p>\n
Pillay had removed the blog, not because of the content, but over doubts about Garland\u2019s identity, and had treated it as a \u201cslip\u201d or an \u201caccident\u201d, when it was actually a mistake by the editor and the editorial team.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet me be painfully clear about this: If it is Pillay\u2019s belief that the gist of Garland\u2019s article is correct, she is free to believe that and pursue her view \u2013 but then she must know that this is not possible within the confines of the code.\u201d<\/p>\n
Retief said he was not mandated to decide whether Pillay had violated the Constitution or Media24 and Huffington Post\u2019s Strategy and Core Values, nor could he recommend that she be fired.<\/p>\n
\u201cBy publishing this blog without having identified the author, The Huffiington Post was not true to this commitment, and contributed to the erosion of public trust in the media,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe blog was discriminatory and denigratory to white males, and impaired the dignity of some men in this group. By publishing, she also impaired the dignity of some white men, a breach of Section 3.3 of the code which cautions the media to \u2018exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation\u2026’\u201d<\/p>\n
Reporting with News24<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n