A group of parents at Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) has won their case with the Press Council in a formal complaint against Daily Maverick. The publication was found guilty of misreporting in two articles which violated multiple clauses of the Press Code by misrepresenting facts about a student disciplinary case.

This is according to the findings of the Press Council, which have been published in full by Politicsweb here.

The first article article reported on an investigation into alleged racism at the school, which was sparked by a school governing body (SGB) ruling which found 12 pupils not guilty on charges of racism for complaining about racial biases against white pupils in a WhatsApp group which was described as “whites-only”.

The parents assert the students were charged solely with “inappropriate opinions,” not violence or bullying, as was reported.

The parents challenge several aspects of the Daily Maverick’s report, arguing it inaccurately cited the SGB’s decision as based on “insufficient evidence” rather than the finding that no school rules were breached.

They contend that the article's reliance on the Gauteng Department of Education spokesperson’s remarks (a department infamous for its prejudicial remarks, and run by a staunchly racialist black-nationalist political party) led to unverified statements being presented as fact, overlooking information publicly available through Politicsweb.

Additionally, the complainants claim that Daily Maverick failed to exercise caution around reporting on children, given the students’ ages, and request a retraction, an apology, and a statement affirming the students’ innocence of the charges as outlined.

The parents argue that the misreporting has inflicted undue distress on the minors involved, warranting redress under Section 28 of the South African Constitution. The reasons for this include a nationwide media storm which subjected all parties to prejudiced scrutiny and accusations of racism, including a picket outside the school by an arguably pro-genocide political party, the EFF.

Daily Maverick's report on racism allegations at Pretoria High School for Girls has attracted complaints, prompting a Press Ombudsman investigation. The publication defends its approach, stating it sought comments from school authorities but had to rely on statements from the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) when the school declined to engage.

The publication argues that information from the GDE aligned with that shared by some parents and students, and asserts that it had no access to alternative viewpoints. The school, it adds, did not contest public statements made by the GDE, implying tacit approval.

The Ombudsman identified two significant issues with Daily Maverick's reporting. First, it upheld complaints that the outlet misrepresented both the charges against the suspended students and the reasons behind their acquittal, failing to include available details from other sources. This omission, according to the Ombudsman, breached Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Press Code by failing to report accurately and fairly. Second, it found fault with the publication’s reliance on GDE’s statements about the renewed inquiry, despite questions raised by other institutions on its accuracy.

The Ombudsman has required Daily Maverick to issue a prominent apology to the pupils involved, to update the article with a clear note about the finding, and to ensure any further updates are approved by the Deputy Press Ombud. Appeals may be submitted within a week of the ruling.

The parents also alleged bias and inaccuracy on the second article, contending again that Daily Maverick misrepresented facts, unfairly exploiting racial tensions, and mischaracterizing the involvement of white pupils. They argued that the article breached clauses 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 of South Africa’s Press Code, which mandates accuracy, balance, and fair representation.

At the core of the dispute are claims that the article portrayed the girls’ WhatsApp group inaccurately as “whites-only”, overstated students' comments on racial issues, and failed to present white pupils' perspectives.

The parents also argue that, contrary to the report, the school did not require students to chemically straighten their hair in 2016 and object to the characterization of racism protests as confirmed “incidents.” Furthermore, they assert that it was legal advocates, not parents, who initiated the defense for the 12 students and challenge any suggestion they sought leniency as they pleaded not guilty.

The Daily Maverick, in response, claimed they made efforts to speak to all involved parties, but claimed that “security constraints” limited their access to the parties. They argued that the quotation marks around terms like "whites-only" indicated it was not their phrasing (though they offered no attempt to ameliorate the connotations of the allegation).

The publication also maintains that public interest justified its reporting on allegations of racial discord, even in the absence of the school’s perspective.

‍