Press Ombudsman of SA:

Ruling: AR Brink vs. Mail & Guardian

The complainant [AR Brink] objected to two principal elements in the article (M&G, 7 October): That he had criticised female AIDS reporters in a manner that demonstrated he was mentally unwell; and that the allegation that his employer had intimidated journalists working for Health-e carried the implication that he had done the intimidating.

The first element refers to the headline ‘Brink’s loony tilt at journos”.   I agree with the Mail and Guardian’s contention that the headline does not describe Brink as loony, only his criticism of the women journalists.

A public figure who involves himself in controversial matters must expect to receive criticism as sharp as that which he delivers. In this case, Brink has attacked the Mail and Guardian, its editor and past and present female staff in terms which justify the riposte.

The second element he objects to rests apparently on a statement by Kerry Cullinan that “I don’t like the Rath Foundation intimidating people who write what they don’t like” and a sentence stating that the SA National Editors’   Forum is investigating a complaint that the Rath Foundation is intimidating Health-e journalists.

Brink says no   factual foundation exists for such a charge and adds: “The closest to this was my legitimate threat, before which Health Systems Trust [Health-e’s host organisation] rightly quailed, to seek full legal recompense from anyone who defames me–which is to say, unlawfully invades my rights”.   Brink contends that cannot count as intimidation.

Brink’s statement that he had issued a threat “before which Health Systems Trust rightly quailed” neatly fits a dictionary definition of intimidation. Chambers’ definition of intimidate reads as follows: to strike fear into; to influence by threats or violence.

Intimidation: the use of violence or threats to influence the conduct or compel the consent of another.

If intimidation is intended to achieve an objective contrary to a provision in the Bill of Rights, in this case freedom of expression, then it must be asked whether it can be called legitimate.

The HIV/AIDS debate continues to rage and it is in the public interest that the protagonists on either side should be allowed to express their opinions in accordance with the SA Constitution.

The press code says a publication is justified in strongly advocating its own views on controversial topics; therefore its taking sides in the HIV/AIDS controversy is not a breach of the press code.

The complaints by Mr Brink cannot be upheld.

 E H Linington Press Ombudsman 21 October 2005