Press Ombud Rules on NEWS24’s Coverage of Gayton McKenzie’s Olympic Jaunt

News24 has been ordered to update its article on the cost of Minister Gayton McKenzie’s Paris Olympic attendance.

It was the summer of 2024, and Paris was sizzling. So too were many of us, when we found out just how much taxpayers’ money had been used to send Minister Gayton McKenzie to the Olympic Games: R804,591, the Minister told Parliament, including flights at R215,976, and “ground transportation” at R454,005.

In an article titled “Send me! McKenzie’s gravy train to Paris Olympics cost taxpayers R800 000”, published a few months after the games, News24’s Jan Gerber compared the amount spent to send McKenzie (R800,000) and “his officials” (another R1-million) with the average amount of R191,000 spent to send each of the 146 South African athletes who competed.

McKenzie told Parliament that the R804,590 included flights at R215,976 and “ground transportation” at R454,005.

With the R1-million spent to send the seven departmental officials, the costs totalled R1.8-million.

But what irked McKenzie was not the reporting on the amount spent on his trip, which he agrees may have been excessive and is willing to debate, but rather certain alleged inaccuracies in the article, and the manner in which it sought to portray him as having courted an undue benefit. To deal with his concerns, he lodged a six-part complaint with the Press Council.

According to the Minister, the article breached four clauses of the Press Code: one dealing with the obligation to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly; another that obliges the media to “present news in context and in a balanced manner”; a third that concerns the right of a subject of critical reportage to be heard; and lastly, a fourth that prohibits headlines from being misleading.

McKenzie complained about the headline’s use of the phrases, “Send me!”, and “gravy train”, suggesting that not only did he ask to be sent but that there was “something unethical, dishonest and self-serving about the trip”. According to him, the trip had been arranged prior to his appointment.

On substance, McKenzie complained about a number of inaccuracies, such as the reference to eight departmental officials as “his officials”, suggesting that he took “an eight-person support team” with him. Only one support staff member travelled with the Minister. The rest of the officials were there to represent the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture.

Another inaccuracy was the average cost incurred to send each athlete, given that “athletes are accommodated at the Olympic Village at no cost”. (The R1-million to send the seven departmental officials to Paris works out at about R50,000 per head less than what was spent on average for each athlete.)

Also of concern to McKenzie was the comparison between the amount previously spent on “superfans”, a practice he stopped, with the amount spent to send him and the departmental officials. The comparison was made in light of the Minister’s reason for stopping the practice: to spend the department’s budget on where it was needed the most: in this case, on athletes.

In his ruling, the Deputy Press Ombud found the headline to be misleading, and thus in breach of clause 10.1 of the Press Code. When the two parts of the headline are read together, he explained, “they suggest that the complainant asked or wanted to go to the Olympics in order to obtain a financial benefit for himself”.

On the second complaint, regarding the superfans, the Deputy Ombud had some sympathy for the Minister’s point that the cost of his trip – at a time when “the costs of flights and accommodation were at a premium” – couldn’t neatly be compared to the costs previously incurred to send superfans to other events.

However, the nub of the reporting on this issue was “to gauge whether the Minister was indeed living up to his promise to review his Department’s expenditure in favour of athletes and artists.” And given his concession on the high costs incurred, with it being “in the public interest to know how public money is being spent”, the Deputy Ombud held that the article had not breached the code.

The Deputy Ombud upheld the third complaint, finding that – whether intentionally or otherwise – the article’s reference to R1.8 million having been spent on the Minister “and his support team” to be a misrepresentation of fact. That amount of money was spent on the Minister, one member of his support staff, and another six departmental officials.

The fourth complaint, which also dealt with the reference to a support team, focused on the implication that the Minister had violated the Ministerial Handbook, which only permits up to two support staff on any international trip. Although the complaint was not upheld, News24 was directed to mention that the handbook was not violated when providing the correction required in respect of the size of the support team.

The fifth complaint considered the comparison between what was spent on the Minister and the departmental officials on the one hand, and the athletes on the other. As a result of News24’s failure to mention the athletes’ free accommodation at the Olympic Village, which he found to be material, the Deputy Ombud held that the flawed comparison – whether intentional or through negligence – was in breach of the code.

Finally, regarding News24’s failure to seek comment from the Minister, the Deputy Ombud held that there was “no need to seek comment on the parliamentary questions and answers … and hence there is no breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code”.

In his view, “[i]t is indeed reasonable to regard a reply to a parliamentary question as an accurate and satisfactory response to the matters raised in such a question.”

In terms of remedy, the Deputy Ombud’s ruling requires the now standard apology (for the misleading headline and “creating the erroneous impression that R1.8- million was spent on ‘McKenzie and his support team’”), an update to the article to include the excluded material information, and publication of the updated article under a note that indicates that the updating follows a Press Ombud finding.

So has the ombud got this one right? At a technical level, perhaps. But is it not splitting hairs to draw a fine distinction between ministerial and department officials, and overly bureaucratic to include an inordinate focus on what was and wasn’t included, when the essence of the story remains true: a whole lot of money was spent to send eight government officials to Paris, in contrast to a relatively modest amount spent on our athletes? To this day, we do not know why so much money was spent just to send the Minister on a trip of little consequence.

For a tough guy like McKenzie, not averse to exercising his freedom of expression to its fullest, one is left wondering why he chose to lodge a complaint with the Press Council rather than penning a right to reply. One is also left wondering why the error regarding the nature of the officials who accompanied him is worthy of an apology. In this commentator’s opinion, nothing more than a correction of the record was required.

And finally, one is left wondering when we’ll get a proper account of the R800,000.

© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.