Hubert Hendricks vs. Son
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Nadia Jordaan (of Wilke Weiss van Rooyen Inc.), on behalf of Mr Hubert Hendricks, and those of Riëtte Martin, Son’s bureau chief in Port Elizabeth and reporter Chardré Meyer, as well as on an informal hearing that took place in Port Elizabeth on 1 March 2016. Those present Martin, Hendricks, and his wife, Chesney.
Complaint
Hendricks is complaining about a story on page 4 in Son of 21 November 2015, headlined Balju: Inwoners staan saam.
His main complaint is that the story and the pictures identified him as the new owner of a house in Windvogel (Port Elizabeth), and falsely insinuated that either he or a member of his family wished to sell drugs or alcohol, or indulge in unsavoury activities, from the property. He views this as defamatory (he says he is a traffic officer by profession and has the utmost respect for the law).
Hendricks also complains that the:
· following statements are untrue:
o The property has been sold by Mr Dick Deveroux’s siblings without his knowledge;
o He was not in possession of any valid documentation which would provide proof of ownership;
o The police told him to provide such proof; and
o Deveroux was allowed to reside in the property;
· newspaper did not:
o give him the opportunity to put forward his side of the story; and
o verify the information with Deveroux’s siblings.
He adds that, as a result of the report, the community does not want his mother to move into the property and that Son has refused to publish a retraction or at least to reflect his side of the story – even after it has been requested to do so.
Hendricks concludes that the reportage was neither accurate nor fair.
The text
The story, written by Chardré Meyer, said fears that gangsters wanted to sell drugs in Windvogel caused community members to take matters into their own hands. When the sheriff tried to evict Deveroux and his five children from their home in 8th Avenue, the locals rebelled and carried his furniture back into the house.
According to an unnamed source, “very bad rumours about the new owner have been doing the rounds”. The source was also quoted as saying that the new owner did not have documentation to prove that the property belonged to him.
Meyer also wrote that Deveroux lost his house after his siblings allegedly sold it without his knowledge. “The police sent him (the new owner) back to bring proof that he owned the house. In the meantime Mr Deveroux could stay on in the house.”
The article was accompanied by two pictures – one showing the furniture outside the house, while the other depicted community members carrying furniture back into the property.
The arguments, prior to the meeting
As background information, Martin says Son received a phone call from a community member on November 19, regarding Deveroux’s eviction. At the scene, the reporter and photographer were met by angry community members arguing with the sheriff and refusing to allow him and his officials to follow through with the eviction. “In fact, as the officials tried to remove Mr Deveroux’s furniture from the house, the community members carried it back into the house.”
Martins states that the reporter, Meyer, says the same people told her that Deveroux had been living in that house (previously owned by his parents) for his entire life. They also said that Deveroux was in the process of buying the house from his siblings and that the sale of the house to Hendricks went through without the former’s knowledge.
In addition, Deveroux’s legal advisor confirmed on the same day that they were still fighting the sale of the house as Deveroux was in the process of getting a home loan approved.
Martin argues that the story quoted several community members at the scene who said they did not want people unknown to them moving into that house, as they wanted to keep their street safe. She says gangsterism and drug abuse are rife in all the northern areas of Port Elizabeth, where Windvogel is situated – hence the community’s fears. However, “Not once in the article was it stated that the new owner is involved in gangsterism or the selling of drugs.”
She says the reporter tried to get more information from Hendricks after his attorney contacted the newspaper regarding the article, but he said, “I’ve already set the case in motion, so it is pointless to phone me now.”
She also denies that she said it was against Son’s policy to publish any retraction of articles (as Hendricks claims she did).
Martin responds to the particular complaint as follows:
Regarding Hendricks’s “identification” in the report: Martin says the story was used as a second lead on page 4, and the two pictures were used “very small”. She adds that the focus of the photos were the community members who carried the furniture back into the house and the furniture outside the house – “So no clear photograph of the house was published.”
The reporter says the information that the property had been sold without Deveroux’s knowledge was given to Son by community members and by the former’s legal advisor. “To date not one of Mr Deveroux’s siblings contacted Son to state that this is not true.”
Also, she says the police confirmed to Son that Hendricks could not produce proof of ownership.
The newspaper submits it is true that Deveroux was allowed to reside in the property, as he stayed on in the house for a month after the attempt to evict him on November 19 – he was only evicted successfully in the middle of December.
The journalist adds that Hendricks was present on the scene of the attempted eviction, and that she tried to speak to him. However, he was unable to comment as he was talking to the police about documentation and proof of ownership. (She says he did provide such proof at a later stage, and a month later Deveroux was evicted “successfully”.)
After Meyer returned to her office, she says she tried to phone Hendricks “on numerous occasions” for comment. However, he did not answer his phone and Son was therefore not able to get his comment. It was then decided to withhold his name.
Martin also denies:
· that the community’s opposition to Hendricks’s mother moving into the property was caused by Son’s article and also that the article had aggravated the situation. “The community was angry about the situation long before the article was published. The angry community members called Son regarding the eviction … [and] were already busy opposing the eviction before Son got on the scene”; and
· Son told Hendricks’s attorney it was against Son’s policy to publish retractions – the reporter merely requested further information “before a decision on a retraction could be made”. This was never done, as Hendricks eventually declined to comment.
Jordaan reminds this office the story said fears that gangsters wanted to sell drugs in Windvogel caused community members to take matters into their own hands (regarding the eviction), and that an unnamed source was quoted as saying that “very bad rumours about the new owner have been doing rounds”. She adds the witnesses can confirm that they were able to identify Hendricks as the new owner of the property as a result of the reportage, and states that the community is small and the Deveroux family’s address is common knowledge.
Based on this, she argues that a reasonable reader would have deduced that the allegations pertained to Hendricks as the new owner (hence the vehement protests trying to prevent them from occupying the premises).
Hendricks denies that:
· he was on the scene on November 19 – he said he was at work, and he has his Employer’s Register to prove it;
· Son’s reporter tried to speak to him, and requests phone records to prove that these calls were made. (He adds that he would obtain a report of all calls to his cellphone in order to refute this allegation – and notes that the story did not refer to these alleged attempts to contact him or to talk to him at the scene);
· he indicated to Meyer that he did not want to comment (as the case had already been set in motion); and
· the property was sold by Deveroux’s siblings without the latter’s knowledge – legal processes had been running their course, and community members would probably not have been privy to that fact.
Jordaan also argues that, because the eviction order was valid, Deveroux occupied the house illegally from November 19.
Finally, the attorney provides this office with an e-mail from Meyer to her, dated November 27, stating: “Son is not in the business of printing retractions, rather we tell the victim’s side as well…”
At the meeting
After some discussion we reached consensus on the following issues:
· Even though the story did not did explicitly identify Hendricks, it still was reasonable to accept that at least some members of the closely-knit community may have known whom the story referred to – and certainly, this applied to more people as time went by (Deveroux, whose name was mentioned in the story, has lived there for many years and he must have been well-known in the area; and after he has vacated the house Hendricks’s mother occupied the premises, which was soon after the publication of the story);
· The reporting of an anonymous source, stating that either Hendricks or a member of his family may have planned to sell drugs from the property, unnecessarily damaged his integrity and reputation;
· The story was also life-threatening to him and to his family – both from the viewpoint of the community who wanted to keep the area clean, and from drug lords who may have perceived him as competition; and
· The story did not include Hendricks’s comment, nor did it refer to an abortive attempt to get his views (as it should have).
The rest of Hendricks’s complaint is not relevant to the central issues which are outlined above.
However, the following issues are also pertinent:
· I have stated that a newspaper is not justified to publish an allegation just because someone has made it – there has to be some truth to the matter, and information needs to be corroborated first; and
· I cite, with concern, the following statement made by Meyer in correspondence with Jordaan: “Son is not in the business of printing retractions, rather we tell the victim’s side as well…” Of course Son should publish the other side’s views as well (which it has not done), but for Meyer to make a statement to the effect that the newspaper was “not in the business of printing retractions” casts doubt on her integrity as a journalist. I believe her superiors should specifically take up with this matter with her.
Finding
The gist of the complaint is upheld.
The reporting is in breach of the following sections of the Press Code:
· 2.1: “The press shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;
· 2.2: “News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner…”;
· 2.5: “A publication shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication… If the publication is unable to obtain such comment, this shall be stated in the report”; and
· 4.7: “The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…”
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The offence as indicated above is a Tier 2 offence, bordering on a Tier 3 one.
Sanction
Son is directed to apologise to Hendricks for:
· unfairly creating the impression that he and / or his family may have planned to sell drugs from the property;
· unnecessarily damaging his integrity and reputation in that process;
· creating a possible life-threatening situation (both from the viewpoint of the community who wanted to keep the area clean, and from the possible threat from drug lords who may have perceived him as competition); and
· not including his comment in the story, or at least stating that he could not be reached for comment.
The text should be published on top of either page 2, 3 or 4. It should start with the apology, and end with the words, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”.
It the story appeared on Son’s website, the apology should be published there as well.
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as “Matter of Fact”, or something similar, is not acceptable.
Appeal
Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven days of receipt of this decision, anyone of the parties may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Adjudication Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be reached at [email protected].
Johan Retief
Press Ombudsman