Paul Wisenberg vs. Cape Times

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, ‘To think the DA laughed at me’ – Garnishee ruling benefits millions (published on 14 September 2016).

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The article was about a decision by the Constitutional Court that no garnishee orders might have been issued without oversight by a magistrate. Western Cape High Court Judge Siraj Desai reportedly remarked that this was a landmark decision which would have a lasting effect on the lives of millions of South Africans, especially the poor. He was also quoted as saying, “Lots of hard work went into drafting the document – and to think when I made it last year the DA laughed at me.”

Paul Wisenberg complained that the headline was a “cheap shot” with political overtones, “totally unrelated to the news item which has important ramifications for particularly the poor amongst us”. He said the quote in question constituted only one line in the whole story, and argued that the story was not about him, but about a ruling by the Constitutional Court.

Retief accepted that it was in the public interest to note how the DA had reacted to Judge Desai’s position on garnishee orders, which affected millions of poor South Africans. He also considered that the words in question were published in quotation marks and that it adequately reflected the content of the story.

Dismissing the complaint, he added that, even if the headline reflected only one sentence in the story, that sentence was important enough (admittedly not the most important statement in the article) to have qualified for a headline.

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Paul Wisenberg and those of Damien Terblanche, on behalf of the Cape Times newspaper.

Wisenberg is complaining about the headline of a front-page story in Cape Times of 14 September 2016. It read, ‘To think the DA laughed at me’ – Garnishee ruling benefits millions.

Complaint 

Wisenberg complains that the headline was a “cheap shot” with political overtones, “totally unrelated to the news item which has important ramifications for particularly the poor amongst us”.

In later correspondence he says that the quote in question constituted only one line in the whole story, and argues that the import of the article was rather a ruling by the Constitutional Court.

The text

The article, written by Carlo Petersen and Heidi Giokos, was about a decision by the Constitutional Court that no garnishee orders (also known as emolument attachment orders) may be issued without oversight by a magistrate.

Western Cape High Court Judge Siraj Desai reportedly remarked that this was a landmark decision which would have a lasting effect on the lives of millions of South Africans, especially the poor. He was also quoted as saying, “Lots of hard work went into drafting the document – and to think when I made it last year the DA laughed at me.”

Cape Times responds

Terblanche says the report was truthful, accurate and fair. He argues that, in responding and analysing the decision by the Court, the story contained statements by Desai – who previously made a similar ruling.

He also notes that the DA, through its representative on a special Parliamentary committee to select the new Public Protector (Ms Glynnis Breytenbach), had taken a hard line in rejecting Desai’s candidature – his “crime”, says Terblanche, was to have represented uMkhonto we Sizwe guerrillas.

“It was therefore in the public interest to note how the DA had reacted to Judge Desai’s position earlier on garnishee orders, which affect millions of poor South Africans. In light of the above, Cape Times submits that the article was truthful, accurate and fair.” (Slightly edited.)

He adds that the article was presented in context and in a balanced manner, and that it had sought comment from a number of parties who were relevant to the article and matter at hand.

In conclusion, Terblanche submits that the headline was published in quotation marks, and that it adequately reflected the content of the story.

Analysis

I agree with each of Terblanche’s arguments, and do not find it necessary to repeat them – which means that I have no reason to find that the headline was in breach of the Code.

Also, even if the headline:

·         reflected only one sentence in the story, that sentence was important enough (admittedly not the most important statement in the article) to qualify for a headline; and

·         was “weak” (I am not saying it was, as this depends on one’s perspective), that in itself would not constitute a breach of the Code.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombud