Omar’s Motor Den vs. Sowetan
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Client’s roller coaster ride (published on 19 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 appeared in the Consumer Line section of the newspaper and cautioned readers to inspect documentation and a vehicle’s bodywork before taking delivery. The text stated that the paperwork of Khabo Madihlaba’s vehicle did not correspond with the car she had bought from Omar’s Motor Den (OMD). “In other words, the bank has financed a car that Madihlaba does not possess,” the journalist wrote.
OMD complained that the article omitted its side of the story which, it said, had been provided to the newspaper well ahead of publication, arguing that the article consequently carried defamatory statements regarding its business – which had severely affected its credibility and reputation. It said that the article falsely intimated that errors made by a bank had resulted from its negligence, adding that the bank had admitted to “the error” and stated that OMD was not at fault.
Retief dismissed the complaint, mainly because he believed that Sowetan had fairly and accurately reported the information at its disposal at the time of publication, and also that it had asked for comment from all concerned parties.
He said while he did not blame the newspaper for not publishing a follow-up article, given the fact that OMD had escalated its complaint to his office, he needed to remind the publication of Section 1.9 of the Code, which required a follow-up article.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Saleem Ebrahim Attorneys, on behalf of Omar’s Motor Den (OMD), and those of Wendy Pretorius, editor of the Sowetan newspaper.
OMD is complaining about an article in Sowetan of 19 September 2016, headlined Client’s roller coaster ride.
Complaint
OMD complains that the article omitted its side of the story which, it says, was provided to the newspaper well ahead of publication, arguing that the article consequently carried defamatory statements regarding its business (details below) – reportage that has severely affected its credibility and reputation.
In particular, the dealership complains that the article falsely intimated that errors made by a bank (regarding the sale of a car to Ms Khabo Madihlaba) resulted from OMD’s negligence and false representation by it, adding that on October 7 the bank admitted to “the error” and stated that OMD was not at fault.
OMD argues that e-mails sent to Sowetan prior to publication made it clear that “all the errors with regards to the contracts and correct VIN and chassis numbers were corrected from [its] point of view. The final corrections that needed to be made now lay with [the bank]”.
The dealership also cites Section 1.9 of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct which states, “Where a news item is published on the basis of limited information, this shall be stated as such and the reports should be supplemented once new information becomes available” – and argues that the newspaper has not complied with this stipulation.
The dealership asks for a retraction and an apology.
The text
The article, written by Thuli Zungu, appeared in the Consumer Line section of the newspaper and cautioned readers to inspect documentation and a vehicle’s bodywork before taking delivery.
The text stated that the paperwork of Madihlaba’s vehicle did not correspond with the car she had bought from OMD in June of that year. The bank’s documents reportedly contained “a litany of errors” which ranged from the wrong description of the model of the car (she bought a Toyota Auris1.3, while the documentation referred to the car as an Auris 1.6), to incorrect engine and vehicle identification (VIN) numbers. “In other words, the bank has financed a car that Madihlaba does not possess,” the journalist wrote.
Zungu also quoted Madihlaba as saying the contract (signed at OMD) stipulated that payment would start on October 1 – yet, the bank told her in July that her first payment was in arrears. Madihlaba reportedly said she later discovered that OMD did not supply this contract to the bank.
According to the article, Ms Marlene de Villiers of OMD had confirmed that the dealership had made mistakes (she also blamed the bank), and that the business had asked Madihlaba to sign a new contract “as the old one had expired on August 11”.
De Villiers reportedly said that the new contract had been sent to the bank, and payment went through on August 15. Then, when Madihlaba complained, OMD contacted the bank, who replied that the initial contract stood.
The story said Madihlaba spoke to OMD’s manager, Mr Yusuf Omar, about this matter, and he “offered to pay the payments in arrears” (an offer which Madihlaba accepted). However, OMD withdrew this offer after Madihlaba reportedly advised a customer on the floor, who was taking delivery, not to buy from that dealership.
De Villiers blamed the bank for the wrong description of the car “as on both contracts it states that the vehicle is a 1.3”, and added that both the engine and the vehicle identification numbers were corrected.
Sowetan responds
Pretorius inter alia says the:
· article was based on documentation;
· newspaper contacted all concerned parties for comment;
· Sowetan did not, prior to publication, have at its disposal the bank’s letter admitting to an error – in fact, Madihlaba received such an e-mail only after the article was published;
· complainant as well as Omar met with the reporter after publication – however, they were “verbally aggressive” and could not supply any additional information at that stage; and
· statement that the bank financed a car that Madihlaba did not possess, reflected on the bank, and not on OMD.
Analysis
With regard to the bank’s e-mail to OMD, I note that it acknowledged:
· a mistake regarding the car’s model (Toyota Auris 1.6 instead of Toyota Auris 1.3), but said nothing about any mistakes regarding the VIN or chassis numbers – which means it took responsibility for only this one aspect; and
· the mistake only after the article in dispute was published (which means the newspaper could not have taken it into account at the time of publication).
The e-mails between Zungu and De Villiers prior to publication which were provided to me are also of interest. They reveal inter alia that OMD admitted to having been at fault (at least initially) – also with regard to the car’s chassis and engine numbers. (The story quoted OMD as saying that these errors had been corrected.)
I also cannot take seriously OMD’s complaint that Sowetan omitted its side of the story, provided to the newspaper prior to publication, as I have no such evidence at my disposal.
The editor’s argument that the story in fact reflected on the bank and not on OMD also has merits.
Based on all of the above, I believe that Sowetan fairly and accurately reported with the information at its disposal at the time of publication, and also that it asked for comment from all concerned parties.
I do not blame Sowetan for not publishing a follow-up article, given the fact that OMD escalated its complaint to this office.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
Sanction
As there was no breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, it follows that there is also no sanction.
However, I need to remind Sowetan of Section 1.9 of the Code, which now requires a follow-up article. For clarity’s sake: as there is no sanction, I leave the content of such a story to the newspaper.
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
