Marion Mbina-Mthembu vs Daily Dispatch
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, headlined Senior staff take aim at premier’s office boss – Tensions high as administrators accuse DG of ‘dictatorial’ rule (published on 25 October 2016).
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The article stated that working relations between Marion Mbina-Mthembu (the Director-General in the Office of the Premier – OTP – of the Eastern Cape) and some senior administrators in the Premier’s office were said to be at an all-time low. The situation was reportedly so bad that the ANC chair of that office’s portfolio committee in the provincial legislature had warned of the impact that such a “toxic management style” might have had on service delivery.
Mbina-Mthembu complained that the journalist did not give her an opportunity to respond to the allegation, rendering the story as well as the headline misleading, unverified, inaccurate, unfair, exaggerated, sensationalist, malicious, one-sided, unbalanced and without any factual substantiation – which did not serve the public interest. She attested that the reportage created the false impression that she was a despotic, tyrannical leader whose management style was severe (“toxic”), inappropriate, autocratic and dictatorial – an impression which unnecessarily damaged her reputation and dignity and undermined her authority.
Retief dismissed the complaint about not having had a right of reply, because the matter went further than a mere personal one – the issue was about management, which meant that members of staff were also involved. As such, the newspaper was justified to direct its questions to a legitimate spokesperson, which it did.
However, the Ombud noted that the questions asked to the spokesperson did not specifically refer to Mbina-Mthembu. Daily Dispatch was reprimanded for that, and for not clarifying one Gqobana’s statement about people having been committed to mental institutions. The newspaper was directed to publish this reprimand, together with Mbina-Mthembu’s or the OTP’s comment on the allegation about her management style, and to clarify that Gqobana meant the statement in a general way and did not specifically refer to Mbina-Mthembu.
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Chris Baker of Chris Baker and Associates, on behalf of Ms Marion Mbina-Mthembu, the Director-General in the Office of the Premier (OTP) of the Eastern Cape, and those of Sibusiso Ngalwa, editor-in-chief of the Daily Dispatch newspaper.
Mbina-Mthembu is complaining about an article in Daily Dispatch of 25 October 2016, headlined Senior staff take aim at premier’s office boss – Tensions high as administrators accuse DG of ‘dictatorial’ rule. The article also appeared in the newspaper’s on-line edition.
Complaint
Mbina-Mthembu complains that the journalist did not give her an opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to publication, rendering the story as well as the headline misleading, unverified, inaccurate, unfair, exaggerated, sensationalist, malicious, one-sided, unbalanced and without any factual substantiation – which did not serve the public interest.
The reportage, she attests, created the false impression that she was a despotic, tyrannical leader whose management style was so severe (“toxic”), inappropriate, autocratic and dictatorial that it caused the institutionalization of staff in medical facilities – an impression which unnecessarily damaged her reputation and dignity, and undermined her authority.
The text
The article stated that working relations between Mbina-Mthembu and some senior administrators in the Premier’s office were said to be at an all-time low. The situation was reportedly so bad that the ANC chair of that office’s portfolio committee in the provincial legislature had warned of the impact that such a “toxic management style” might have on service delivery.
The story said that various members of the OTP’s senior management team, who spoke to the newspaper on condition of anonymity, revealed how unhappy some senior administrators were with Mbina-Mthembu’s leadership style.
According to these sources, tensions had been simmering for some time over her “dictatorial style of leadership” and over changes she introduced since her appointment the year before.
One source was quoted as saying,
“We are aware of the demoralization at senior management level as a result of the style of leadership by the DG. We know that some senior managers end up in mental institutions as a result of such treatment. Such toxic management style displayed there is not right. It reflects an absence of human relations. Her ability to relate to senior managers is what is troubling the OTP. As long as the DG is weak in people management, the whole question of achieving political objectives of the premier will collapse.”
The article also called Ms Julie Kriek, OTP director of internal audit, a “recent casualty”, as she reportedly tendered her resignation, quoting unhappiness with Mbina-Mthembu’s leadership style. Instead of serving a month’s notice, though, Mbina-Mthembu “ordered her straight out” in a “strongly worded letter” (which was seen by the reporter).
The journalist also referred to a previous newspaper report on the OTP CFO Nomawethu Ngcakani, who found herself in limbo five months after having been cleared of any wrongdoing by an internal probe. She was reportedly suspended after having been accused of mishandling a multimillion-rand telephone tender by paying the service provider in advance.
The complaint in more detail
In addition to the gist of Mbina-Mthembu’s complaint, Baker states the following:
· Listing several examples, the story would have been entirely different, had the journalist garnered information from the OTP;
· Mbina-Mthembu was inter alia responsible for effective, efficient and transparent systems of governance, and to ensure that financial and risk management are implemented in conjunction with a system of internal audits and control;
· Ngcakani was deployed to another department, which as “entirely legitimate” – she was not “in limbo”, as was reported. She has subsequently resigned to take up an alternative post;
· The story referred to Mbina-Mthembu’s “spokeswoman”, Ms Mandisa Titi, whom the newspaper approached for comment. However, the latter occupied the post of Head of Government Communications within the OTP, and was neither Mbina-Mthembu’s personal spokesperson, nor was she in any position to respond effectively to personalized comments regarding Mbina-Mthembu. There was no reason not to canvas Mbina-Mthembu’s views, nor was it impracticable to do so; and
· Mbina-Mthembu sent a letter to the editor after the story in question had been published, with the request that it be published with equal prominence and in full. He argues the newspaper’s decision not to carry this letter aggravated the situation.
He asks inter alia for an apology as well as the publication of Mbina-Mthembu’s letter, as the reportage has caused her unnecessary harm.
Daily Dispatch responds
Ngalwa says that the:
· story did not report the allegations as fact;
· allegations were made by staff at the OTP, and the reference to staff requiring care in a mental institution was attributed to the chairman of the OTP’s portfolio committee, Mr Sicelo Gqobana;
· newspaper used the established communication channel (the spokesperson of the OTP); besides, Mbina-Mthembu had never before objected to Titi responding on her behalf;
· reporter did take steps to verify the accuracy of the allegations as the comments were made by a senior member of the Bisho Legislature;
· story referred to a letter from Mbina-Mthembu to Kriek in which she recognized the latter’s “unhappiness” with her, and stated that it was in “everybody’s best interest that you serve your notice at home” – this pointed to a broken-down relationship between the two (adding that Kriek, in a subsequent letter, referred to the “irreparable differences” between her and Mbina-Mthembu, as well as to “draconian working conditions” under her); and
· headline correctly reflected the essence of the story; the sub-heading attributed the word “dictatorial” to a source.
The editor adds that he could find no record of having received Mbina-Mthembu’s letter, but states that he has no objection to having it published; however, he refuses to apologise, and also reserves the right to edit the letter.
Mbina-Mthembu replies
Baker argues that Daily Dispatch was not at liberty to publish the accusations against Mbina-Mthembu just because someone has made them and was attributed as such, arguing that they were extremely serious.
He denies that the newspaper took steps to verify the veracity of the allegations – it merely took what Gqobaba had said and printed it “as if it were the gospel truth”. “The Daily Dispatch seems to think that it is exempt from verifying the truth of allegations because they are made by other persons and the allegations are attributed to them. This is not correct… It cannot be the contention of a media house such as the Daily Dispatch that they do not have to check the truth of [what] sources say.”
The attorney elaborates:
“An allegation as serious as causing senior managers to the hospitalized in mental institutions is deserving of some simple fact checking. The allegation is such that there would have been reason to doubt its accuracy. Fact checking would have been extremely easy. The Daily Dispatch could have asked Gcobana who the person was who had been institutionalized, or what the details were, when that happened etc. The Daily Dispatch did not do so. The other apparently anonymous sources could have been asked the same questions… The [newspaper] could have asked the spokesperson in the OTP … for the identity of the senior manager who had been hospitalized as a result of [Mbina-Mthembu’s] management style. It did not do so. If the Daily Dispatch had bothered to take the most elementary step of asking these questions it would quickly and easily have been established there was no truth in the allegation. No senior managers have ever suffered the fate Gcobana suggested and printing this accusation was reckless. It was thus unreasonable and unfair to publish the allegation without taking the most elementary steps to establish its veracity.”
Regarding the newspaper having contacted Titi for comment, Baker says the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct requires a publication to seek the views of the subject of critial reporting, and not to follow some nebulous “communication channel”.
Be that as it may, Baker continues, the (far-reaching and damaging) allegation was personal, and it was therefore incumbent on the newspaper to go beyond using the established communication channels and to specifically address Mbina-Mthembu on the topic in order to obtain her views on the matter.
Besides, he says, Titi was asked only about Mbina-Mthembu’s alleged dictatorial style, and not about:
· her “toxic” rule and its effect on service delivery;
· senior managers ending up in mental institutions; and
· her conduct having “reflected an absence of human relations”.
“Since these matters formed the core of the story, it was incumbent upon the Daily Dispatch to have sought specific and detailed comment in relation to the suggestions concerning her not just a glib suggestion of dictatorial style,” he argues.
Baker asserts that his office did send a letter via e-mail to the newspaper (on October 27, two days after the story had been published). He notes that next to the heading “tracking”, this e-mail was recorded as having been “read” (at 16:24 on October 27).
At this stage, Baker rejects the editor’s offer to publish Mbina-Mthembu’s letter, as this offer came “far too late” (and readers would not properly understand the context).
The attorney argues, “The refusal to apologise, five or six weeks later, without reference to the original article and … to its factual and other inaccuracies does not place the complaint in a proper context and is thus of no assistance. The Daily Dispatch’s offer does not remedy the breach of the Code nor [does it] provide a remedy to the harm suffered by [Mbina-Mthembu].”
Analysis
The questions are the following:
· Did Daily Dispatch have the obligation to contact Mbina-Mthembu directly, as the allegations were about her style of management, or was the journalist justified to ask only Titi for comment?
· If so, were the questions put to Titi adequate, given the content of the story?
· Was the newspaper justified to publish the allegations as allegations?
· Was the information unverified, inaccurate, unfair, exaggerated, sensationalist, malicious, one-sided, unbalanced and without any factual substantiation?
· More specifically, was Mbina-Mthembu’s management style so severe (read: “toxic”, inappropriate, autocratic and dictatorial) that it caused the institutionalization of staff in medical institutions?
· Should the newspaper have published Mbina-Mthembu’s letter to the editor?
Contacting Mbina-Mthembu directly
Did Daily Dispatch have the obligation to contact Mbina-Mthembu directly, as the allegations were about her style of management (as argued by her), or was the journalist justified to ask only Titi for comment?
My considerations are as follows:
· Even though the issue was about Mbina-Mthembu’s style, the matter went further than a mere personal one – her alleged style was about management, which means that members of staff were involved. As such the newspaper was justified to direct its questions to a spokesperson; and
· Titi is a legitimate spokesperson.
I therefore believe the argument that Daily Dispatch should have asked Mbina-Mthembu herself does not hold water.
Questions adequate?
Were the questions put to Titi adequate, given the content of the story?
I have asked Daily Dispatch for some relevant documentation, which I have received in the form of an e-mail by the journalist Asanda Nini to Titi, informing her about the intention to publish a story about Kriek’s resignation, and saying that she understood that the latter had been supposed to be serving her notice month in October but was allegedly barred from doing so by the DG.
The reporter then asked:
· Why did Kriek leave the department?
· What reasons did she give for her decision?
· Why was she not allowed to serve her notice month after resignation as required by law?
· In the wake of her resignation, who was responsible for the OTP’s internal audit?
· Might the above-mentioned issues not have had a negative impact on the administration since they happened a few months before the end of the financial year?
I note that Nini’s questions gave Titi enough scope to comment on Kriek’s resignation, which could by default have implied allegations about Mbina-Mthembu’s management style. I also recognize the fact that the story did report the gist of Titi’s replies.
However, the problem is that none of the questions directly referred to Mbina-Mthembu. More specifically, the journalist did not enquire about the gist of her story, namely the allegation that Mbina-Mthembu’s style of management was dictatorial. The SA Code of Ethics and Conduct is clear about this – when someone is the subject of critical reportage, a publication should ask that subject (or his or her spokesperson) for comment.
Justified to publish the allegations as allegations?
Mbina-Mthembu was a high-ranking public official, which obliged the Daily Dispatch to scrutinize her. The second sentence of the Preamble to the Code states the following: “[The media’s] freedom provides for independent scrutiny of the forces that shape society…” (which Mbina-Mthembu was, given her position).
Lower down in the Preamble, it also states: “The media’s work is guided at all times by the public interest, understood to describe information of legitimate interest or importance to citizens.” I have little doubt that this matter was indeed in the public interest.
I also note that the sources quoted in the story seem to be people of high standing and credibility.
I therefore do not blame the newspaper for publishing the allegations as allegations – if only it had asked for comment about these accusations… (a matter I have already referred to).
Information unverified, malicious, etc?
Was the information unverified, inaccurate, unfair, exaggerated, sensationalist, malicious, one-sided, unbalanced and without any factual substantiation?
I have argued above that, as far as the allegations were presented as allegations (which they were), the story was in line with the Code. I therefore do not believe that the newspaper was malicious, or that the story was unverified, inaccurate, exaggerated or sensationalist.
But then, the absence of an attempt to get comment about the allegations about Mbina-Mthembu did make the story unfair, one-sided and unbalanced.
Causing staff to be institutionalized?
Was Mbina-Mthembu’s management style so severe (read: “toxic”, inappropriate, autocratic and dictatorial) that it caused the institutionalization of staff in medical institutions?
I wrote an e-mail to the editor, stating that such a statement was rather serious. I asked him if the newspaper tried to verify this statement, and stated that I had no evidence that the reporter put this matter to either Mbina-Mthembu or to the OTP for comment.
The newspaper responded as follows:
| “The issue of managers being institutionalised in medical facilities was said by Mr Gqobana when we sought a comment from his committee regarding this story. When quizzed further on this, he subsequently said he was not specifically speaking about the OTP only, but the general public service in the province.
“He said he knew of ‘two or more’ public servants who had endured such as a result of bad treatment from the employer. He however never revealed their identities. To collaborate such, Mr Gqobana could be reached on … (I have deleted his number). “However, subsequent to that, in her exit interview, OTP’s chief audit executive, Julie Kriek, who had resigned due to alleged differences with the DG, but was not allowed to serve her notice period, hinted on such. “She wrote in the exit interview (Page 4 and 7) that, ‘Due to the ongoing issues which I have faced, I have also become a lot more depressed, negative and saddened by the state of the department and government in general. I was also close to a nervous breakdown, given all the challenges in my working and home environment and no one at the department seemed to notice or care, not even the audit committee… Consequently, I funded my numerous psychological visits myself’. “This was put to Miss Titi in a telephone conversation we subsequently had, and she said she was not aware of such.” |
Let me now take a close look at the relevant part in question. It stated, “Legislature committee chair and ANC MPL Sicelo Gqobana yesterday said his committee was aware of the tensions at OTP. ‘We are aware of the demoralization at senior management level as a result of the style of leadership by the DG. We know that some senior managers end up in mental institutions as a result of such treatment. Such toxic management style displayed there is not right. It reflects an absence of human relations. Her inability to relate to her senior managers, is what is troubling the OTP…” (Emphasis added.)
This crux of the statement, as emphasised, can indeed be interpreted in two ways – either Gqobana meant that some senior managers under Mbina-Mthembu have ended up in mental institutions, or the statement was a more general one (referring to the public service at large).
This observation, though, does not solve the problem – rather, it poses it. Because the statement could have been interpreted in both ways, the reporter should have been alert to that fact, and should therefore have clarified the matter. The issue was serious, was it not – one which could unnecessarily have a negative impact on Mbina-Mthembu.
While I accept the newspaper’s explanation, namely that Gqobana referred to the public service at large, I also need to take into account that readers could easily have read the text the way Mbina-Mthembu did – which means that the statement in question could have been misleading, and probably was, without the necessary clarification.
In other words, the proper context was lacking, which rendered the statement in question lacking in the necessary balance.
Should Mbina-Mthembu’s letter have been published?
Should the newspaper have published Mbina-Mthembu’s letter to the editor?
This decision was entirely up to the editor, and this office has no business in interfering with such a judgment.
Finding
Daily Dispatch did not:
· ask comment on the allegation about Mbina-Mthembu’s management style. This was in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:
o 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news…fairly”; and
o 1.8: “The media shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication …”
· Clarify Gqobana’s statement about people having been committed to mental institutions. This was in breach of Section 1.2 of the Code which states, “News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner whether by … material omissions…”
The rest of the complaint is dismissed.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are all Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
Daily Dispatch is reprimanded for not:
· asking comment on the allegation about Mbina-Mthembu’s management style; and
· clarifying Gqobana’s statement about people having been committed to mental institutions.
The newspaper is directed to publish this reprimand, together with:
· Mbina-Mthembu’s or the OTP’s comment on the allegation about her management style (should either she or the OTP wish to comment at this stage); and
· a clarification that Gqobana meant the statement in a general way and did not refer to Mbina-Mthembu in this regard.
The text should:
· be published on the same page as that used for the offending article;
- start with the reprimand and the clarification;
- refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
- end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”; and
- be approved by me.
The headlines should properly reflect the content of the text.
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