Bonang Matheba vs City Press
SUMMARY
The headlines to the story in dispute read, Bonang dumps Woolies Heroes campaign (in print); and, Bonang a no-show at Woolies shoot (online). It was published on 26 January 2020.
This ruling by Acting Assistant Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The article was about flamboyant TV presenter Bonang Matheba who reportedly had pulled out of a photo shoot session at the eleventh hour. The shoot was part of a Woolworths campaign, called Catch the Feels. The story continued, “City Press has reliably learnt that Matheba was scheduled to shoot her scenes last Friday but, because there were too many faces involved in the campaign, she refused to allow anyone to steal her shine and decided not to pitch for the shoot.”
Matheba complained the story incorrectly stated that she had confirmed to appear, but that she then failed to pitch; and that both headlines were factually incorrect, misleading and defamatory.
Retief noted that Matheba’s agent, Davin Phillips, had said she had “unfortunately not (been) able” to be present at the occasion. The Ombud said those words strongly implied that Matheba indeed had been expected at the shoot. Moreover, Phillips never explained why an interview with Matheba had been set up in the first place if there was never a stage when she was expected to participate in the shoot.
He dismissed this part of the complaint.
Based on that decision, the Ombud found that both headlines reasonably reflected the content of the story. This was also dismissed.
THE RULING ITSELF
Complaint number: 7714
Lodged by: Mr Davin Phillips, the complainant’s campaign manager
Date of article: 26 January 2020
Headline: Bonang dumps Woolies Heroes campaign (printed version, page 1)
Bonang a no-show at Woolies shoot (online)
Author of article: Ntombizodwa Makhoba
Respondent: Dumisane Lubisi, editor
- Complaint
1.1 Ms Bonang Matheba complains:
- the story incorrectly stated that she had confirmed to appear in a campaign by Woolworths, but that she then failed to pitch; and
- that both headlines were factually incorrect, misleading and defamatory.
1.2 Sections of the Press Code complained about:
- 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;
- 3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation”; and
- 10.1 “Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or picture in question.”
- The text
2.1 The article was about flamboyant TV presenter Bonang Matheba who, at the eleventh hour, reportedly had pulled out of a photo shoot session. The shoot was part of a Woolworths campaign, called Catch the Feels.
2.2 The story continued, “City Press has reliably learnt that Matheba was scheduled to shoot her scenes last Friday but, because there were too many faces involved in the campaign, she refused to allow anyone to steal her shine and decided not to pitch for the shoot.”
- The arguments
3.1 Failing to pitch for the shoot
3.1.1 Phillips says the statement that Matheba failed to pitch for the shoot was false and incorrect. He says both Woolworths and he told the newspaper that she had an excellent working relationship with Woolworths, and that she did not participate in the shoot due to her hectic schedule.
3.1.2 He argues that Matheba could not be a “no-show” as it was never confirmed that she would attend the shoot in the first place – she did not dump the campaign and/ dishonour an agreement, as suggested in the article.
3.1.3 Lubisi says on January 16 the newspaper received an e-mail from Tamlyn van Heerden, who was coordinating the campaign, requesting that it interview the cast that was going to be part of Catch the Feels campaign.
3.1.4 He says Matheba was listed among the 13 participants of the campaign, and City Press requested an interview with her (amongst others). This interview was confirmed for January 21 at the Market Theatre, where the shoot for the campaign was taking place.
3.1.5 That morning, a few hours before the scheduled interviews, City Press learnt that Matheba had pulled out of the campaign.
3.1.6 The editor says City Press duly went to the Market Theatre, as discussed with Van Heerden, for the interviews. Matheba was not on set. “We did the interviews with the other participants of the campaign as planned and spoke to other people to find out why Ms Matheba was not on the shoot. This is standard journalism where one verifies initial information from various other sources,” he says.
3.1.7 This is a far cry from reckless reporting – besides, Matheba’s failure to pitch for the shoot played itself out in front of City Press and it was a development worth reporting on, he adds.
3.1.8 Lubisi says City Press contacted Phillips with a list of questions, inter alia why Matheba was no longer involved in the campaign. He says Phillips’ office responded to all the questions, except to this one. The newspaper then urged Phillips to provide it with an answer – who then indicated that the Woolworths campaign questions should not be part of the story that City Press was planning to write.
3.1.9 In the end, the editor continues, Phillips said Matheba could not make the shoot because of her hectic schedule.
3.1.10 He also points out that Phillips did not indicate to the newspaper that Matheba had not been scheduled for the Woolworths campaign. “If such was the case, he ought to have informed the newspaper accordingly,” Lubisi reasons.
Analysis
3.1.11 Having taken all of the above-recorded information into account, I read a statement by Tanya Pangalele, a PR manager at Woolworths, as well as an email by Phillips to the Press Council two days later, with interest.
3.1.12 Dated January 28 and addressed to Phillips, she wrote:
“Hi Davin, Please see below email as requested. Our recommendation would be for Bonang not to put a tweet out but to rather rely on the retraction that City Press will write which will further cement the statement.
“To whom it may concern
“As previously mentioned by Bonang’s agent, Davin Phillips, due to her schedule, Bonang was unfortunately not able to join us for the Catch the Feels campaign shoot that took place from 18 to 21 January 2020.”
3.1.13 On January 30, Phillips forwarded this message to the Press Council, saying: “As requested, please see attached email from Woolworths, which confirms the same response to City Press, that she was not expected at the shoot as she couldn’t be confirmed due to her schedule.”
3.1.14 This makes for interesting reading, indeed.
3.1.15 I note the following: Phillips used Pangalele’s words, “unfortunately not able to join us” to say that therefore, “(Bonang) was not expected at the shoot”. However, those two statements do not necessarily mean the same thing – Pangalele’s statement does not preclude the possibility that Matheba was indeed expected at the shoot, but that she cancelled at the eleventh hour, as Phillips wants this office to believe.
3.1.16 On the contrary, one can even argue that Pangalele’s message strongly implied that Matheba indeed had been expected at the shoot. The word “unfortunately” rather suggests, does it not, that at some stage she was involved in the matter.
3.1.17 Moreover, Phillips never explained why an interview with Matheba had been set up in the first place if there was never a stage when she was expected to participate in the shoot.
3.2 Headlines
3.2.1 Lubisi denies that the headlines were incorrect, false, defamatory and malicious. They captured the essence of the story, which was factually correct, he argues.
3.2.2 He adds, “In essence, Mr Phillips’ complaint is nothing more than just an attempt to do public relations on the story that cast his client in a negative light. He had an opportunity to answer directly and even informed the reporter the true version of events prior to publication. His attempt to sway the reporter away from the Woolworths campaign angle of the story failed and he was satisfied with the quotation attributed to him on the matter. But on seeing the story and the impact it has on Ms Matheba, Mr Phillips is now trying to manage the effects of such publication. This complaint should not be seen as anything more than just that.”
Analysis
3.2.3 Based on my decision above, I find that both headlines reasonably reflected the content of the story.
3.3 General comment
3.3.1 Matheba did not complain about the following sentence in the article: “City Press has reliably learnt that Matheba was scheduled to shoot her scenes last Friday but, because there were too many faces involved in the campaign, she refused to allow anyone to steal her shine and decided not to pitch for the shoot.”
3.3.2 Because she did not complain about this “motivation” behind her “no-show”, and the newspaper therefore also did not address this issue, I do not have a mandate to make any kind of a decision in this regard. I need to state, though, that at the very least the newspaper should have asked her for comment, if it was going to report it at all.
- Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
Appeal
The 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
Acting Assistant Press Ombud