8 June 2020

Mamodupi Mohlala-Mulaudzi vs Sunday World

2020 (Rulings), All Rulings, Ombud Rulings

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Details of Mamodupe’s split from hubby come to light (published on 24 November 2019).

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 said the seven-year-old marriage between Mamodupe Mohlala-Mulaudzi, deputy chairperson of the SABC’s Board, and her businessman husband Lawrence Mulaudzi had been “decommissioned”. It also related that her husband had vacated their matrimonial house in Saxonwold, Johannesburg, about two years ago and that he had been living elsewhere in Gauteng.

She complained that the:

newspaper did not give her adequate time to respond;
mentioning of her name in the headline as well as the publication of a picture of her wedding was unfair and misleading;
the journalist misrepresented the angle of the story when communicating with her prior to publication.

headline had misspelt her name;
story incorrectly referred to her as a former chairperson of the National Consumer Commission;
statement that her marriage had been “decommissioned” was degrading;
reference to her as the deputy chair of the SABC, although correct, implied an incorrect and prejudicial association;
reporting on communications with SARS was inaccurate; and
reportage had amounted to “corporate abuse of me as a black woman”, adding that the newspaper had allowed itself to be used as a tool to abuse “women who are strong”.

Sunday World was:

directed to apologise to Mohlala-Mulaudzi for:
- creating the impression that she willfully neglected to inform her husband of the SARS correspondence; and
- using the word “details” in the headline.
reprimanded for:
- misspelling her name in the headline; and
- getting her former designation wrong.

The rest of the complaint was dismissed.

THE RULING ITSELF

Complaint number: 6658

Lodged by: Mathebula Attorneys

Date of article: 24 November 2019

Headline: Details of Mamodupe’s split from hubby come to light

Online: Yes

Author of article: Ngwako Malatji

Respondent: Makhudu Sefara, editor

Complaint

1.1 Ms Mamodupi Mohlala-Mulaudzi, deputy chairperson of the SABC’s Board, complains that the:

newspaper did not give her adequate time to respond;
mentioning of her name in the headline as well as the publication of a picture of her wedding were unfair and misleading; and
the journalist misrepresented the angle of the story when communicating with her prior to publication.

1.2 She also complains that:

her name was misspelt in the headline;
the story incorrectly referred to her as a former chairperson of the National Consumer Commission;
the statement that her marriage had been “decommissioned” was degrading;
the reference to her as the deputy chair of the SABC, although correct, implied an incorrect and prejudicial association; and
the reporting on communications with SARS was inaccurate.

1.3 Mohlala-Mulaudzi concludes that the reportage amounted to “corporate abuse of me as a black woman”, adding that the newspaper was allowing itself to be used as a tool to abuse “women who are strong”.

1.4 She asks for:

the story to be re-written, with the same prominence, but without any reference to her;
an unreserved written apology, stating the newspaper acted in bad faith;
the newspaper to accept it has caused injury to her “personality and person”; and
a retraction of the use of the word “decommissioned”.

1.5 Sections of the Press Code complained about are:

1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”;
1.2: “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarization”;
1.4: “The media shall obtain news legally, honestly and fairly, unless public interest dictates otherwise”;
1.8: “The media shall seek, if practicable, the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication, except when they might be prevented from reporting, or evidence destroyed, or sources intimidated. Such a subject should be afforded reasonable time to respond; if unable to obtain comment, this shall be stated”;
3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…”
10.1: “Headlines … shall not mislead the public and shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question”; and
10.2: “Pictures and video / audio content shall not misrepresent or mislead…”

The text

2.1 The article said the seven-year-old marriage between Mohlala-Mulaudzi and her businessman husband Lawrence Mulaudzi had been “decommissioned”. It also related that Mr Mulaudzi had vacated their matrimonial house in Saxonwold, Johannesburg, about two years ago and had been living elsewhere in Gauteng.

2.2 The rest of the story was about Mr Mulaudzi and his company, Black Gold Family Trust, that allegedly had failed to pay over R1.1-million in VAT.

2.3 The story added that SARS had sent a final letter of demand to Mulaudzi’s matrimonial house in Saxonwold, Johannesburg, on September 9. The latter reportedly said he did not receive the letter because SARS sent it to that house, that he had vacated two years before.

The arguments

3.1 Insufficient time to respond

3.1.1 Mohlala-Mulaudzi complains she was not given a proper opportunity to respond to the contents of the article. She says she received a missed call from Malatji on November 23 at 12:49. Two minutes later, the journalist followed it up with a text message, asking her to “revert” to him.

3.1.2 She argues:

One call on a Saturday afternoon from an unknown number cannot be regarded as a sufficient attempt to give her a right of reply; and
The text message sent by the reporter did not include proper questions (the lack of which, she says, reflected a pre-determined agenda to publish without giving her a proper opportunity to respond).

3.1.3 Makhudu Sefara says the initial story was about Mr Mulaudzi’s tax affairs. The newspaper then got wind of the split between him and his wife.

3.1.4 He says the reporter phoned her three times before 17:00. He also sent her a text message indicating his name and the publication from which he called, asking her to revert.

3.1.5 At 19:00, he continues, Mohlala-Mulaudzi’s personal assistant, Chandre Prins, called to enquire what the story was about. Soon after, he spoke with Mohlala-Mulaudzi. “Her initial impression was that we were doing a story about the separation, perhaps including reasons for such separation. She wanted to find out how damaging the story was. I indicated to her … the issue was that she and her husband were separated,” Sefara says.

3.1.6 He argues that the story did not include any malice or damaging claims by Mr Mulaudzi against her – it merely stated that they had separated, which was a statement of fact.

3.1.7 The editor concludes: “The amount of effort made to give her an opportunity to respond or state a view on something that is factual and patently not damaging – especially if you consider the fact that the Sunday World did not go into details of the separation – is inordinate. That she did not answer or return our calls earlier is unfortunate.”

3.1.8 Mohlala-Mulaudzi responds that, contacting her a few hours before going to print is in breach of the Press Code. She says newspapers should afford people 24 – 48 hours to respond. Not having done so in her case, was a violation of the Press Code, she reasons, adding that the editor should have postponed the story to allow her to respond adequately.

3.1.9 She says Sefara gives a “factually incomplete account” in that he says they received a response from her. She says that is not correct – she sent a message back to Malatji, after which she did not get a clear context of the contents of the story.

3.1.10 Mohlala-Mulaudzi adds that the newspaper phoned her estranged husband almost two hours before trying to reach her – clearly showing intent to report one-sidedly, she argues.

3.1.11 She also wants to know why the journalist did not text her his questions.

Analysis

3.1.12 The Press Code does not prescribe a specific time in which a person should be allowed to respond. It leaves that issue open – and quite deliberately so. The reason for this should be obvious – it depends on the nature (quality, if you like) and number (quantity) of the questions.

3.1.13 If, for example, a journalist asks a mayor about corruption in his office, which she or he knows nothing about, it will be unfair to expect that person to reply within an hour. If asked if she or he drives a red Mercedes, though, one could reasonably expect an immediate answer.

3.1.14 Therefore, in order to decide whether Mohlala-Mulaudzi was given reasonable time to respond, I need to know what questions the journalist asked her, and how many.

3.1.15 By her own testimony, Mohlala-Mulaudzi says the journalist wanted to know whether she:

had been separated from her husband;
was still living at the Saxonwold address; and
had received communication from SARS, addressed to her husband.

3.1.16 A simple “yes” or “no” to all these questions would have sufficed. In that case, I do not believe that the newspaper should have given Mohlala-Mulaudzi 24 – 48 hours to respond to those specific questions. She needed no more than one minute to do so.

3.2 Headline, picture

3.2.1 Mohlala-Mulaudzi’s complaint against the headline and the picture boils down to her belief that the mentioning of her name in the headline, as well as the use of a wedding picture, created the false impression that the break-up between her and her estranged husband had something to do with the latter’s tax problems.

3.2.2 Sefara denies this. He argues, “There is nothing in the story that constitute critical reportage on her. There is also no damaging allegation in the story about her.”

3.2.3 He argues, “When it (the marriage) ends, concomitant attention ought to be expected. Our story simply stated the fact that it has ended. The level of interest in the wedding and the relevance of the separating parties to the public sphere, necessitates her name in the headline.”

3.2.4 He offers, though, to correct the word “details” (of the split of the wedding) in the headline, as the article did not contain any such details.

Analysis

3.2.5 The crux of Mohlala-Mulaudzi’s complaint, as far as I am concerned, is about this specific issue.

3.2.6 I need to be very clear about what is at stake here. The question is not, and cannot be, if the use of the headline and the picture was unnecessary or in bad taste. The Press Code does not provide for such a possibility – and quite deliberately so, as “unnecessary” or “in bad taste” does not automatically equate with “unfair” or “unnecessary harm” (which is mentioned in the Preamble to the Code).

3.2.7 Therefore, I am not going to pronounce on the question of “necessary” or “in bad taste”, even though I have an opinion on that matter.

3.2.8 The real question is indeed just that: Was the use of Mohlala-Mulaudzi’s name in the headline, as well as the publishing of a wedding picture of her and her estranged husband, unfair? In other words: Did it cause her unnecessary harm – in that a reasonable reader would have thought that Mohlala-Mulaudzi, or her break-up with her estranged husband, had anything to do (or had contributed to) the latter’s tax problems?

3.2.9 Having read, and umpteen times re-read, the reportage, I do not believe that a reasonable reader would have linked the two. It was a fact that the couple had been estranged, as stated in the first sentence; it was also true that Mr Mulaudzi vacated the house two years ago. Then came the third sentence: “The startling news was revealed by Mulaudzi himself when we quizzed him about the judgment the SA Revenue Service (SARS) obtained against his company…”

3.2.10 “His company”, not “their company”.

3.2.11 What is furthermore important, is that Mr Mulaudzi did not blame his estranged wife for his tax problems; and neither did the article. The particular angle of the story was the news (which really was “news”) – that the couple had parted their ways – which, to my mind, justified the mentioning of her name in the headline, as well as the use of the wedding picture.

3.2.12 For these reasons, I do not believe that the reportage has caused Mohlala-Mulaudzi any harm at all, let alone unnecessarily so.

3.2.13 I agree with Sefara that the use of the word “details” in the headline was wrong.

3.3 Angle of story misrepresented

3.3.1 Mohlala-Mulaudzi says that, when the newspaper eventually spoke with her later in the night ofNovember 23, she was told that the reference to her was a minor part of the story (which was about her estranged husband’s tax issues).

3.3.2 She says she then believed she had “nothing to worry about”, as the article was not so much about her. However, both the headline and the picture put her into the centre of the story.

3.3.3 “Then I realized,” she continues, “that both the journalist and the editor had misrepresented the angle of the story by lulling us into a false sense of security (by) saying the emphasis was not on me, whereas in fact I was the point of emphasis.”

3.3.4 The editor says that, as a tabloid newspaper, issues of marriages and divorces involving prominent members of society are of interest to its readers.

3.3.5 Giving some examples, he points out that, when the couple got married, interest from local media went beyond the tabloids.

3.3.6 Mohlala-Mulaudzi says the mere fact that her wedding was a public affair, covered by national newspapers, should not be used as a justification to misrepresent her “involvement” in her estranged husband’s tax affairs.

Analysis

3.3.7 The questions asked by the journalist are precisely those represented in the reportage. I therefore do not buy the argument that she was misled.

3.3.8 Yes, she was used as an angle to the story. But that was also reasonable, as that information was news – and she was a public figure.

3.4 Name misspelt

3.4.1 Mohlala-Mulaudzi says her name was misspelt in the headline – it said “Mamodupe”, instead of “Mamodupi”.

3.4.2 Sefara does not respond to this part of the complaint.

Analysis

3.4.3 Her first name, “Mamodupi”, was clearly misspelt in the headline.

3.5 Former chairperson of the National Consumer Commission

3.5.1 The story referred to her as a “former chairwoman of the National Consumer Commission”.

3.5.2 Mohlala-Mulaudzi says that was incorrect – she says she was the national commissioner of the National Consumer Commission, and never its chairperson.

3.5.3 Sefara does not respond to this part of the complaint.

Analysis

3.5.4 I have no reason to disbelieve Mohlala-Mulaudzi on this issue.

3.6 Marriage ‘decommissioned’

3.6.1 The story said that Mohlala-Mulaudzi’s seven-year-old marriage with her husband “has been decommissioned”.

3.6.2 Mohlala-Mulaudzi complains that use of the word “decommissioned” was offensive in that it denoted that, as a woman, she was “on commission”. She argues, “This is not only defamatory but also degrading to a woman in a marriage context.” She asks for an investigation into this matter and, if the journalist is found to have been abusive, he should be “removed from the practice as a journalist”. At the very least, she continues, the newspaper owes her “a written apology for the gender insensitive comment”.

3.6.3 Sefara says the word “decommissioned” is a past participle, meaning something has been “withdrawn” or is now “inoperative” or has been “dismantled” or “deactivated”. “So, when she withdraws herself, or her man withdraws himself from her, rendering the marriage ‘inoperative’, or in a deactivated state, we surely should be able to use such benign and innocuous phrasing to describe the state of affairs. We did not impute negative connotations,” he argues.

3.6.4 Mohlala-Mulaudzi replies the reportage denoted that a man can commission and decommission a woman as he likes. Such an implication, she argues, was exacerbated by the reference to her as the deputy chairperson of the SABC. She maintains that the term was used to humiliate her “and point to the fact that she may believe that she is influential in her profession but in her private and personal context she can be decommissioned by a man”.

Analysis

3.6.5 As I am putting myself in Mohlala-Mulaudzi’s shoes, I do understand her disgust at the use of the word “decommission”. It does sound hurtful, humiliating and degrading to me, too.

3.6.6 However, as I am required to think with my head, rather than my heart, I need to look clinically at the text. The relevant sentence read: “The … marriage of … Mohlala-Mulaudzi and her businessman husband … has been decommissioned.” (My emphasis.)

3.6.7 Firstly, if the use of the word “decommissioned” was hurtful, it should apply to both partners. I therefore do not agree that the intention of the newspaper was gender-driven, aimed at Mohlala-Mulaudzi as a woman, or a black woman, at that.

3.6.8 I further note that the story did not say that Mr Mulaudzi had decommissioned the marriage. It says that their marriage “has been decommissioned”. If the story stated that he had decommissioned the marriage, I certainly would have found in Mohlala-Mulaudzi’s favour in this regard.

3.7 Prejudicial association

3.7.1 The story referred to Mohlala-Mulaudzi as “the SABC Board’s deputy chairwoman”.

3.7.2 Mohlala-Mulaudzi says that, while this reference is correct, it amounted to an incorrect and prejudicial association that had nothing to do with her estranged husband’s failure to pay his taxes.

3.7.3 Sefara does not respond to this part of the complaint.

Analysis

3.7.4 As implied above, I believe that Mohlala-Mulaudzi is reading too much into this matter as well. As the SABC Board’s deputy chairperson she is a public figure – and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to find that that designation represented a breach of the Press Code.

3.8 Communication with SARS

3.8.1 Mohlala-Mulaudzi says SARS communicates electronically. If it does send documentation via post, it is always accompanied by electronic communication (implying that her husband would have been informed accordingly). She also asks why would communication to a business be sent to a residential address. She says she believes her husband did not inform SARS of his change of address to evade liability. “Now the former wife is being used as an excuse for not taking responsibility for his taxes.”

3.8.2 She adds that she moved out of that house the same day on which her estranged husband moved out. She says the house was put up for sale and that she currently lives in Hyde Park.

3.8.3 Sefara says he can state as a fact that SARS did send documentation to a house Mamodupi-Mulaudzi and her husband had shared. “This documentary proof can be availed should the complainant persist that this is not true,” he adds.

3.8.4 He adds that the reporter did try to verify the claims Mr Mulaudzi made, including that SARS most probably sent his communication to her house. A revisit of the SARS documents showed that indeed Mr Mulaudzi was correct in his claim.

3.8.5 He says the question still remains if she was aware of his correspondence and, if so, why she did not pass it on to him.

3.8.6 Mohlala-Mulaudzi replies that, even if the editor can prove SARS did send documentation to her former house, that does not cure the harm suffered. She reiterates that she and her husband left the house on the same day – while, instead, the article suggested that she had received the correspondence, but failed to notify her estranged husband about it.

Analysis

3.8.7 Malatji reported, “In his response (to SARS), Mulaudzi said he didn’t receive the letter because SARS sent it to his marital home, which he vacated two years ago. They might have sent it to the house I shared with Mamodupi [who is now the SABC Board’s deputy chairwoman]. I vacated the house in 2017 and I’m no longer living there after my issues with her. I would have paid that money had I known about the matter, it is such a small amount,” he said.

3.8.8 I accept:

that Malatji quoted Mulaudzi correctly;
Sefara’s word that SARS did send documentation to the house in question; and
that Mohlala-Mulaudzi did not live in the house at the time the documentation arrived, and that she therefore cannot be blamed for not passing it on to her husband.

3.8.9 When first I read the article, my initial impression was that Mohlala-Mulaudzi resided in that house at the time when the documentation arrived, with the implication that she failed to notify her husband of such important correspondence – even though the story did not explicitly say that.

3.8.10 This can mean only one thing: The problem with the reportage on this issue is not what was written, but rather with what was not written. Omitting to state that Mohlala-Mulaudzi did not live in that house at the time the documentation arrived, created an impression that she was responsible for him not having received it. If the newspaper did not know this at the time of publication, my response would be that it should have known. The reporter should have asked her that very question, before creating the impression that Mohlala-Mulaudzi could wilfully have neglected to inform her husband of the correspondence.

3.8.11 I have no way of deciding whether this omission was intentional or not.

3.9 ‘Corporate abuse’ of Mohlala-Mulaudzi as a ‘black woman’

3.9.1 Mohlala-Mulaudzi complains that this reporting was “direct gender discrimination in an age where abuse against women is a focal point”, adding that she was black. She says she notes that Sefara did not respond to her allegation of gender bias and “victimization of a woman going through a divorce”.

Analysis

3.9.2 I have already argued that this part of the complaint does not have a leg to stand on.

Finding

4.1 Insufficient time to respond