Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge vs. Daily Maverick
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge and those of Marianne Thamm on behalf of the Daily Maverick.
Complaint
Madlala-Routledge complained about an article “Fear and Loathing in the philanthropic world as key appointment turns sour”, published in The Daily Maverick on March 29, 2016.
She complains that:
– even though she was the chief subject of the article, she was not given an opportunity to comment on it;
– the heading of the article was misleading and had no correlation to the contents of the article;
– the use of an historically symbolic photograph with the article was an intentional ploy to get readers’ attention and linking the two separate incidents creates a negative impression of her;
– the story falsely claimed she was sacked as Deputy Minister of Health for issues related to unauthorised expenditure.
The article
The article deals with the appointment of Madlala-Routledge to replace Shelagh Gastrow as head of the Inyathelo nonprofit trust. Madlala-Routledge left the trust after five months. The story quotes documents, media reports, Inyathelo statements (from the board and the website) as well as unnamed former colleagues. Neither Madlala-Routledge nor Gastrow are quoted. The story does not say if they were asked for their views.
The arguments
Madlala-Routledge says she was in hospital when she received a text message from the author regarding the story. She says she replied and said that she would be happy to talk when she was discharged.
“When I realised that my stay in hospital and healing would be prolonged, I again sent her a text message saying that I would not be able to participate in the article at the time as I was still in hospital. I was shocked to learn that she had gone ahead and published a defamatory and skewed article, without giving me a chance to respond.”
Madlala-Routledge says article quotes heavily from the statement of the Board of Inyathelo and is skewed “heavily” in favour of Shelagh Gastrow, the former executive director, “while painting me in a negative light”.
She says the story is poorly researched and casts a shadow on her reputation by drawing on unsubstantiated allegations about her.
In particular, says Madlala-Routledge, it distorts “widely known reasons for why I was dismissed as Deputy Minister of Health in 2007”.
“By claiming falsely that I was sacked by President Mbeki for unauthorised expenditure and monies that I owed government, casting a negative picture about my leadership, which she defines as toxic, erratic, with a tendency for emotional outbursts, it is clear that Ms Thamm wants the reader to draw the conclusion that I resigned from Inyathelo for similar reasons and under similar circumstances. She falsely attributes the resignation by senior staff at Inyathelo directly to my style of leadership. All this is untrue and is intended to harm my image and reputation,” says Madlala-Routledge.
In its response, the Daily Maverick says that the article was a simple report on the Inyathelo Board’s statement. It said that it had given Madlala-Routledge an opportunity to respond, but that she had declined. It added the SMS correspondence between her and Marianne Thamm:
Hi Nozizwe. Marianne Thamm here from the Daily Maverick..would you be willing to talk to me about Inyathelo at all. Regards
Hi Marianne. Lovely to hear from you. I’m in hospital and we can talk when I get out, probably Thursday, if that’s OK. Are you doing an article?
Sorry to hear you are in hospital hope not serious. I would like to do an article
I’m still in hospital and will not participate in the story. I need time to heal.
The Daily Maverick said it therefore believed the complaint to be without any merit.
Madlala-Routledge countered that she had not, at any time, received specific questions. The statement that the article quotes was not based on fact, but allegations against her which were not substantiated.
Analysis
In reviewing this complaint, the Ombud needs to consider if the publication had breached the Code of Ethics and Conduct in the gathering and reporting of its news.
Specifically, I have considered Section 1.1 (“The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”), 1.3 (“Only what may reasonably be true, having regard to the sources of the news, may be presented as fact, and such facts shall be published fairly with reasonable regard to context and importance.”) and section 1.8 (“The media shall seek the views of critical reportage in advance of publication.”)
The preamble to the Code notes that the media’s work is guided at all times by the public interest, “understood to describe information of legitimate interest or importance to citizens”.
The absence of Madlala-Routledge’s voice means the story does appear skewed towards the other protagonists as the writer had access to documents and statements that reflected their views. It is clear that the story would have benefited from Madlala-Routledge’s comments.
However, the SMS’s show that Madlala-Routledge declined to comment in no uncertain terms with the response that (I) “will not participate in the story”. Section 1.8 of the Code does note that “if the media are unable to obtain such comment, this shall be reported”. Daily Maverick should have reflected her refusal to participate in the article.
Had Madlala-Routledge opted to comment thereafter and ask for right of reply, then her request would have been covered by Section 1.9 which notes that where a news item is published on the basis of limited information, “this shall be stated as such and reports should be supplemented once new information becomes available”.
The headline, “Fear and Loathing in the philanthropic world as key appointment turns sour”, overstates the content of the story but reflects some comments.
In reference to Madlala-Routledge’s complaint that the use of an historically symbolic photograph with the article was an intentional ploy to get readers’ attention and linking the two separate incidents creates a negative impression of her, it should be noted that her previous leadership roles would have been considered important in the context of the story.
The use of a photograph from her time as deputy minister is not unexpected given the availability of such photographs as well as the references to this time in the story.
Madlala-Routledge says the story falsely claimed she was sacked as Deputy Minister of Health for issues related to unauthorised expenditure.What the story does say is:
“In 2007 Madlala-Routledge became the focus of a scandal when it became apparent that she had racked up about R500,000 in unauthorised expenditure during her terms as Deputy Minister of Health and Deputy Minister of Defence.
She was accused of spending R312,000 on an unauthorised trip to Spain in June 2007, accompanied by her son. At the time she still owed the Department of Defence R116,357 in unauthorised expenditure that the state was attempting to recover in terms of the Financial Management Act.
Madlala-Routledge was fired that year by President Thabo Mbeki, a move that at the time was read as punishment for an unscheduled visit to the Frere Hospital in East London. Afterwards she criticised the government’s tardy response to the HIV/AIDS crisis that faced the country.
At the time, many who supported Madlala-Routledge claimed her dismissal was unfair, but Mbeki had written to her that the reason for this was her inability to work as part of a team as well as her unauthorised trip.”
The story therefore does not say that she was sacked for issues related to unauthorised expenditure and does give broader context to her struggles within the ministry at the time.
We are not privy as to why the reporter did not offer to wait for Madlala-Routledge to recover in order to get her comment for the story. Madlala-Routledge is, however, entitled to a right of reply and should be given that option, should she so choose.
Findings
– Not asked for comment.
– The Daily Maverick has shown that Madlala-Routledge was approached and declined to participate in the story. This is therefore dismissed.
– Misleading headline
– The headline captures some of the essence of the story and this complaint is therefore dismissed.
– Use of photograph
– Dismissed.
– Falsely linking sacking to issues related to unauthorised expenditure.
– Dismissed. The story says her firing was read at the time as punishment for an unscheduled visit to the Frere Hospital in East London.
Appeal
Our Complaints Procedures lays 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].
Paula Fray
Deputy Press Ombud
