Chris Wishlade vs. The Herald/Weekend Post

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Chris Wishlade of Integrated Sport (IS), and those of Nwabisa Makunga, deputy editor of The Herald / Weekend Post newspaper.

Complaint

Wishlade is complaining about a story in The Herald / Weekend Post of 14 June 2016, headlined Kings saviour’s web of lies – Investigation unearths bankruptcy and false information.

He complains that both the headline and the article gave the impression that he had lied about details regarding the proposed business rescue of the Southern Kings Rugby Franchise – while he, in fact, purposefully made no comment on this matter.

He also says that the reference to the “business rescue” was fictitious in itself, and asks that the newspaper points out exactly where he lied – in the absence of which it should retract the story, with an apology.

The text

The story, written by Michael and Kathryn Kimberley, started off as follows: “A bankrupt businessman with an unregistered UK firm and false business address is the ‘saviour’ Eastern Province rugby is relying on to bail out of an ongoing crisis.”

It said that Wishlade emerged in court papers “as the mystery equity partner managing a deal to acquire a 49% stake in the EP Kings, with a much needed cash injection of R100-million.

The newspaper’s investigation reportedly revealed that:

·         IS was not a registered company in the UK;

·         Wishlade had been declared bankrupt in June 2010 and again in April last year;

·         A company he formed in 2005 had been liquidated two years later;

·         The Barcelona Football Club (BFC), which Wishlade claimed to be a client of his, denied ever working with him; and

·         The address on the IS website belonged to Kensington Pavilion, an exclusive business club, where the receptionist had never heard of either Wishlade or IS.

According to court papers, IS reportedly declared it was willing to invest approximately R100-million in the EP Kings rugby club, with the first R20-million paid up front.

The arguments

The complaint in more detail	The newspaper’s response
IS never once gave the impression that it had a serviced office (which is not illegal or, as the article suggested, deceptive).	IS lists 96 Kensington High Street (London) as an office address on its website. However, this is a men’s club, giving the impression that Wishlade was using a serviced office. The Kensington office (switchboard and building manager) was not aware of a Wishlade or of IS. The address on the website also included a telephone number that was nowhere near London.
IS never said it had a virtual reception office.	The story did not mention any virtual reception service.
IS never disputed the fact that it had been in a dispute with Saracens Rugby club, resulting in an application for a bankruptcy order against it.	The story never stated that Wishlade disputed this – it merely reported on the facts presented in the UK Gazette and a response from the UK Insolvency Service.
IS worked with all the companies referred to on its website – it would be “highly unlikely” that the company would make any comment to the press (regarding lying to Barcelona FC).	Barcelona FC stated in an e-mail to the newspaper that it had never worked with IS.
It was clear from the start that the company registration number visible was not that of Integrated Sport, but rather of the web design business.	The company’s registration number appears directly underneath its office address on the IS website. The newspaper gave Wishlade a fair amount of time to dispute the registration number, to which he merely replied, “Publish what you like.”
IS is a private company and is under no obligation in law or otherwise to be registered – yet the inference in the story is that it lied about a registered office.	The story did not say that IS had been operating illegally, just that it had not been registered in the UK (a fact that Wishlade admits in his correspondence to this office).

Makunga adds that the newspaper sent Wishlade detailed questions about the issues mentioned in the story, well in advance of publication. The latter eventually briefly responded, saying inter alia, “Publish what you like. We are focusing on the proposed business rescue and making sure funds in place.”

In his final response to my office, Wishlade wrote, “The entire response [of the newspaper] misses the point. Whilst as they say, I have a right to respond it does not detract from the fact that the headline suggested I lied. I did not lie about anything and ‘publish what you want’ is not any vindication to publish something that is defamatory. Reporting the facts is one thing, accusing me of lying is an entirely different matter.”

Further enquiries

At the heart of this complaint is the question of whether the newspaper was justified in stating that Wishlade lied. Because I was not completely satisfied with the editor’s initial response, I sent him the following e-mail, asking for more clarity:

“My question does not relate to the article itself, but only to the headline. In your response to Mr Wishlade’s complaint, you have not pointed out what he had lied about (as stated in the headline). The phrase “web of lies” refers to the plural, which implies there had to be more than one lie. I would appreciate it if you can point out exactly what he lied about.”

Here are the editor’s replies, as well as Wishlade’s responses:

Makunga	Wishlade
Wishlade claimed to have worked for Barcelona FC. This is untrue as the football club denies any knowledge of him or his company. We are therefore of the view that in stating that he did, Wishlade was being deceptive, untrue and deliberately used this to mislead anyone looking at his company’s previous clients.	IS in collaboration with Dr Medina and Staffs University, it comes as no surprise they might not want to acknowledge it publicly as much of what was done was sensitive. In addition to this the data involved is protected as it involves players from various leagues across Europe. If you base your findings on a one line response from the media department then you are clearly even less professional in your journalistic ability than I first thought.
Wishlade lists an address on his company website which neither he nor his company has operated from. This is deceptive, untrue and speaks to the definition of the word “lie”.	IS has operated from this premises and happy to supply our membership details, not that I find this relevant to a journalist. I commend the receptionist for her discretion when dealing with what was an aggressive approach.
Wishlade’s website listed a registration number which does not exist. For whatever reason this registration number appears on his website, it is misleading as anyone would only assume his company is registered when it is not.	The registration was not that of IS, we never alluded to it being ours and I never mentioned on the business rescue proposal that we are a registered company. The newspaper decided to fit its narrative to discredit IS’s proposal and thus constructing the “web of lies” piece to suit its agenda. The website design company had that number on their banner line and subsequently admitted it was an over-sight. I however defy the newspaper to have not made the obvious link to them. The newspaper saw and reported only what it wanted to see.
The Collins English Dictionary defines a “lie” when used as a noun as an untrue or deceptive statement deliberately used to mislead.	This is correct, but show the statement pertaining to any of the above. Surely the allegation of a “deceptive statement” would require me making one?

Analysis

So then, the editor argues there were three lies, concerning the Barcelona FC, the website address and the company registration number – which warranted the plural use of the word “lie” in the headline.

Wishlade argues that, for him to have lied, he had to make some sort of statement – which he did not. (He said, “I did not make a statement so [the newspaper] drew [its] own conclusions.”) He adds that the newspaper attempted to discredit the entire transaction based on his personal circumstances, which had no bearing on the deal itself.

Barcelona FC

Wishlade’s argument is weak – certainly, it was not the newspaper’s fault that this football club might not have wanted to acknowledge IS’s participation publicly (for whatever reasons).

The BFC officially responded to the Herald’s enquiry. If it had indicated that the matter was sensitive and that it would prefer not to divulge any information (following Wishlade’s argument), that would have been a different matter. However, it denied any involvement with Wishlade – even if it did so in only one line. Words have meanings.

Under these circumstances, the newspaper was justified in coming to its conclusion. By this I am not saying that Wishlade has indeed lied – I am only stating that I cannot blame the newspaper for its reportage on this issue.

Website address

The membership details offered by Wishlade will not prove that IS has in fact operated from those premises.

Again, if the receptionist told the journalist that he or she was not at liberty to divulge any such information, it would have been a different matter – yet, that person specifically denied any knowledge of either Wishlade or IS.

My argument on this issue is therefore materially the same as on the one above.

Company registration number

By Wishlade’s own admission, the registration number was an “oversight”. He blames the newspaper for not making the “obvious link” to the website design company.

I don’t. The number was listed, and that was all that the newspaper had to go on.

General

Wishlade’s argument that, for him to have lied, he had to make some sort of statement – which he did not – does not hold any water. Lies can take different forms, which I do not find necessary to spell out here.

Finding

While it is not my task to decide whether Wishlade lied or not, I conclude that the newspaper was justified in its reportage based on the information it had at the time of publication.

The complaint is dismissed.

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