Janet Waters vs. Tabletalk
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Janet Waters and those of Chantel Erfort, Editor: Cape Community Newspapers.
Complaint
Waters is complaining about a story in Tabletalk of 10 June 2015, headlined Wedding party unhappy with service at eatery.
Her main complaint is that the story painted a distorted and unfair picture of her, and that the pictures and captions were used out of context.
More specifically, she complains that Maestro’s CEO, Mark Tarica, was quoted as saying that she was malicious, vindictive, bullying and intimidating, which was defamatory of her, and unnecessarily harmful of her reputation.
Waters also complains that the following statements were inaccurate and misleading, namely that:
· she was in shock when she got to the venue;
· some guests were sitting with their backs to each other;
· she could sit down when the food arrived “and wipe[d] the sweat off my brow”;
· it took “hours” for the coffee to arrive; and
· she was not charged for tea and coffee.
She concludes that most of these issues made her look petty and small-minded, suggesting that she unnecessarily complained about trivial issues.
The text
The story, written by Athina May, was about Waters being unhappy with the service she got at her daughter’s wedding, celebrated at Maestro’s on the beach, Milnerton (Cape Town).
Analysis
In shock; wiping sweat from her brow
The story quoted Waters as saying:
· “When I got to the venue, I was in shock. I had just never seen anything like it before. There was a pillar inside the venue and the wedding table was put behind the pillar…”; and
· “When the food arrived, I could sit down, relax and wipe the sweat off my brow…” (after she reportedly had to serve drinks to the guests).
Waters denies making such statements.
Erfort says, “Athina clearly recalls Ms Waters making these statements, and has these quotes noted in her notebook.”
Waters asks why she would have been in shock. “I’d been there before but it is made to sound like I’d never seen the pillar before. It was only when the bridal couple arrived and we went to take our seats that I realized what a mess-up it was.”
She adds that she never used the phrase “wipe the sweat from my brow”.
My considerations
I have obtained May’s notes, which were quite elaborate.
The first quote:
The words “I was in shock” do not appear in the notes. This, together with the fact that Waters had already seen the pillar, makes it reasonable for me to believe that the reporting on this specific issue was inaccurate and unfair.
It is puzzling that the story said the wedding table was put behind the pillar, while the notes state, “Wedding table in front of pillar, family behind table”. (Emphasis added.)
The second quote:
The words, “wipe eyebrows” are in the notes – this essentially corresponds with what May recorded in her story.
Guests sitting with their backs to each other
The story quoted Waters as saying that “[s]ome guests were sitting with their backs towards each other.”
Waters complains that she actually said that some people at the bridal table sat with their backs to the guests. She argues it is normal for people to sit with their backs to each other.
Erfort quotes an e-mail by Waters as follows: “The bridal table had guests placed there plus people were seated with their backs to the guests”. She argues, “I think it’s fair to say that this could be understood as meaning that guests were seated with their backs toward each other.”
Waters asks why May did not ask for clarification; she maintains that she was speaking about the bridal table.
My considerations
The sentence on which May based her reporting is indeed open for interpretation – the words “people were seated with their backs to the guests” were used in the same sentence as a reference to the “bridal table”. I therefore do not blame the reporter for getting it wrong on this matter – but still, this was apparently a wrong interpretation and should therefore be corrected.
Photographs, captions used out of context
Waters complains that the pictures and captions were used out of context.
Picture Caption What it “should have been”
| The wedding cake (which was at some stage moved to another table). | “The cake was placed in the corner of the room away from the wedding table.” | “This is where the wedding table should’ve been”.
|
| The bridal couple toasting, with Waters looking on. | “Patrick Bray toasts alongside his wife Dianne while her mother Janet Waters looks on.” | “This is where the wedding table was”. |
| The wedding couple cutting the wedding cake. | “Patrick and Dianne Bray cut their wedding cake.” | “The cake was moved to reposition guests who were sitting at the bridal table with their backs to the room.” |
Erfort replies, “I’m not sure why she feels they have been used out of context when these are the photographs that she herself sent to us… In this (first) picture, the cake is photographed next to the flowers. In her correspondence with Athina, Ms Waters noted that the bridal table should have been where the flowers are, which can be interpreted as meaning that it should have been next to the table with the cake on it.”
My considerations
Waters had supplied Tabletalk with the pictures. I have seen the originals, and I am satisfied that there was no tampering or cropping out of context.
That leaves me with the captions.
May has asked Waters for “proof”, which was why she gave the pictures to the reporter in the first place. Clearly, the captions missed the point – the photographs were meant to show where the wedding table was, where it should have been, and that the cake had been moved to reposition guests.
Again, there was no malice here. Yet, the first caption may have left the impression that Waters was complaining about trivialities.
This needs to be rectified.
Taking ‘hours’
The sentence in question read, “[Waters] said guests had ordered coffees which took ‘hours’ to arrive due to load shedding, so the guests decided to leave and the coffees were brought to an empty table…”
Erfort concedes that there is no specific reference to “hours” in the reporter’s notes – only an e-mail by Waters, stating that “guests had waited so long that they had already left”.
My considerations
If the word “hours” had not been placed in inverted commas, I may have decided that the exaggeration was not serious enough to justify a finding of being in breach of the Press Code. However, the word “hours” was in inverted commas, which suggested that Waters had used this specific word.
Given Erfort’s concession, as noted above, I have no option but to find against the newspaper. When a reporter quotes somebody, that quote should be accurate.
Charged for coffee
The story quoted Waters as saying that she had been charged for coffee; it also quoted Tarica, who said it had been complimentary.
Waters provided me with proof that she indeed had been charged for coffee.
In later correspondence she says, “It appeared as if I had told a lie which affects the credibility of my complaint and my credibility in general.”
Erfort admits that, after Tarica told the journalist that the coffee (and tea) had been complimentary, she should have gone back to Waters with this counter-claim. “She subsequently sent me proof of payment thereof.”
My considerations
I agree with the editor – May should have asked Waters for comment on this issue. While it is true that she was not the subject of critical reportage (Section 2.5 of the Code), the publication of Tarica’s statement did affect Waters’s credibility and therefore required comment from her.
Malicious, vindictive, bullying, intimidating
The story quoted Tarica as follows: “I think [Waters] was making it up to be vindictive. I was led to believe that she was bullying and intimidating the staff…We don’t reply to malicious and unfounded accusations. When people are friendly, we reply.”
Waters complains that these statements were defamatory of her, and unnecessarily harmful of her reputation.
In later correspondence she says, “I would also like to know how they justify calling me ‘malicious and vindictive’ for letting someone know I’m unhappy with the service… I was also ‘unreasonable, bullying and intimidating’… My character was attacked and my credibility was denied.”
Erfort does not reply to this part of the complaint.
My considerations
I have repeatedly stated, over the years, that allegations do not qualify for publication just because somebody has made them, as they may unnecessarily tarnish a person’s reputation and dignity.
As my office is not a court of law, and defamation is a matter for the courts, I am not in a position to find against a publication on this issue. I may, though, decide that a person’s dignity and reputation have been unnecessarily tarnished (Section 4.7 of the Press Code) – which, I believe, has happened in this case. If a newspaper publishes such serious allegations, it should have reasonable grounds to believe that they are true.
Petty, small-minded
Erfort denies that the story portrayed Waters unfairly. “We allowed her the opportunity to raise her very valid complaints and gave the restaurant the opportunity to respond.”
Waters replies, “No single incident was worth [complaining about]. It was the series of incidents that upset me.”
My considerations
I have to agree with Waters. When one looks at the issues in isolation, most of them were “small”. When looking at them in context, though, a different picture emerges – one that unnecessarily tarnished Waters’s name, dignity and reputation.
Finding
In shock; wiping sweat from her brow
The statement attributed to Waters, that she was in shock when she arrived at the venue, was inaccurate and unfair, and in breach of Section 2.1 of the Press Code: “The press shall take care to report news…accurately and fairly.”
The rest of this part of the complaint is dismissed.
Guests sitting with their backs to each other
The sentence in question was an honest mistake – but still, it was inaccurate, and therefore in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code.
Photographs, captions used out of context
The complaint about the captions is upheld as they were in breach of Section 10.1 of the Press Code: “[C]aptions to pictures shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report or picture in question.” Again, the journalist merely missed the point, and no malice can be ascribed to the formulation of the captions.
The complaint about the pictures is dismissed.
Taking ‘hours’
The use of the word “hours”, used in quotation marks, was inaccurate and therefore in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code.
Charged for coffee
Tabletalk did not verify Tarica’s statement on this issue, which proved to be incorrect. This is in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code: “A publication shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication…”
Malicious, vindictive, bullying, intimidating
The allegations in question have unnecessarily, and without enough ground, tarnished Waters’s dignity and reputation. This is in breach of Section 4.7 of the Code: “The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation…”
Petty, small-minded
Taking all the “small” mistakes into consideration, and given the serious allegations made against Waters, the story unnecessarily tarnished Waters’s name, dignity and reputation – which was not only partly inaccurate, but also unfair to her. This is in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
Looking at them in isolation, the following statements were Tier 1 breaches:
· Waters said she had been in shock;
· People at the bridal table sat with their backs to the guests;
· The captions;
· It took “hours” for coffee to be served; and
· Coffee was complimentary.
Viewing all of the above together, and in context, the mistakes become a Tier 2 offence, as the over-all impression of the story may easily have projected Waters as having been petty and small-minded.
The publication of Tarica’s allegations (that Waters was malicious, vindictive, bullying and intimidating) is a Tier 2 breach of the Code.
Sanction
Tabletalk is directed to apologise to Waters, on page 3, above the fold, for unfairly portraying her as petty and small-minded, and for publishing serious allegations made by Tarica against her. The newspaper is also asked to correct the mistakes as outlined above.
If the story appeared on its website, the apology should be published there as well.
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as “Matter of Fact”, or something similar, is not acceptable.
The text should be approved by me, with input from Waters. It should end with the words, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding.”
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 Ombudsman