Ruling by the Press Ombud
19 October 2016
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Davin Phillips, on behalf of Ms Boity Thulo, and those of Dumisane Lubisi, executive editor of the City Press newspaper.
Thulo is complaining about a story on page 3 in City Press of 11 September 2016, headlined ‘Boity’s house’ is on the market.
Complaint
Thulo complains that the story falsely:
· stated that her house was on the market; and
· portrayed her as experiencing financial difficulties.
She adds that the:
· disclosure of her address and the estate’s name has placed her security at risk; and
· journalist did not contact either her or her manager (Phillips) for comment, that she might have had the wrong contact details, and that the journalist should have made more of an effort to get hold of her in time
She asks for a retraction and an apology to be published on page 3, and for all internet links within the Media24 stable relevant to this story to be taken down.
The text
The article, written by Ntombizodwa Makhoba, said that the R3.75-million “crib” about which TV darling, Boity Thulo, boasted on social media four months ago appeared to be back on the market. In May this year, she reportedly posted pictures of herself at her new pad holding a “sold” sign. This was followed by a message which concluded, “To God be the glory.”
The story said that the property was listed on privateproperty.co.za, adding that a deed search did not reflect any property registered in Thulo’s name.
Arguments
In addition to her complaint, Thulo:
· asks City Press to check the credibility of its source(s), as the information that her house is on the market is false;
· declared under oath that she had not put her house on the market and that she still resided there; and
· contests that the journalist made reasonable efforts to get hold of her (or of her manager) for comment prior to publication.
Lubisi replies as follows:
House on the market; financial difficulties
The editor says that the newspaper:
· came into contact with a source who offered to facilitate an appointment to view Thulo’s house. This source claimed that the house was on the market as Thulo had failed to secure a bond;
· checked the property listing website www.privateproperty.co.za in an attempt to verify its information (but did not find any reference to Thulo);
· compared the photographs on the website and the pictures Thulo had posted on social media, which showed it was the same house – and this was confirmed by an estate agent;
· performed a deed search on Thulo’s name, but no property came up on the system indicating any registration in her name;
· did not state it as fact that Thulo’s house was on the market – the introductory sentence said it “appears to be” back on the market; the story also included a quote from an estate agent who would not confirm this information; and
· chose to omit the information garnered from a source that Thulo could not obtain a bond, as the journalist could not independently confirm this information. He adds, “Even so, the inability to obtain a bond does not point to financial distress – self-employment, for example, is a considerable hurdle to getting a bond.” He argues that right-thinking people would not think less of a person who fails to secure such finance – and the story was not intended or understood to be defamatory of her.
Security risk
Lubisi says Thulo herself widely published pictures of the house on social media and posed with a “sold” sign containing the cellphone numbers of estate agents. “It would take … one phone call to find out where the house is. The house is being advertised online and any member of the public can find that easily,” he argues.
He also submits that the story did not provide a complete address, and adds that the name of the estate was relevant to the story.
The editor concludes that the newspaper took reasonable steps to minimize potential harm and exposure of Thulo’s address. One also has to bear in mind, he says, that purchasing property is a public process. “We submit that the complaint that City Press created a security risk in their reporting, is overstated,” he says.
Not contacted for comment
Lubisi says the journalist attempted to get comment from Thulo on numerous occasions. The editor lists the times of several phone calls as well as SMS messages to two numbers the newspaper has obtained, the first call having been on Friday, September 9 (at 15:30), followed by many calls the next day.
In addition, he says the reporter phoned Thulo’s management company as well as one of her acquaintances – but these calls also went unanswered. The call to the company was after hours, and Lubisi says there was no forwarding contact number.
The editor submits, “City Press believes that it did everything it could to try and reach Miss Thulo to get her comment on the story before publication.”
Makhoba signed an affidavit (under oath) that she had phoned Thulo for comment from a landline on September 9. However, this phone was off and it did not ring or go to a message. “I followed up the call with an email to a gmail address that was in my contact book. I noticed a message that it had bounced back on Saturday morning (September 10),” she added.
Liesl Webber, stand-in editor on the City Press news desk on September 9 and 10, confirmed in her affidavit that Makhoba had debriefed her about her attempts to contact Thulo (as described above). She also stated, “I hereby confirm the authenticity of the attached document, printed at 13:52:08 on Saturday, September 10, when Ms Makhoba debriefed me after a number of attempts to contact Ms Thulo. My notes indicate, among others, the call at 15:30 and the email sent at 18:18. Ms Makhoba looked up the time of the email while I stood next to her desk.”
Analysis
House on the market; financial difficulties
I need to take Thulo’s affidavit that she has not put her house on the market seriously.
Secondly, Lubisi is correct in saying the information that Thulo’s house was on the market did not necessarily point to her experiencing financial difficulties. However, the way the story was written, even though not stating it pertinently, did suggest that she was. This made the veracity of the information that her house was on the market all the more important.
I believe the story suggested that Thulo was in financial difficulties, inter alia based on the following statements in the article:
· The house is worth R3.75 million;
· Her message on social media that she was “gobsmacked” at how God continued to show off His love through her life. “This wasn’t a part of the plan, but here I am‚ able to gift myself with a house at the age of 26. I am in complete awe. To God be the glory,” she reportedly wrote;
· Some people wondered how she could afford a monthly bond of between R35 000 and R40 000; some even speculated that a blesser was footing the bill; and
· A deed search did not reflect any property registered in the name of the TV actress (despite her initial jubilation).
I also note that, while the story said the house “appeared” to be back on the market, thus not stating it as fact, the headline did go further (read: stating in fact that her house was on the market.)
Therefore, I asked Lubisi:
· how many sources the newspaper used for the story;
· if he was willing to disclose the identity of this source (or sources) to me on condition of anonymity; and
· how sure he was that the source(s) was/were reliable and credible.
The editor mainly repeated his argument as recorded above, but added that:
· City Press had spoken to its sources over a period of a few months;
· he is willing to disclose the identities of the sources to me – which he did;
· the newspaper obtained a third source, who confirmed the information; and
· the headline did state it as fact that the house was on the market, but City Press believes it was justified to say so. “Looking at the steps that were taken before the article was published, the headline clearly captured the events truthfully. At the time, Ms Thulo was not registered as the owner of this property, the property listing further confirmed the very same fact that the house was indeed available for anyone who would be interested in it. The headline clearly reflected the truthfulness of the news around the house at the time of writing.”
Based on the newspaper’s sources and its deeds search (read: the information that it had at the time of publication), I believe it was reasonable for City Press to report, as an allegation, its information that Thulo’s house was on the market.
It follows that the same goes for the insinuation that Thulo might have been in financial difficulties.
However, with regard to the headline, I note an inconsistency in Lubisi’s arguments – on the one hand he contends the story did not state it as fact that Thulo’s house was on the market, but later on he submits that it was reasonable to state the headline as fact.
One cannot have both.
The headline clearly did not reasonably reflect the content of the article.
Of course, the statement of fact in the headline that her house was on the market made the subtle suggestion that Thulo was in financial trouble not so subtle anymore. These two issues go hand in hand.
In other words: I am satisfied with an insinuation that Thulo might have been in financial trouble if it was based on an allegation – but if it was based on fact, the insinuation in question would be much stronger and, in the circumstances, unfair.
Security risk
The question is whether the article has placed Thulo’s security at risk.
The story mentioned that the house was situated in Midstream Ridge Estate in Centurion, but not the exact address. I also take into account that Thulo herself has put her house on social media.
Based on these considerations, I do not believe that this part of the complaint can succeed.
Not contacted for comment
The story stated, “City Press attempted to call and SMS Thulo on two numbers and sent emails, but received no response by the time of going to print. Attempts to reach her via friends were also unsuccessful.”
City Press presented me with a plethora of evidence to prove that it did attempt to get hold of Thulo and her manager prior to publication.
I agree that Makhoba could have explored other avenues to reach Thulo. However, I also accept that she did make honest attempts to contact Thulo – and, even if she used the wrong contact details, the fact remains that the reporter did go out of her way to reach her.
Finding
House on the market; financial difficulties
The statement of fact in the headline that Thulo’s house was on the market was in breach of Section 10.1 of the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct which reads, “Headlines … shall give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question”.
The implication that Thulo was in financial trouble was too strong when based on the statement of fact (in the headline) that her house was on the market. This was in breach of Section 1.1 of the Code which states, “The media shall take care to report news … fairly.”
Security risk
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Not contacted for comment
This part of the complaint is dismissed.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above is a Tier 2 offence.
Sanction
City Press is directed to apologise to Thulo for stating as fact in the headline that her house was on the market and for the all-too-strong suggestion that she was experiencing financial trouble.
The text should:
· be published on the same page as that used for the offending article;
The headline should contain the words “apology” or “apologises”, and “Thulo”.
If the offending article was published on any web page, the apology has to be published there as well.
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 Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombud