Cecilia Louw vs. Son op Sondag

Fri, Apr 8, 2016

Ruling by the Press Ombud

8 April 2016   

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mrs Cecilia Louw, resident adviser of Communicare’s House Alleyne Yeld in Bishop Lavis (Cape Town), and those of reporter Colin Hendricks, on behalf of the Son op Sondag newspaper.

Complaint

Louw is complaining about a story on page 7 in Son op Sondag of 14 February 2016, headlined Seniors sê vrou maak lewe hel – Maar ander inwoners sê sy is ’n ster.

She complains that the story:

·         reported allegations and opinion as fact, and advocated a cause;

·         did not contain any verification;

·         was misleading;

·         gave no consideration to the protection of her dignity;

·         violated her rights to personal information; and

·         contained information about religion that may have incited hatred.

Louw adds that the:

·         journalist did not ask her for her side of the story;

·         comment in the story was not protected by the Code of Ethics and Conduct; and

·         headline and “caption” (in fact, a pull-out from the text) were misleading and unfair.

The relief she seeks from the newspaper is detailed below.

The text

The story, written by Colin Hendricks, said that residents in House Alleyne Yeld were up in arms about the alleged abuse they had to endure from Louw. She reportedly also told Woolworths and Old Mutual that the residents did not appreciate their donations – upon which they stopped their aid to the House.

The article related how this, and other incidents, allegedly affected the aged adversely, and also inter alia contained Louw’s denial of the allegations.

The complaint in more detail

Allegations, opinion presented as fact; advocating a cause

Louw complains that the article presented certain statements and opinions in a manner which any reasonable reader would interpret as fact. Moreover, many of the statements amounted to accusations and suppositions. “These statements are then presented … in an unfair manner … which misleads the reader to believe they are fact, where they are not.”

One such example (see others immediately below), she says, is the statement that if it was not for her, the old people would have nothing to eat. She argues that use of the word “apparently” (“glo” in Afrikaans) in reporting that she uttered such a statement, did not make it acceptable – neither did it soften the statement that she “apparently” treated people inhumanely.

She also complains that Hendricks did not distinguish in his story between fact and opinion, as required by Section 6.1.1 of the Code that states, “Members are justified in strongly advocating their own views on controversial topics, provided that they treat their constituencies fairly by making fact and opinion clearly distinguishable…”

No verification

Louw complains that Hendricks did not verify his information, neither did he report that he had done so. She argues, “Because [the journalist] was presented with various bias(ed) and conflicting versions of my character, it was reasonable for him to have doubted the accuracy of [his information]. It was practically possible to verify each of the complaints…” She adds that, if Hendricks was unable to verify his information, he should have reported that fact.

One such example, she points out, is the statement that various companies, like Woolworths, stopped its donations to Huis Alleyne Yeld because she had told the companies that the tenants did not appreciate their donations (she denies making such a statement). Again, the reporter seemed to think that it was in order to report this allegation if accompanied by the word “allegedly”. She argues that this amounted to unfair and misleading reporting, as it was based on hearsay.

Louw adds that Hendricks most probably did not even ask Woolworths for its comment.

She lists the following examples of serious allegations Hendricks should have verified – actions which could have amounted to criminal behaviour – namely that she had:

·         wanted to throw the tenants’ food away in a rubbish bin;

·         put her fist in the faces of people;

·         switched the geyser off, thus preventing people from having access to hot water for washing and sanitation purposes; and

·         called the tenants “hungry dogs”.

Misleading reporting

The story said that Louw had on two occasions been charged in the Magistrate’s Court because of her behaviour towards the tenants; it also said that the police had regularly been seen visiting the Home – followed by the statement that she had put her fist in peoples’ faces.

Louw complains that these statements were substantially untrue.

She argues, “This line of reporting is misleading and inaccurate. Mr. Hendricks has now given the reader the (false and misleading) impression that I was taken to criminal court because I physically assault people.”

Louw points out that one particular tenant took her to court twice for infringing her right to dignity – and on both occasions the court threw the complaint out because it lacked credibility. However, Hendricks did not report this fact – he only presented the reader with one side of the story. “[A]gain, the reader cannot but draw the conclusion that the cases made against me in criminal court were legitimate and that I was successfully prosecuted for those cases.”

Moreover, the story did not state the reason for the regular police visits to the Home. “Rather, he leaves that statement at the end of a line of statements which ultimately[leaves] the impression that the police must be visiting the home because I am mistreating the tenants, or assaulting them, and the police has been called to assist [the tenants].”

She calls this part of the reportage unethical, unfair and misleading.

Dignity

Louw complains that the story has “seriously infringed” her dignity and reputation, beyond the borders set by the Code of Ethics and Conduct.

She refers to the whole of Section 3.3 of the Code:

The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation. The dignity or reputation of an individual should be overridden only if it is in the public interest and in the following circumstances:

3.3.1. The facts reported are true or substantially true; or

3.3.2. The reportage amounts to fair comment based on facts that are adequately referred to and that are true or substantially true; or

3.3.3. The reportage amounts to a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, Parliamentary proceedings or the proceedings of any quasi-judicial tribunal or forum; or

3.3.4. It was reasonable for the information to be communicated because it was prepared in accordance with acceptable principles of journalistic conduct and in the public interest.

3.3.5. The article was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the complainant was a party.

Violating rights to personal information

Louw complains that the use of her picture amounted to “personal information” – which is prohibited in Section 4.1 of the Code and which also features in Section 1 of the Protection of Personal Information Act, 4 of 2013.

She specifically refers to the following sections of the Code in this regard:

·         4.2: “The media should take reasonable steps to ensure that the personal information under their control is protected from misuse or loss, and to prevent unauthorised access to such information” and

·         4.5: “Some personal information, such as addresses, may enable others to intrude on the privacy and safety of individuals who are the subject of news coverage. To minimise these risks, the media should only disclose sufficient personal information to identify the persons being reported in the news.”

She argues that, while the media must be allowed to identify the subjects of their reports, they should also respect the personal information of people – “and where there is a possibility that the privacy and potential safety of the subject of the report is at risk, then they must only report what is necessary to identify the subject”.

Louw argues that Hendricks misused her personal information, publishing her name (both in the text and in a caption), place of residence and her image (in a story that was fundamentally false and misleading).

She says, “[The reporter] spoke to me and lulled me into a sense of security and misled me into believing that he thought that I was a good person and told me that he doubts the accuracy of the accusations against me and that he would therefore not publish the article.”

Louw adds that Hendricks took a picture of her image on the Home’s inside foyer without telling her that he did so with the intention to publish it.

She also argues that this reportage may potentially put her safety at risk. “The tenants … have families who now wonder, and probably believe, that I mistreat and abuse their family members. Many of [them] live in the township where the home is located…”

Louw says the Code does not state that the reporter is allowed to publish information to identify her image – “[it] refers only to a need to identify the subject – not their image”. She argues that Hendricks could have satisfactorily identified her by reporting the name of the Home, its location and her full name – but he went beyond the Code’s stipulation that the media should disclose only sufficient personal information to identify the subject.

Religious information, inciting hatred

The story said that Louw mistreated people because they did not turn up after she had invited them to attend a service at the New Apostolic Church. (TJEK)

Louw complains that this reference was disrespectful to her faith / religion and argues that it was not in the public interest to identify the church. She says this amounted to discrimination and was denigratory of her religion and church (which was “completely uninvolved” in this matter) as it amounted to the mustering of hatred or dislike towards the church.

Not asked for comment

Louw complains that Hendricks did not ask her for her side of the story. She refers in this regard to Section 1.8 of the Code: “The media shall seek the views of the subject of critical reportage in advance of publication; provided that this need not be done where the institution has reasonable grounds for believing that by doing so it would be prevented from reporting; where evidence might be destroyed or sources intimidated; or because it would be impracticable to do so in the circumstances of the publication. Reasonable time should be afforded the subject for a response. If the media are unable to obtain such comment, this shall be reported.”

Based on this, Louw argues that Hendricks should have sought her side of the story and have given her a reasonable opportunity to respond to the accusations. She mentions that Hendricks obtained two opposing views of her (some tenants were negative and management was positive towards her). She argues, “There was therefore reason to doubt the accuracy of some of the negative statements that he reported.”

Louw relates that Hendricks came to her room and asked her about the accusations. She says the impression she got from this conversation was that he would not report the story.

“At no point during our entire discussion did Mr Hendricks advise me that his intention was to report, in a … newspaper, the complaints that the tenants conveyed to him [or] that he intends to report each allegation and that he is duty-bound to seek, obtain and report my response to each allegation.”

She adds that the journalist did not advise her of the details of each of the complaints that appeared in the story – hence her complaint that Hendricks did not offer her a reasonable time to respond to the allegations. She mentions, as examples, the Magistrate’s Court cases and the claim that she threw peoples’ food in a rubbish bin. “If I had known the details of the complaints that [he] intended to publish, I would have given him a detailed response to each complaint. This is why I was so shocked when those complaints appeared in the article.”

Louw also says that Hendricks should have reported that he was unable to get her comment, and alleges that his behaviour was misleading

Comment not protected by Code

Louw cites the following sections of the Code, arguing that the story was in breach of each of these sections and sub-sections:

·         7.1: “The media shall be entitled to comment upon or criticise any actions or events of public interest”; and

·         7.2: “Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it:

7.2.1 expresses an honestly-held opinion,

7.2.2 is without malice,

7.2.3 is on a matter of public interest;

7.2.4 has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true; and

7.2.5 is presented in such manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”

Headline, captions, picture misleading, unfair

Section 10.1 of the Code requires headlines and captions to give a reasonable reflection of the content of the story.

Louw argues that this applies to pictures as well, and adds that the sub-heading (which stated that other tenants said she was a star) was merely an attempt to avoid contravening this section.

As far as the “caption” is concerned, she confuses it with a pull-out (a caption is text that accompanies a picture). Be that as it may, this text read, “[She] puts her fists in peoples’ faces and shouts at them”. She says it is unfair to capture someone’s biased opinion like that.

At the bottom of the story another picture was published. This portrayed only an elderly person’s hands folded over one another. “It is a sad picture which elicits feelings of sadness… When one reads the article and then looks at the picture, one cannot but get the sense that I, as the culprit, and doing these awful things to poor aged persons. The picture unfairly sets the tone for the article as one where I am abusing defenseless senior persons and one where old people are suffering under my alleged heavy hand of treatment…”

Relief sought

Louw asks for a:

·         formal, written apology to her from the newspaper in the form of an open letter, co-signed by Hendricks;

·         printed apology in the newspaper, again “co-signed” by the reporter; and

·         written undertaking by the media company that the newspaper would adhere to the Code if it chooses to report on the matter again.

The newspaper’s response Hendricks says he did not identify some of the tenants as they fear her and did not want her to “scream and threaten” them (as has happened on a few occasions). The reporter says one woman told him that while he was going home, she had to stay behind with Louw. He adds that: ·         the tenants informed him that they had raised many complaints with management – but that nothing had come of it. He adds that the manager called the tenants “troublemakers” and stated that the only person who was not a troublemaker was Louw. Hendricks states, “I found this strange as I did not interview a group of friends at the centre, who could easily have ganged up on Louw, but I interviewed tenants separately … [who] told me (about) the exact same incidents, which confirmed [the] accusations to me”; ·         he nevertheless approached Louw without preconceived ideas as there were always two sides to a story, adding that he did ask her about all the accusations – which she had denied. “I specifically remember going through each accusation made against her. I remember holding my hand at the top of the page so that she can’t see whose names I wrote next to each quote as she was very angry, red in the face and demanded that I tell her who said these things because she wanted to go ‘deal’ with them”; ·         the picture of the elderly woman’s hands was the only photo of the tenants he could take “as they were too afraid of Louw to show their faces”. He says, “The photographer chose to take a photo of the hands of Catherine Stander to show that it is an elderly person and not to stir up any emotions from the readers or to get the reader to feel a certain way towards Louw”; ·         a tenant gave him Louw’s picture – he submits that he asked if he could take a picture of her, but she replied that she was not “photo ready”; ·         he confirmed to Louw that the story would be published, with a photograph; ·         the story was in the public interest, as the community and the respective families had the right to know what transpired at the Home; ·         a donor approached the newspaper, informing it about the plight of the elderly living in the Home – he then met the donor, who wanted to stay anonymous because she wanted to continue donating. This donor told him about Louw’s behaviour (read: abuse of the elderly) and said that she (Louw) had asked her to stop donating “because they give the food and money to their children and that they do not appreciate her donations”. The donor then asked the tenants about this alleged statement, who assured her it was not true. This was confirmed by various tenants, Hendricks says; ·         one tenant, Angie Matthyse, said to him that she had thought of killing herself because of the treatment she and her fellow tenants had to endure at the hands of Louw. She then said, while banging on a cupboard and screaming, “That woman must go! We cannot live like this!” ·         another tenant, Catherine Stanfield, told him how Louw forced her fists in the faces of sick tenants and that she had started to sell their furniture while they were on their deathbeds (he says he did not mention this in the story); ·         he spoke to someone on Louw’s request, to verify that the accusations were “not true”; he also spoke to the manager of the centre as well as to the manager of corporate affairs; and ·         it was not a planned interview and he did not inform the tenants ahead of time of his visit, “so they had no time to sit and create these accusations”. One specific tenant approached him to confirm what other tenants were telling him.

Louw replies to Hendricks

Louw denies that:

·         Hendricks took her through each allegation and asked for a response to each one;

·         she said she would “deal” with those who made accusations against her;

·         the journalist told her he intended to publish the story (she says he even told her he could see she was not the kind of person that the old people were alleging she was);

·         she said to the reporter he could take a picture of her, but added that she was not “photo ready”;

·         she told donors that the elderly did not appreciate the donations, and that she told them to stop their aid – she admits that she told Ms Sylvia Stuurman (a “frequent donor”) that she, Louw, would not make donations to the Home because of the ungrateful attitudes of the residents;

·         the story reported the accusations as accusations – instead, she says, they were presented as fact; and

·         she forced her fist into anyone’s face, and that she had physically assaulted anyone.

She adds that:

·         she was emotional at the time and, even if she wanted to, was not in a state to respond to the journalist properly;

·         Hendricks should have realized that the story was not reasonably true, as she was in a position of care at the Home, and yet there had never been any complaint against her – a fact of which the journalist was aware;

·         there was no legitimate need to take a picture of an elderly person’s hands, and questions Hendricks’s argument that he did not want to stir up emotions; and

·         while the treatment of the elderly was in the public interest, Hendricks did not concentrate on the living conditions, but rather ended up focusing on her.

Regarding Stuurman, Louw says that the former’s husband died recently and that Stuurman expressed her dissatisfaction that the residents had not sent any flowers. She adds that some residents then told Stuurman that she could keep her aid to herself. Louw then told Stuurman that, in her place, she would stop her donations.

Finally, Louw says that Stuurman asked Hendricks to investigate the incidents at the Home; and asks whether any relationship exists between Stuurman and the photographer who accompanied the reporter (Melinda Stuurman).

Analysis

At an informal meeting with the newspaper we reached consensus that, while the story was by and large fair, and that the journalist gathered his information fairly, the following statements were not justified, namely that:

·         Louw had on two occasions been charged in the Magistrate’s Court because of her behaviour towards some tenants. It is true that Louw has been charged, but it is also true that she has never been found guilty. I explained to the journalist that one can distort the truth by telling only half of it, and he accepted it as such. I added that, once he referred to the court cases against Louw, it was his duty to tell the other half of that story as well; and

·         the Police had regularly been seen visiting the Home, followed by the statement that she had put her fist in peoples’ faces. This implied that they came as a result of her behaviour – while she herself had called in the Police on some occasions to help pacify some of the residents.

In this process, the reportage has unnecessarily harmed Louw’s dignity and reputation.

Finding

The two statements mentioned above under “Analysis” were unfair to Louw as the necessary context went missing, causing some unnecessary harm to Louw’s dignity and reputation.

These were in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:

·         1.1: “The media shall take care to report news…fairly”; and

·         3.3: “The media shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving dignity and reputation.”

The rest of the complaint is dismissed.

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).                                                                                        

The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are Tier 2 offences.

Sanction

Son op Sondag is directed to apologise to Louw on page 7 for the statement that she had on two occasions been charged in the Magistrate’s Court because of her behaviour towards some tenants without also reporting that she has never been found guilty, and for the impression that the Police came regularly to the Home as a result of her behaviour. These two issues were out of context and therefore unfair – causing unnecessary damage to her dignity and reputation.

The text, which should be approved by me, should:

• start with the sanction; and
• end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”.

The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.

If the offending article appeared on the newspaper’s website, the correction should appear there as well.

I further suggest (this is a mere suggestion) that the newspaper considers to publish a story on the (good) work that Louw and others are doing at the Home.

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