LIES,LIES AND MORE LIES ARE WHAT TWO MASSIVE AFRIKAANS MEDIA GROUPS PRINT TO ENABLE SHYSTERS TO RIP OFF POOR BLACKS

Dear Readers,

Prof. George Claassen

          How can this possibly be allowed 24 years after the White apartheid government was replaced by a Black one? Are we back in those much hated apartheid days when South Africa’s Afrikaner rulers felt nothing for the welfare of the Blacks they were oppressing?

          Old habits die hard with Naspers and the Caxton Group it seems if they can get away with it, and do what big business so often does – make money with no regard for the ethics of what they are doing.

          Naspers, a multi national internet and media group offering services in 130 countries, does it through its Media24 newspapers.  And so does Caxton that has 88 titles in its newspaper division.

          They think nothing of continuing to print in various editions advertisements aimed at the poorest members of our society which they themselves agree are not believable.

          The ads, clearly aimed at Blacks, promote such obvious lies as penis enlargements and instant riches all with a 100% success guarantee. The purveyors of this deceit have equally unlikely titles such as Dr Bonga, Queen Apiah, Professor Habib, Chief Juba, King Abuja and a host of others.

          The Professor Habib ad was in Media24’s Daily Sun and this learned gentleman claimed to be the “strongest herbalist, healer from Egypt” who could bring back “lost loved ones”; make your “manhood strong and thick ”and “win lotto” etc.

          While it is unlikely that this no doubt fictitious title could be confused with Professor Adam Habib the Vice-chancellor and Principal of Wits University I think the papers are playing a dangerous game. They could just libel a real person.

          As far as I know it is illegal to call yourself a doctor when you are not one, but that doesn’t bother these newspapers one iota. Making money is all they are thinking about.

Citizen ads

          I began my efforts to stop these ads being printed with Caxton’s Johannesburg based daily The Citizen. Steven Motale the editor at the time conceded that these advertisements were “not believable.” He added that he felt his paper should still carry them with a “caution.”

          But when I said this would be an admission that his paper believed the ads were dubious he replied, “It’s a tough one. I’m going to take it up with the advertising department.”

          That was in 2013. Nothing changed however and the paper, which is publish Monday to Friday and has a daily circulation of 43 480, is still coining it out of these lies in the Herbalists section of the Classifieds.

          I have now turned my spotlight onto Media 24’s Daily Sun as well as its free weekly People’s Post which has 10 editions that are distributed door to door in Cape Town. The Sun that claims to be South Africa’s biggest daily has a circulation of 174 483 while People’s Post brags of a weekly print order of 318 495.

          So between them these two publications spread an awful lot of Herbalists lies week in and week out.

          What do you think happened when I asked Professor George Claassen Media24’s Ombudsman about these dubious ads? “I see that your group is not concerned about some of the ads it is happy to carry just to make money,” I told him in an email.

          He went even further than The Citizen’s editor by saying, “I agree with you, many of these ads are totally misleading and even fraudulent.”

          Claassen should know if anybody should. This former Professor of Journalism at Stellenbosch University has written a book on quackery which was an Afrikaans best seller.

Reggie Moalusi

 Reggie Moalusi Editor-in-Chief of the Daily and Sunday Sun told me, “I don’t believe in herbalists. But I don’t impose my views on our readers. There are people who believe in them.”

It’s a real cop out for Reggie to say he doesn’t impose his views on their readers when as an editor he must surely be making decisions almost daily that affect what the paper publishes on the editorial side.

Apart from heading these two papers he is also now the Secretary General of the South African National Editor’s Forum (SANEF), the organisation that gave me the complete brush off when I tried to raise the question of these dubious ads with it some years ago. This was in spite of the fact that it claims to be “committed to promoting and support ethical discourse and conduct in the South African media.”

However he was not a member of its Council then.

          The trouble is that so many newspapers conveniently regard their editorial and advertising sections as if they are completely different entities that have no affect on one another.

          When he was appointed Media24’s ombudsman Prof. Claassen was quoted as saying: “Journalists cannot hold other sections of society, such as politicians, public figures and the private sector to account if they do not apply the same standards of responsibility and accountability to their own profession.”

          Well what’s the point in expecting journalists to do this in the editorial side of newspapers when the ones I have mentioned give a shop window to people who are lying their heads off in these Herbalists advertisements?           

          I have taken examples from the two groups that illustrate the kind of morality that is going on. These make me believe that this kind of advertising could be even more widespread in these media empires and perhaps in other groups, than just in the publications I have mentioned. 

          Prof Claassen put the blame on the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) code for being “very vague on these types of advertising.” He then referred to the old White Man’s law of caveat emptor (buyer beware) which he said “also comes into play in which the user/buyer has a certain responsibility to also make informed judgements on whether to buy a produce or use a service.”

Esmare` Weideman

          Esmare` Weideman Media24’s Chief Executive Officer relied on the same excuses when I posed this question to her: “Why does your group continue to feel the need to make money out of lies that are used to rip off the poorest sections of our community.”

          “George is correct that the ASA rules are vague, and that the user/buyer has to exercise judgment. As you know, we have a disclaimer on all our ‘smalls’ advertising pages.”

          Both she and George ignore the fact that the ASA does not publish newspapers and nor does it have any direct say as to what goes into them. So just because the ASA is not doing its job by taking action to stop these advertising lies, does that mean papers are perfectly justified in continuing to make money out of them.

          Early in 2014 the ASA had an Ad-Alert list of 19 advertisers on its website and nearly half of these were traditional healers with names like Dr Bumba, Dr Rehema and Prof. Wakho. This list is sent to all its members to ensure that those with an adverse ruling, who have not responded, can not advertise again.

          At about the same time the ASA claimed  to have “ruled against such advertisements on numerous occasions, and it is hoped that the appropriate authorities will address this issue as it is no doubt causing harm to the credibility of legitimate healers and practitioners and this industry at large.”

          The ASA, which is controlled and paid for by the advertising industry, has conveniently been structured so that it does not have the powered to order papers as whole to stop taking these suspect ads. It can only deal with complaints about the ads themselves involving its own members and it doesn’t initiate anything without a complaint.

The one time consumer journalist on that paper

          What these two media groups are doing is an indictment of the ASA’s failure to do what it claims is the main reason why it was established – “to ensure its system of self - regulation works in the public interest.”

See: ridiculous advertising ASA

          As for the disclaimer Esmare` talked about that is a published verification that her group is fully aware that what it is doing is not remotely kosher. By just publishing these ads I believe the papers are giving the services offered a certain stamp of approval in the eyes of the less educated on the basis that they would not expect their paper to lie to them.

          Here’s the one in the Daily Sun with my comments in brackets. It is headed Important Notice to Readers and goes on to tell them in the smallest of print that the paper “has not verified whether any of the services or products advertised are safe to use or will have the desired effect or outcome (Why is the paper promoting them if it is so doubtful about how genuine they are?). Readers will note that some of the promised results in the advertisements are extraordinary and may be impossible to achieve (That’s just glossing over what a lot of people would recognise as lies).  Beware some of the procedures advertised may be dangerous if not executed by a qualified medical practitioner (These ads promote some people as qualified doctors when they are obvious not). Readers are warned that they should carefully consider the advertiser’s credentials (How are the unsophisticated people who are evidently taken in by the mumbo jumbo of these herbalists supposed to do this?).”

          It ends by saying “Daily Sun does not accept any liability whatsoever in respect of any of the services and goods advertised (How can this possibly be right when the paper is promoting what it admits are lies and without its advertisements these shysters would have great difficulty in reaching the people they are out to con. In this case relying on the old buyer beware law is like driving the wrong way on a motorway with a sign on the back of your vehicle that says ‘My lawyer assures me that I cannot be blamed if anyone crashes into me because they have a duty to watch where they are going’).”

          What really should have happened long ago is that the journalists in these media groups should have exposed all these bogus doctors, professors and the like in an effort to stop them continuing to rip off the unsuspecting poor. Instead their papers have shown deplorably double standards by not dealing appropriately with that lying hand that feeds them, while still continuing to reveal the shortcomings of others in our society.

Regards,

Jon, a Consumer Watchdog of long standing and Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman, who does his best to tell as few lies as possible. And if by chance he does tells one he is happy to correct it and not blame it on a reader’s poor eyesight, the Blog Council or some other pathetic reason.
See: citizen's lies

P.S.  I have been campaigning for some time on my blog to get The Citizen to stop taking these ads. But whatever I did I could not get it to cease publishing them. Although the ASA has deplored these ads it is clear that it is not serious about getting papers to stop taking these money spinners. When I tried to lodge complaints about the ads with the ASA I was given a complete run around. I was referred to the Print & Digital Media SA (now defunct) in 2014. Caxton was one of the members. They also claimed they did not have the power to stop this kind of advertising and I was referred back to the ASA. I then tried Terry Moolman, Caxton’s CEO and co-founder. He didn’t reply but his PA emailed me to say my inquiry had been passed to Paul Jenkins, Caxton’s Group Chairman and Chairman of the Social and Ethics Committee. I got no reply from him either and the lies continue to be printed in the Herbalist section of The Citizen. It also blocked me on Twitter as some kind of reprisal for exposing its dubious advertising practice on my blog. I was equally unsuccessful when I tried to get SANEF to take a stand against these ads. It claims to be “founded on high ideals in an industry that around the world is often maligned for its lack of integrity,” yet Mathata Tsedu, its director at the time didn’t bother to reply to my email even though I phoned him to make sure he got it. He is a former editor of City Press, which is a Sunday paper in the Media24 stable. Editors clearly won’t take a stand against newspapers over this for fear of putting their jobs on the line in a relatively small media environment.
But I have no job to lose.

WHY THE SUNDAY TIMES WILL NEVER EXPOSE THIS ON-GONG SCANDAL

Dear Readers,

Caxton's Terry Moolman

          The latest edition of the Johannesburg based Sunday Times carries a revealing special report supplement to celebrate its 110^th anniversary.

          In it the current Editor Bongani Siqoko tells us: “We have brought down to earth the most powerful for exploiting the poor and the downtrodden of our country.”

          That might have been in the past but is that what’s happening now?

Why has his paper ignored a deplorable scandal that without a doubt is “exploiting the poor and downtrodden of our country” and has been bringing big business handsome profits for years?

The Sunday Times even has it own Consumer Watchdog Megan Power who writes a column each week.

To make matters worse it’s been there for all to see week in and week out effectively bringing the morality of newspapers in general into disrepute.

Under the heading of Herbalists the daily newspaper The Citizen is coining it with advertisements from people fraudulently calling themselves doctors, professors and all kinds of other experts. They promise the poor and uneducated miracle cures, instant wealth and a host of other dubious ways to improve their lives.

All for a price of course.

Even the Editor Steven Motale agreed with me TWO YEARS AGO (citizen's dubious ads) that these advertisements were not believable, but his paper has never stopped churning out these lies.

          Money takes preference over morality at this publication that has a daily circulation of 51 000. Surely by taking ads from fraudsters the paper is just as culpable because it is aiding and abetting them to rip off the unsuspecting, especially when the paper knows that what it is printing is NOT TRUE.

No wonder the South African Editor’s Forum (SANEF), which claims to be “committed to encouraging ethically driven media”, says on its website that the newspaper industry around the world “is often maligned for its lack of integrity.”

Well with papers like The Citizen, that doesn’t even believe in the veracity of everything it prints, you can understand why this industry has that unenviable reputation.

Needless to say as far as I know not a single member of SANEF has done anything to try and stop this immoral practice at The Citizen. In fact when I tried to get comment from this upholder of free speech I got a rude brush off (questionable ethics).

The Sunday Time’s anniversary supplement might have inadvertently provided the answer as to why neither the Sunday Times, nor SANEF or any other newspaper in South Africa has yet had the guts to take The Citizen to task for so badly bringing down standards in the industry.

A story headed CAXTON HAS A LONG RELATIONSHIP WITH TIMES MEDIA explained it all.

            Caxton Printers in Johannesburg is the largest single-site print factory in the country, it revealed. “In total, 103 different products, including some 10 daily newspapers and six weekend newspapers are printed at the site,” Jaco Koekmoer, 

CEO of Caxton Cold Set was quoted as saying.

          “These include the Caxton owned The Citizen, as well as many of its free community newspapers, in addition to the daily and weekend newspapers the company prints on behalf of other publishers, such as the Times Media group, owners of the Sunday Times.”

          He said that while they had previously printed supplements for the Sunday Times they had been printing the main body of the paper for the last three and half years.

          So that’s why the Sunday Times and every other paper in South Africa together with all their editors find The Citizen’s lucrative blight on the media is far too hot to do anything about.

          It is even being ignored by the South African Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a media finance body, that once told a judge that “Publishing misleading  advertising is intrinsically harmful to consumers” and that it was “only the ASA that monitors the advertising industry as a whole and responds to complaints speedily and effectively.”

          So “effectively” that it also lies because when I submitted complaints to it about these dubious ads in The Citizen it refused to consider them (ridiculous asa).

          I have no doubt that if a different kind of business was being run contrary to the public interest the Sunday Times would not hesitate to set its investigation reporters onto it in keeping with its motto: The paper for the people.

Siqoko claimed in that anniversary report that his paper “will remain non-aligned.” But no doubt that does not apply in the case of The Citizen because they are all in bed together.

And those who sleep together stick together.

Regards

Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman who exposes media LIES when nobody else will.  

P.S. In the past I tried to get comment from secretive media baron Terry Moolman, Caxton’s majority shareholder, but I got nowhere. (caxton bosses duck dubious advertisng issue)                                                                                         

PRESS OMBUDSMAN THROUGH ROSE COLOURED GLASSES

Dear Rob Rose,

         In your column in the Sunday Times you told us that the media is kept on a tight leash in South Africa by the Press Ombudsman Johan Retief who is the main adjudicator for the Press Council.

         Well I’m sorry to have to tell you that’s not true. For a start he only considers complaints, so if a newspaper misbehaves the Ombudsman does nothing unless he gets one.

         The other disturbing aspect is this. In my experience complaints get put into two categories – those from the somebodies and those from nobodies.

         If you are a somebody such as a member of the government, a prominent businessman or a member of the legal profession he is far more likely to find in your favour against an offending newspaper than if you are a nobody like me.

         What happened when I complained that the business section of your paper (Business Times) that you write for continued to use a freelance after he had been exposed as a crook under a Noseweek magazine headline High on the Hogg: How Jim Jones ripped off his website employers and then spun the story?

JIM JONES FORMER BUSINESS DAY EDITOR

         Worse still he spun the story in your Business Times to make his former employer Moneyweb look bad (See Press Council’s Brand of Justice – Parts I & II).

         The answer is nothing. My complaint was dismissed by Retief.

         What happened when I complained that the Sunday Times continued to publish clearly dubious get-rich-quick advertisements? Alright I know that the Press Ombudsman conveniently doesn’t deal with advertising complains , but in this case your paper’s internal ombudsman had given an editorial undertaking that something would be done about these.

         I was vindicated completely when people responsible for some of the ads were subsequently exposed by Carte Blanche, the TV investigative channel for defrauding investors out of millions.       

The answer again is nothing. My complaint was dismissed by Retief.

         And when I tried to appeal against his rulings former Judge Ralph Zulman, head of the Council’s Appeals panel, decided my cases did not merit further consideration.

         You mentioned a perfect example of how a somebody gets treated. In winding up the estate of Barry Tannenbaum, who perpetrated the country’s biggest Ponzi scheme, the lawyers and liquidators took more than half of the R100-million collected as their fees and costs. As you know the lawyer for the liquidators complained about the general tone of the Business Times report headed Lawyers gorge on Ponzi cash.

      

JOHAN RETIEF

   The Ombudsman dismissed most of the complaint but decided that the use of the word gorge had been inappropriate. His absurd explanation, which you reported was that even though the trustees may have been ‘gorging’, it was not for the paper to state this as a fact when the phrase ‘drained money’ should have sufficed.

         Talk about splitting hairs. It appears that he felt he had to give the lawyer something.

         In the column he used to write for Business Times Steve Mulholland accused one of the somebodies the Deputy Director of the Department of Public Enterprise of wrong doing without giving the proof.  After the Director complained to the Ombudsman your paper was ordered to apologise.

         I’m not criticising this decision, but what I am saying is that basically this complaint was no different from my ones which were dismissed. In all the cases what your paper did was obviously wrong.

         In your puff for the Ombudsman you wrote If a publication errs even in one tiny respect the Ombudsman forces it to publish a prominent apology.

         Again this is not true as my complaints alone show and I’m sure there are many other examples.

         Also from what I’ve seen apologies are seldom if ever given the same prominence in papers as the original story.That in itself is immoral. Publications usually do their best to place them where as few people as possible will see them.

          The main part of the Sunday Times had the correction below tucked away on Page 4 whereas the So Many Questions column that it appeared in took up about a quarter of a page on Page 21 the previous week. As this is a regular feature my feeling is that this correction should have been in the column.

         I know this was not something the Ombudsman ordered, but it illustrates how corrections are often handled.

         Your high handed assumption that it’s a common refrain from halfwits and crooks that the press is unaccountable and sensationalist, a third force bent on abusing its self-appointed position as the fourth estate, suggests that it’s perfect.   Well I’m not a crook so there’s only one other category I and anybody else like me who has a beef about the way the press behaves can fit into, in your opinion.

         In the days before blogs and social media the only avenues available to the average person who believed a paper was abusing its position was to write a letter to the editor, complain to the Ombudsman or in extreme cases take costly legal action.  

         Letters however could be easily censored or not even published. And anybody who tried the Ombudsman’s route had to bear in mind that the Press Council’s slogan is: Effective self-regulation is the best system for promoting high standards in the media.

         They would think that wouldn’t they? It’s like appointing and paying the judge at your own trial. How they have been allowed to get away with this as long as they have I don’t know.

         If that’s not abusing its self-appointed position as the fourth estate I don’t know what is.

         Now halfwits like me can take to a blog to tell the world about the shenanigans in the newspaper business that papers don’t want anybody to know.

         Like the results of my complaints to the Ombudsman that I have already mentioned.

         Like Johannesburg’s The Citizen that is making money out of cock (literally) and bull advertisements that even its own Editor agrees are not believable (See The Citizen’s Aladdin’s Cave of Unbelievable adverts).

         Like the refusal of the Caxton Group, the owner of this paper; the Print & Digital Media SA, to which most newspaper publishers belong and the South African Editor’s Forum to even acknowledge that this abuse of the press exists, even though I have brought it to their attention (See Caxton’s Bosses duck dubious adverting issue; Print and Digital Media’s appalling hypocrisy and Editors’ questionable ethics).

         Like the Advertising Standards Authority, the adverting equivalent of the Press Council, that refused to take my complaints about the Citizen’s ads that are exploiting the poor and unsophisticated with promises such as penus enlargement and instant wealth (See Ridiculous Adverting Standards Authority).

         Halfwits like me can even extend their blog tentacles across the world to tell everyone who is interested what the dicey members of the fourth estate are up to in Britain.

         Like the National Union of Journalists, that claims to be the largest organisation of its kind in the world with about 38 000 members, that has given up policing its bad eggs. It did take complaints from the public about its members some years ago until they became so numerous it could no longer afford to do this (See National Union of Journalists’ protection racket).

         You can understand why it was that in this environment the 168 year old News of the World that was once the biggest selling English paper anywhere had to close after its phone hacking scandal final burst into the open.

         No doubt it was brought down by other halfwits like me.

         When it comes to halfwits, as Editor of the Business Times it’s hardly the brightest thing to do to promote fiction as fact in your column in a paper that is read by millions.

         Regards,

         Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman who tells it like it is and not like some of the papers would have it.

P.S. If only I was a somebody I would have a prima facie case to submit to the Press Ombudsman about all the incorrect statements you have given as fact in this column of yours.

EDITORS' QUESTIONABLE ETHICS

Dear Readers,                                               

       

Mathatha Tsedu

  My campaign to get the Johannesburg based The Citizen newspaper to stop carrying adverts that even its own editor agrees are not believable led me to the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF).

         My posts The Citizen’s Aladdin’s Cave of unbelievable adverts; Ridiculous Advertising Standards Authority; Print & Digital Media’s appalling hypocrisy and Caxton Bosses duck dubious advertising issue didn’t make the owners of the paper blush even slightly.

            So I took the advice of Ingrid Louw the CEO of the Print & Digital Media SA (PDMSA). This has as its members all South Africa’s major newspaper publishers including Caxton, the owners of The Citizen.

        As these decisions on what content to included or not to include is taken by editors, she told me, I suggest that a discussion be held with the South African Editors Forum who could address it as a strategic industry imperative.

         SANEF is a voluntary forum of editors, senior journalists and journalism educators from all areas of the media industry in South Africa.

         Its current director is Mathatha Tsedu a journalist of considerable standing who was SANEF’s Chairman in 2010. He was recently seconded to this position by his employers Media24 which is part of Naspers the country’s biggest media empire. There he headed its Journalism Academy.

        

He has a very impressive CV. Last year he was awarded Media24’s All Time Legend Award. He has won a host of other awards including the Nat Nakasa one for courageous journalism. A Nieman fellow he is a former editor of City Press and the Sunday Times and he was also the deputy editor of both The Star and the Sunday Independent.  

         He was fired as the editor of the Sunday Times after less than a year because Johnnic Communications, the owners at the time, accused him of not sticking to his contract with the result that the paper lost circulation and consequently revenue.                                               

         His version was that the management and staff had not supported his efforts to Africanise the paper, which was denied by the owners.

         So as somebody who was prepared to put his job on the line for the African cause I thought he was the ideal person to back my crusade to get rid of these adverts that are designed to rip off less sophisticated Africans.

         Attached to my email was a letter in which I gave him the history of my campaign with links to all the posts and I said that it was Louw’s idea that I contact SANEF.

         I mentioned that on its website SANEF claimed to have ideals similar to all the organisations that I had so far contacted.

         This is how my email continued:

         It says that ‘SANEF is founded on high ideals in an industry that around the world is often maligned for its lack of integrity.’

         This is understandably when you have papers like The Citizen that is quite happy to publish fiction for profit with nobody in the industry prepared to do a thing about it.

         Your website goes on to tell us under a Vision heading that you aim to ‘promote quality and ethics in journalism’.

        

Some Commitment???

And under your Values heading you claim to stand for ‘integrity, tolerance, accountability and the public interest.’

         Well it certainly can’t be in the public interest for any newspaper to carry advertisements that are clearly not true and are designed to rip off people particularly the less sophisticated and poorer sections of our community.

         It remains to be seen now if SANEF will live up to the ideals it sets and be ACCOUNTABLE.

         What follows is the sad story of my email conversation with this legend of the profession.

          JOURNALISM might not be a crime but what about some of the
ADVERTISING

10 June: This, my first email with my letter attached, was mistakenly addressed to a previous SANEF director but sent to the address director@sanef.org.za  I said: Hopefully your organisation will do what no other one has been prepared to do so far. And that is to take a stand against newspapers that carry extremely dubious ads. When I got no reply I phoned SANEF and the lady who answered alerted me to my mistake and told me that Tsedu was now the director and he would still have got my email.

13 June: In this email which was addressed to Tsedu I referred to my mistake and said that my previous one had probably been given to him, but just in case it hadn’t I was attaching the letter as if it was addressed to him. I ended with, Please let me know what you decide.

17 June: I would be much obliged if you could reply, I asked.

I RECEIVED A ‘READ REPORT’ FOR ALL MY EMAILS.

It was like trying to get a reply from Caxton’s top executives all over again.

         When I still got no reply I phoned Tsedu’s office several times but he was not in. I finally managed to speak to him on 18 June. And this is how the conversation went.

Jon: Are you going to answer my email?

Tsedu: At some point.

Jon: When will that be?

Tsedu: When we are finished with what we are dealing with.

Jon: What are your immediate impressions?

Tsedu: I haven’t looked at the attachment, your link.

        

         I am not holding my breath waiting for a reply as I don’t expect to get one.

         But I do have this observation and you readers may or may not agree with me.

         I am sure you will agree that if you started speaking to me while you were standing in front of me and I completely ignored you I would be regarded as being very rude.

         Well my belief is that not acknowledging an mail when the sender knows you have received it is the technological equivalent of this.

         Regards,

         Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman and Consumer Watchdog, who does his best to right the wrongs that the establish Media is happy to go along with.

P.S. Before posting this I sent it to Tsedu and invited him to correct any factual errors and to make any comments he wished.  I GOT NO REPLY.

CAXTON'S BOSSES DUCK DUBIOUS ADVERTISING ISSUE

 Dear Readers,

                                                                                                           

Paul Jenkins

         You may have noticed that I have been trying to get the Johannesburg based The Citizen newspaper to be responsible by ceasing to carrying unbelievable advertisements. They promise all kinds of miraculous health cures with medicine that does such things as enlarging your manhood. Then there are lucky wallets that make you rich over night and instant answers to just about all life’s problems.

         When my first post THE CITIZEN’S ALLADIN’S CAVE OF UNBELIEVABLE ADVERTS (Unbelievable ads) had no affect I tried South Africa’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

         This authority that is supposed to police advertising rejected my complaints out of hand even though it had previously ruled against similar advertising (Ridiculous ads).

         The ASA passed me on to the Print & Digital Media SA (PDMSA), an organisation of virtually all South Africa’s media owners that has the Caxton & CTP Group, the owners of The Citizen as one of its members.

         It too refused to take any action even though it claims to promote high standards and integrity within the print and digital media industries (Appalling hypocrisy).

         Next I tried to contact Terry Moolman, Caxton’s co-founder and CEO who is the controlling shareholder of a group that turns over R5-billion year. From the beginning that appeared even more hopeless than my other efforts.

A rare picture of TERRY MOOLMAN

         Dubbed The Invisible Media Baron he keeps such a low profile that when I phoned his flagship paper The Citizen and asked for him the girl on the switchboard had never heard of him. EHe heads an empire that consists of the daily newspaper The Citizen, plus numerous local newspapers as well as magazines and a massive printing section that not only produces the Group’s own publications but others as well.

         But even though he has this huge media business he apparently never gives interviews.

  

       The nearest I could get to The Invisible Man was to send an email to him via his PA. I asked why it was that the The Citizen continued to carry ads that even its editor agreed were not believable. I referred him to my post about this and pointed out that his Group’s Code of Ethics stated that the Group acts in an open and honest way in all its dealings and was socially responsible.

         The Code stipulated that all the managers and directors have a responsibility to ensure that this Code is adhered to at all times. I added that as his Group was a member of the PDMSA this also set certain standards of integrity.

         I told him that I did not believe that what The Citizen was doing complied with the PDMSA’s principles or his Group’s own Code of Ethics.

         In keeping with his Invisible Man reputation I got no reply from Moolman but his PA told me my email was passed to Paul Jenkins, who is described as the Group Chairman and Chairman of the Social and Ethics Committee.

         I gave it to him and he was going to respond, she told me. That was on 20 May 2014.

         After that I sent two more emails trying to get a reply. In my last one addressed to Jenkins and dated 26 May I asked, Can I now assume that you will not be commenting on my email?  And that you have nothing to say about The Citizen’s dubious advertising even though you appear to be in charge of ethics for the Caxton Group?

         A week has now elapsed since this email and it doesn’t look as though I will ever get a reply.

Caxton's Advertising Committee

         Could it be that there is more than one Invisible Man in the top echelons of the Caxton Group when it comes to the ethics of whether or not to continue making money out of advertising fiction in a newspaper?

         Yours sincerely,

         Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman and Consumer Watch Dog who can’t necessarily win them all, but he can certainly spotlight the things that are very wrong.