Wednesday, August 19, 2015

AWARD WINNING MOMMY BLOGGER'S CRY FOR HELP

Dear Mothers Everywhere,

          Hopefully you will agree that you are the role models for your children, particularly the female ones.
          So if you go off the rails there is every chance that they will do the same thing.
          Celeste Barlow is one Mom who doesn’t seem to be able to appreciate this aspect of parenting. To make matters worse she advertises the fact on her blog for the whole world as well as her three small children to see.
          If she was single her behaviour wouldn’t matter so much, but there are four others (husband/partner - if she still has one - and her three children), who are being tarnished by her apparent inability to recognize the harm that she is doing.
          I appreciate that judging by what she writes on her The reluctant mom’s blog; sub titled, I am still saying FK a bit more than I should she is probably suffering from the after affects of postnatal depression.
            In 2011 she wrote: “I struggle to keep sane in my insanity. Right now I am a *yellow lifeboat bobbing along quite nicely with my bottle of Chenin Blanc.”  

* The Beetle's 1966 hit Yellow Submarine
was said to be a symbol of the way they
were isolated from the world by their fame.

There are various other interpretations as well.
  
          Currently from what she says she is being treated for depression.
Is this an acceptable reason for her to put her three children, the oldest of whom must be in his early teens, through the embarrassment her blog must be causing them? Children these days are very tech savvy almost from birth so hers are no doubt well aware of what Mom gets up to on her blog.  
          She even has pictures of them all with this caption: “I am the person most likely to be voted: ‘she who does not want children’ – straight shit happens when you are hopped up on estrogen.”
          Her well presented blog hit the Twitter fan after she wrote a post complaining about Pick n Pay’s latest promotion in which they give away one little rubber toy called a Stikeez for every R150 spent.
The tongue in cheek side of her rant was very much overshadowed by the unacceptable (to most people anyway) language she used about this very successful campaign that has kids clamouring to collect them.
          If you are able to ignore the filth she has some goods points, particularly for mothers of more than one child, like how difficult it is if you have three children and you have only spent R300. Two Stikeez don’t divide into three without some heartache.
         
Celeste won the Kidz World best Mommy Blogger in 2012 and 2013 and had the top Best Parenting Blog in the South African Blog Awards for 2010.
          Kidz World is an online resource directory. Its founder Cara Mullin told me that they never endorsed the views of any of the participating bloggers. The winner with the most votes was chosen by their own readers and Mullin said they never received any complaints about the content of any of the blogs.
          It’s not surprising that Celeste won because her Blog has clocked up an impressive total of nearly one million page views. So I can’t tell you if her Stikeez muck was the norm without going through all her many posts or whether she only used this kind of shock tactic for this one.
          What is certain is that judging by the pictures of this glamorous Mom she definitely doesn’t need to stoop to profanities to attract attention.
            Headed: “Larry at Pick n Pay and my wishes around venereal disease” it contained a liberal use of that FK word she talks about as well as other dirty language.


           Larry was evidently a fictitious character she claimed had come up with the Stikeez idea at this supermarket group.
          It ended with this obscene message: “I hope you get a chlamydia – and your entire team. And it is drug resistant.”
          But not before she had referred to her youngest daughter, who looks about five, as an “ungrateful little bitch” because she cried when she unwrapped a Stikeez which her mother had spent “R150 on crap to get” only to find it was not the one she wanted.
          “She has 14 Stikeez,” her mother went on. “Quick Maths. 14xR150 = fuck load of money.
          “She seriously burst into tears.
“I seriously lost the last bit of shit on this subject.”
          In the middle of it all Celeste had a Side Bar about her ex-husband’s girlfriend “who died tragically and suddenly last week.”
          Talk about bad taste, actually no taste at all.
          Journalist and a mother herself Louise Marsland tweeted, “Funniest thing I’ve read all week. Esp for parents who shop at Pick n Pay.” She included the link to Celeste’s post.
          Pick n Pay instructed her to, “kindly remove your tweet as the content is highly inappropriate.”


          The supermarket chain was absolutely right. Barlow’s post is extremely inappropriate especially as she has three small children and the promotion is for fun things for kids.
          However instead of dealing with this aspect Louise took Pick n Pay to task in an article on Bizcommunity.com headed “How to blow your brand in five minutes,” for having the temerity to ask her to remove the offending tweet.
          She accused the company of shaming its brand “with one stupid tweet.”
          Louise and many other women had nothing but praise for Celeste’s sick post.
          The questions I would like to ask them are these:
          Would they think it’s still okay if their own children were habitually using the same kind of obscene language that Celeste advocates?
          Do Celeste and the rest of you think her boy and her girls are proud to have a mother who swears like a trooper indelibly in public because that’s what a blog effectively is?
          Do you all think they like her bragging about the amount she drinks?
          Do you and her think that her rock bottom standards are a good example for children to follow?
          Has it ever occurred to all of you that if her children get told off at school for swearing they might justify it by saying, “My Mom does it and she says it’s alright?”
          Has it ever dawned on any of you that they could be ridiculed at school about their Mom’s blog?
          Louise and everybody else who thought this was so funny should read Celeste’s entire blog, not just the controversial Stikeez post. Then they will realise that her life is not a bit funny at all.
           It’s a constant battle. It follows that her unhappiness must have affected her children and those closest to her.
          Her misery appears to have been compounded by her divorce.
          Even her own conscience pricks her now and again into thinking; “Some days I am really proud of the shit I say - some days I am embarrassed - some days I have no recall of what happened yesterday.”
          If it embarrasses her what does it do to her kids, the rest of her family and her friends?
          The seriousness of her condition can be judged from some of the other frank admissions on her blog.
          Like: “In June 2011 I opted back on as much medication as my pharmacist and friendly pill doctor would legally allow. So far so good.”
           And: “I am partial to Chenin Blanc. Okay a lot of Chenin Blanc.” What on top of all that medication?
          Her tell tale blog paints a very depressing picture. Her situation is exactly the opposite of “good.”
          To me her blog is a plaintive cry for help. She is like a child swearing at the top of its voice in a shop’s isle to get its mother’s attention.
            It’s a long way from being a joke. That post is not really about what she called that “8 cents crap toy.” It’s a lot, lot more important than that could ever be.
           Somebody desperately needs to step in urgently to get that yellow lifeboat she’s in safely to shore and to give her the support she so clearly needs.
          Where are the parents or other close relatives of this 39 year old when they are so badly needed?
          All those who are in a position to do so will you now please, please rally round this obviously talented woman to get her back on the right track where she belongs.
          There must be a much more personal way to get her over her depression than bottles of wine and piles of pills.
          My immediate suggestion, which I accept is a frivolous one that will not in any way solve the real issue, is for Pick n Pay to give all her children a complete 24 piece Stikeez set right now.
David North
          So I put the idea to the Group’s CEO Richard Brasher. David North, the Group’s Executive for Corporate Affairs replied on his behalf and I sent him a draft of this post.
          Initially he said: “It’s a nice idea which various people have suggested to us and my colleagues are following up.”
          Pressed for a more definite answer he made it clear that Pick n Pay was not prepared to play ball with the Mommy Blogger story anymore.
          “I am not keen for Pick n Pay to be involved in a continuation of the controversy of last week. As you know we apologised for the tweet that caused the furore.
          “I ask that you write your piece without referring to the question of whether we sent extra Stikeez to the family or not. I genuinely do not want us caught up in another social media discussion, this time not of our making.”
          So the “nice idea” which I felt would have done his firm far more good than any possible harm didn’t stikeezy with this corporate giant.
          Celeste I hope you get better soon and no longer feel the urge to make these ugly personal protests on the internet.


         They just shatter the beautiful image that your photograph portrays.
          Regards,
          Jon, a Consumer Watchdog who unfortunately doesn’t get it right all the time.
 
Raymond Ackerman
P.S. Sorry *Raymond we might have been at the same school together and in the same house at Bishops, but when it comes to this sort of thing ‘Business is Business’ I’m afraid. I couldn’t agree to David’s request not to mention his response to my proposal. I merely told him that I would quote what he said.
*He is Pick n Pay’s founder who stepped down as Chairman in 2010. 


Thursday, June 25, 2015

THE GIRL STAR OF ABSA BANK'S CUSTOMER CARE

Dear Credit Card users,
           Shona Herbst is the star of Absa Bank’s customer service even though her name is far down its who’s who list.
On this occasion she completely outshone the top brass including possibly Maria Ramos the Bank’s head, who is also the CEO of Britain’s Barclays Africa Group which now owns Absa.
          I say possibly because I sent emails to maria.ramos@absa.co.za but I never got a reply from her. I know that CEO’s like her are very busy and have to be protected from complaining clients like me, but what’s the point in her having a personal email address if she doesn’t reply personally.
          Shona, who works at a small branch in Cape Town, had the final answer to my problem after head office had bungled its way around for months with inexplicable answers to my many emails and phone calls.
          Here is her story. 
          Actually it’s mine but she is the heroine.      
          I was the victim of a scam on my Absa credit card by a company from goodness knows where with the picturesque “merchant name” of Pinnacle.com8668076974.  
          The worst part of my experience however was the way Absa’s head office in Johannesburg sided with the crooks.
          When both my wife and I had been loyal clients for something like 20 years I didn’t expect my word to be completely ignored especially when it was backed by solid facts.
          My case was fortified even further by numerous internet tales of woe of people having been defrauded by what was clearly the same organisation because the method, the product and even the amounts of money matched my experience.  
        

         
The only person who believed me from start to finish was Shona.        
         


        Here’s what happened.  In August 2014 I was Googling away when I came across this Marie Claire magazine cover that was all about skin care. With it were two trial offers for creams at R110 each. I completed the on-line order for one of each with my credit card details and the transactions went through on 7 August 2014 according to my card statement.


Initially I didn’t think there was anything odd when the order failed to arrive as there had been a postal strike in South Africa.
          I was only alerted to the scam in December when I got my card statement showing that two unauthorised amounts of R1087 had been charged to my account the previous month in the name of these two products. So I contacted Matt Loy head of the Digital section of Associated Media Publishing that publishes Marie Claire in South Africa.
          He told me that the cover I had seen was a fake as they had never run or promoted the banners in question. He said this looked like a scam and suggested I contact my bank as soon as possible to request a charge back for all the amounts.                 

 So that’s what I did at my local Long Beach Mall Absa Branch. There Shona picked up the phone right away and told the Card Division to reverse all four payments.
          This is how the saga continued.
February 2/ 2015: I followed up with an email to Absa’s Disputes department giving the reference number Herbst had given me.  “I was told the amounts involved could be reversed,” I wrote. “Can you tell me what is happening about this?”
That’s when the bungling started.
February 9: Disputes consultant Minzelle van Wyk replied by email asking me for all the details I had already given to the branch. I told her she should be able to get this with the reference number the branch had given me otherwise what was the point of me being given one. I also tried to call her at the 086 number given at the bottom of her email. The woman who answered said they did not know her. And when I told her Minzelle was in the Disputes department she said they could not put calls through to that section.

February 10: My next move was to complain to Yolande Fourie CEO Complaint Adjudicator who I got when I phoned the CEO’s office about the bad service I was getting. She emailed me saying she was sorry about the way I had been treated and asked for the name of the person at the branch who had helped me “as disputes seem to have a problem tracing the information.” I replied saying, “I realise it is not your fault but it certainly caps it all to hear that Disputes has lost the information” I then repeated my complaint to her.

February 11: I emailed Yolande again saying that Doctor (that appears to be his name) Mohlala the manager of the Disputes department at her Credit Card Division had phoned me to ask me for the information in the email I had just sent her. “He said he hasn’t been in touch with you when I told him I had given you the answers to the questions he was asking,” I explained. “It seems the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing at Absa.”

February 11: Evidently as a result of Shona’s call my card was credited with all four amounts although I was unaware of this at the time as I had not yet seen my statement dated February 13.
February 12: Yolande emails me to say she has escalated the matter “to card Division” and she gives me a new reference number. She evidently didn’t know that the amounts had already been charged back.

          I was relieved when I saw the four credits on my February 13 statement and I was happy everything had been sorted out without me losing a cent.
          How wrong I was.
          What the bank didn’t tell me until well into April 2015 was that when the credits were made they kept me in the dark about the possibility that they could be reversed at a later stage when the “transaction vouchers” were received from the merchant.

April 14: My card statement showed that the four transactions were back.

It was now more than six months since my card was debited with the initial amounts and I still hadn’t received the creams they were expecting me to pay for.

April 16: When I told Yolande what had happened she replied that she could not help me as she was on maternity leave. She suggested I contact my branch, the card division or I could email CEO@absa.co.za.  This email address is misleading. It gives the impression that it gets you straight to Maria Ramos. It doesn’t. You get an automatic reply and it’s not a direct line to her.

          After calling head office once more I started all over again, this time with another CEO Complaint Adjudicator Charmaine Sharp.

April 21: Here’s what Sharp told me in an email with my comments in brackets. “The items (charges) were returned in February as per your request, but were presented again as according to the company this is a valid transaction. You need to provide proof that you have tried to stop these transactions.” I replied saying that on 14 December 2014 I sent an email stating that “on 7 August 2014 I bought a trial offer of the two skin creams and I authorised for a total of R220 to be taken off my card. Needless to say I have not received the creams and now more money is being deducted from my card quite illegally. I can only conclude that this cream promotion is a swindle unless you can convince me otherwise.” The reply I got was that my ticket had been submitted and I must let them know if I have any issues. No name of the sender or the company was given. Charmaine attached 56 pages the firm had sent to justify that the transactions were valid and added, “According to the tracking sheets the goods were delivered as well. You need to provide proof that you have returned the goods” (This was impossible as I had never received them).

The merchant’s documents themselves prove what a fraud it was but the Bank ignored the obvious discrepancies. The staff kept repeating that I must be liable because I gave my card details; agreed to the Terms and Conditions (T&Cs), even though I never saw them and had received the goods. Here are some of the many examples that showed how the supplier’s laughable gaffes completely supported my allegations.

Example 1: The firm stated: “Received email (this is the one mentioned under April 21 above) 14/12/14 disputing trial charge, didn’t receive yet. Replied with terms and conditions verifying shipping address and offering reship and 25% refund.” This was not the reply I got and I never saw the T&C’s until they were sent in the bundle of 56 pages. These showed that they had evidently got another scam mixed up with mine. They referred to products which I never ordered. “So who in their right mind would accept these conditions?” I asked my Bank. “I ordered Cellapuria and Amabella to improve the skin whereas the T&C’s referred to weight reducing products Cleanse EFX and SlimGenix Pro.”

Example 2: The T&C’s also allegedly gave them the right to automatically deduct various amounts from my card on a monthly basis after my initial order with other impossible to comply with conditions.

Example 3: The firm claimed I was “still benefiting from the product I received in exchange for this transaction” and that it was sent to me by “Registered letter.” It never dawned on Absa’s head office staff that in South Africa registered letters have to be collected from the post office where you have to sign for them and show your ID document. And no evidence of this was produced as it never happened.

April 28: After telling me she was now closing the case on her side Charmaine sent me feedback she got from Nell Skosana, another Disputes consultant. Skosana in her wisdom decided that the bank was not “authorised to cancel any transaction” on my behalf. She quoted from Clause 16 of the Bank’s own Credit Card T&C’s that states “No dispute of whatever nature between the cardholder and a supplier shall exempt the cardholder from his liability to the bank in respect of payment.” It also stipulated that no dispute between me and a supplier would allow me to instruct the bank to refuse to pay a supplier or to do a charge back. This took the absurdity prize that Absa had already won hands down in its handling of this matter to a new height. “If this is the part of your T&C’s that you are now relying upon why did Absa reverse my payment in the first place,” I asked. “And if I can’t instruct the bank to do charge backs why do you have a whole charge back department?”

April 29: Charmane sent me Dawn Minnaar Team Leader, Issuing Chargebacks' “final response from the Card Division.” Here’s what Minnaar said in her email and my reply with my subsequent comments in brackets. “As stated by the merchant, the cardholder accepted the Terms and Conditions at time of purchase and the goods have been delivered. Due to all the attached information and validity of all the information (this was not true as all the information was definitely not valid as I have shown earlier in this post), we cannot assist further and suggest the cardholder contact the merchant to resolve the issue with them to obtain a refund.” My response to Minnaar was: “Are all my emails being given to the people (at least nine people or more dealt with this at one stage or other - a system tailor made for mistakes) who are taking decisions in this matter because I can’t believe the lies that are being circulated about me in emails by members of Absa’s staff. In your email you state as fact things that are not true. You say I accepted the Terms and Conditions when I never saw them, so I could hardly accept them. That’s how the fraud works. Don’t let the customer see them and then put much higher amounts through his credit card and claim this was according to the Terms and Conditions. How many people would knowingly give an unknown company what was virtually a blank cheque to draw against their credit card? You also say the ‘goods were delivered’ with the only inference being that either my wife or I received them and are denying that ever happened.” I pointed out that the T&C’s referred to weight reducing products when I had ordered ones for skin care. I also gave her links to five websites that mentioned people who had been scammed by what appeared to be the same people.

April 29: Charmaine tells me “The matter will be sent to the Fraud Department.”       
     
When I was at my branch I felt I should give Shona an update on the latest developments. She immediately phoned the Card Division and arranged for my card and my wife’s (her’s is linked to mine) to be cancelled and for new ones to be issued. She did what head office should have done months earlier. Very effectively with just one phone call she stopped the crooks from getting any more money                               from my account.

May 5: Charmaine gave me this encouraging news: “If you do not stop or attempt to stop the transaction Card Division cannot assist and it will be debited against your account again.”

May 5: I told the supplier I had received no product; I didn’t want anything of any kind from it and they were not authorizing to deduct money from my credit card. The surprising reply was that all further shipments to me had been cancelled but there was no mention of amounts already taken off my account.



May 6: In an email addressed to Maria Ramos I sent a copy of the May 5 email mentioned above that I had received from the supplier. I told her: “On  the face of it the crooks have decided that they have milked this cow long enough with the help of Absa Bank  and it’s now time to move on to another sucker. The way this entire case has been handled by Absa’s head office staff has been absolutely shocking. Absa is aiding and abetting crime, hardly a good example especially when it is a sponsor of Businesss Against Crime SA which describes one of its roles as ‘to get business’ own house in order’ by eliminating crime-enabling processes. Well it’s obvious that Absa’s house is far from in order.”

May 7:  Much against the run of play I got an email from Minnaar saying that all four amounts had been credited to my account once again. 

          I decided to pass the details of my experience on to Wendy Lucas-Bull the Chairperson of Barclays Africa in the hope that she would do her best to ensure that no other Absa client gets the same treatment if they get scammed like I did.
          She has been described as the “saviour of banks” after turning an ailing First National Bank around when she was its CEO so I couldn’t have had a better person to contact.
          She got Ian Smith, Head CEO & Specialist Complaints at Barclays Africa, to looking into my complaint. Shona had done the right thing he told me. “We have congratulated her via telephone and a formal note to her line management. Truly appreciate your support and the time taken to acknowledge our staff on a job well done.”  
          THANKS AGAIN SHONA FOR BEING THE BRIGHTEST LIGHT IN YOUR BANK. THANKS FOR KEEPING PERSONAL SERVICE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ALIVE IN AN AGE WHEN IT HAS ALL BUT BEEN REPLACED BY IMPERSONAL CALL CENTRES AND INEFFICIENCY.

Click here:
Good and Bad Banks

Regards,
          Jon, a long standing Absa Bank client who had every right to anticipate far better treatment from the head office staff.

P.S. As a Consumer Watchdog I can’t always be wide awake especially as I am required to be on guard most of the time. However this has been a valuable eye opening lesson about loyalty - the client can be this to his Bank but he can’t automatically expect to get it in return. 




                                                                                                                                                     




          

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Immoral Press apologies & fact or fiction at the Sunday Times

Dear readers,

          Newspapers in South Africa are notorious for the sickening way they deal with apologies as the country’s former cricket captain Greame “Biff” Smith has just found out - firsthand.       
They can blacken somebody’s name by making a story a lot more scandalous than it actually is. Worse still in this technological age it can be picked up by other publications and blogs and in a flash it is all around the world.
You would think that the South African Press Ombudsman Johan Retief was there to stop this kind of injustice. You would be wrong, he’s actually the kingpin in a window dressing charade designed to give the impression that everything is being done to stop the papers publishing lies about people.
 It’s a cosy arrangement that has the press not only policing itself but judging it as well.
 He’s effectively the judge appointed by the Press Council that is set up and paid for by the media to allegedly keep its house in order.
The Smith case, which I believe is typical of a lot of others, revealed how well or badly the system works depending which side you are on.
In 2003 Graeme Smith was at 22 South Africa’s youngest captain of the Proteas as the South African cricket team is called. Last year he shocked the cricketing world by announcing his retirement after representing his country in 117 test matches 109 of these as captain which is a world record. He was also the skipper for 53 tests wins, another world best. A dogged opening batsman he set numerous other records as a player.
         His nickname Biff is derived from Buffel, the Afrikaans word for Buffalo.
          On March 8 in a front page lead loaded with sensationalism the Sunday Times cleaned bowled Biff’s impressive reputation. The story was splashed across the front page under the huge headlines: Divorce by SMS: How Biff lied to his wife – Friends reveal shocking details of Graeme Smith’s secret plans to end marriage.
SMITH AND HIS FAMILY IN HAPPIER TIMES
          This quoted “friends” of Smith’s wife Morgan Deane as having said that he mistakenly sent her an SMS saying he was filing for divorce and that he had lied because he had previously told her he had arranged for them to have marriage counselling.
          The knife was plunged deeper on Page 2 entitled: Biff lied to his wife about secret divorce plan.
          On Page 20 it belittled him further by naming him its Mampara (South African slang for a fool or idiot) of the Week with the heading: Caught in his own slips.
Readers were told “as fact” that Smith had sent the controversial SMS to his wife by mistake as it was meant for his attorney.      
          The posters proclaimed: Greame Smith’s divorce shame.
          At the time the story appeared he issued this statement: “It is disappointing that certain segments of the media have chosen to publish speculation and accusations as regards the means and manner of our marriage breakdown. It is tempting to respond, however other than to deny the accusations that have been published, I have chosen not to comment.”
         
         Subsequently when he appealed to Retief for a review he got a typical newspaper friendly response.
          The Ombudsman directed that the Sunday Times had to “apologise to Smith for stating the allegations (that he advised Deane via SMS that he was getting a divorce, that he lied to her and that he had a secret divorce plan) as fact in headlines, in Twitter and in Mampara of the Week and for suggesting without supporting evidence some wrong-doing on Smith’s part by the wording of the posters – thereby unnecessarily harming his dignity and reputation.”
          He ordered the Sunday Times to print a “short apology on the front page immediately below its masthead containing the words ‘apology’ or ‘apologises’ (or something to that effect) and Smith’s name in the headline.”
          For a press ombudsman his ruling was hardly precise.
          He added that there must be a “full apology on Page 2.” The words “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding” had to be at the end of the text and the “full apology” had to be on the Sunday Times website “if the offending headlines were published there as well.”
          Surely Retief could have easily established if the headlines were published on the website.
          As it turned out he let the Sunday Times off the hook almost completely by allowing it to publish a minute apology that was a fraction of the size of the original story. There was nothing on Page 2.
IF YOU CAN SEE IT THE APOLOGY IS ON THE RIGHT
whereas the original story was on the left with an even bigger
headline than the SARS one here
          When I asked him why this was he replied: “The idea was to have a kicker on Page 1, referring to the apology on Page 2.”
          So if he had had his way the apology would not have even been on Page 1.
          “However,” he went on, “the newspaper offered to publish the full apology on Page 1 which made text on Page 2 redundant.”
          What about the offending posters? My bet is that there were never any posters announcing the apology.   
          I asked Retief why the Press Council did not make newspapers print apologies in the same position as the original story and with the same prominence.
          It’s hardly surprising that the Council has that covered in favour of the media with a Complaints Procedure that according to Retief “asks for appropriate prominence.”
          Appropriate for whom? An apology that is a fraction the size of the original story with a tiny heading would I am sure not be “appropriate” in Smith’s eyes.
          The word is defined as being “suitable or proper in the circumstances.” Only Retief and the Sunday Times would agree that the apology in this case complied with this definition.
          In this part of his finding which the Sunday Times readers could only see on the Press Council’s website Retief concluded: “By making a decision that the publication of the headlines/Twitter was unjustified, I am not finding that the allegations made against Smith are false. For all I know they may be true. I simply do not have any evidence to either effect, besides, the Press Ombudsman’s office is not a court of law – it is an institution of ethics. My decision is therefore not a judicial, but rather a journalist one.
          “All I’m saying is that, with the information at the newspaper’s disposal at the time of publication, it was not justified in stating the allegations as fact in the headlines and in the Twitter feed.”
          How ethical is it to allow the paper to get away with such a tiny apology. And if he did not know if the allegations were true or false how could Retief possibly say that he knew what information the Sunday Times had at its “disposal at the time of publication.”


          Retief’s full judgement contained some very confusing statements as well as this odd throw away line: “I have on various occasions stated that the mere fact that an allegation has been made does not by default justify a newspaper to publish it – allegations can be baseless, defamatory and they can cause huge unnecessary harm. Be that as it may.”
          “The report consistently ascribes those allegations to ‘friends,’” he continued. “It is clear that the allegations, whether factually correct or not were the views of people.”
          He referred to Section 4.7 of the Press Code that states: “The dignity or reputation of an individual should be overridden only by a legitimate public interest if the facts reported are true or substantially true.”
          Having concluded that the Sunday Times report was based on allegations from an anonymous source he made no ruling about the report itself even though his own findings showed that it should not have been published at all. This was in spite of the fact that he had “little doubt” that it had “done unnecessary harm” to Smith’s “dignity and reputation.”
          Retief’s admission that his decisions are “journalistic ones” explains exactly why the Press Council has a Constitution that is loaded in favour of the newspapers it claims to police.
          Is it a conscience-salving new twist to have the Council’s web address included in the apology which was a cop out for what should have been a punishment of some significance by being in the paper itself?
          The Press Council is a toothless media lap dog that has only one way of punishing transgressing publications and that is to order them to print the kind of pathetic apology the Sunday Times was told to carry.
          By coincidence the African National Congress (ANC) Government has revived its call for a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal that would be able to fine offending papers and perhaps meet out even harsher sanctions.
          A couple of years ago the papers in the Sunday Times group had Thabo Leshilo a veteran journalist and former editor as their own internal Ombudsman or Public Editor as he was called to act as the readers’ representative..
          He was there when the ANC first mooted the idea of a Media Appeals Tribunal. Possibly because of this he advocated in one of his columns that apologies should be on the same page as the original story and just as prominent.
          “This if followed should go a long way to addressing most of the legitimate criticisms of our newspapers and improve their credibility,” he wrote.
          You can imagine how popular that was. So shortly afterwards he disappeared and was replaced in 2011 by another former editor Joe Latakgomo. He too did not last long and was not replaced when he left.
          The hierarchy at that newspaper group evidently decided that the Press Council was more than enough to contend with, without having its own Ombudsman coming up with embarrassing, reader friendly bright ideas.
          In its quest for reader grabbing sensationalism did the Sunday Times overstep the mark again in its very next edition following the one with the Smith apology. On May 24 its front page lead was headed: Trevor Noah’s family tragedy with the subtitled: Yet another female relative killed.


          The story was about the funeral of South African comedian Noah’s 24 year old cousin who was murdered. Noah and the girl were not close, the paper reported as they lived in different provinces, according to his grandmother, but they knew each other.
          The strangest part of the story was that the paper claimed the girl’s relatives had not yet been able to tell Noah about the girl’s death and the Sunday Times had been unable to contact him for comment as he was abroad.
          It got stranger still when Noah tweeted: 
          He followed this with: 
          Then News 24 reported that the Sunday Times Editor Phylicia Oppelt was standing by her paper’s report while at the same time it claimed to have spoken to Noah’s 88 year old grandmother who rubbished the Sunday story as being completely untrue. 

          Even The Times, the daily in the same stable as the Sunday Times was ominously silent on the subject in the following days.

         
          Now that Noah has really hit the big time by being named the successor to Jon Stewart on the The Daily Show, the American late night TV news satire his name is a huge draw to have in any newspaper headline.
          Could this have been the main motive for the Sunday Times story?
          It will be interesting to see what Retief decides if he gets a complaint about this one.

                                A WEEK LATER ON MAY 31

          Having been quoted earlier as standing by her paper's Noah report of May 24 the Sunday Times Editor Phylicia Oppelt came up with this wishy-washy apology that took up nearly half of Page 4.



        "Clearly we had not delved down into the facts as deeply as we should," she wrote. "On reflection should this story have been offered to readers in the condition that it was? No. 
        "Was it sufficiently weighty to be offered as the main story on our front page? No."
        Nowhere in her long winded explanation of why her paper got it wrong did she mention the one aspect that was the key to getting it right. And that was to get Noah's view before the story was published - one of the basics of good journalism that every cub reporter is taught.
        But when the Sunday Times could not get hold him it couldn't wait to get into print as if this was a world shattering scoop. The result was that Oppelt had egg on her face two weeks running.
        In typical newspaper style the headline for her apology was an innocuous one design to disguise what really happened.
        It would  have been too daring for it to have said something like: Sorry we got our Trevor Noah 'family tragedy' story wrong. Here's how it came about.
          Regards,
          Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman, who tells you what the main stream media would rather keep mum about.