plastic surgeon
The November 20 to 26 edition of the Mail & Guardian carried a column by Angella Johnson headlined “An about-face on plastic surgery”. Plastic surgeon Dr Siegmund Johannes, who was featured in the article, laid a complaint with the Press Ombudsman, Ed Linington. This is his judgment.
Angella Johnson, who writes a column “View from a broad” in the Mail & Guardian, consulted Dr Johannes, a plastic surgeon, on November 16 1998 about possible plastic surgery on her face.
She did so without disclosing that she was a journalist employed by the M&G. Later that day, she telephoned Dr Johannes to tell him it was her intention to write in her column about her consultation, using his name. He was unable to take the call, so she gave the message to the receptionist with a request that Dr Johannes call her back. She made at least two more telephone calls, and she was assured that her messages had been passed to him.
In the absence of a response from Dr Johannes, Ms Johnson, in consultation with senior staff at the M&G, decided to go ahead and publish, using Dr Johannes’s name. She had spoken to the South African Medical and Dental Council (SAMDC) staff, who provided her with the relevant rules concerning use of a doctor’s name and was satisfied that her article did not place Dr Johannes in breach of the regulations.
Dr Johannes lodged three complaints:
1 The way in which the information for the column was gathered was neither open nor fair.
2 It contained factual inaccuracies and took things he said out of context, thus damaging his name and reputation.
3 It used his name without his permission, thereby putting him in possible breach of not only the SAMDC regulations, but also of the Association of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons’ regulations to which he was subject.
Dr Johannes explained that he had not returned Ms Johnson’s calls because he had been in surgery at all times when she would have been at the M&G offices. He believed that the M&G could not publish his name without his permission. He would also have wished to see the article before publication.
Her article contained factual inaccuracies, including statements about Ms Johnson’s breasts and the use of collagen from human skin. He had referred to the sutures used in a facelift as supporting the face like a bra. He had not mentioned Ms Johnson’s breasts.
On collagen, he had stated it came from pigs but had not mentioned human skin. He did not accept that the verbatim quotes attributed to him could possibly be accurate, because Ms Johnson had made only sketchy notes during the consultation.
The editor, Mr Phillip van Niekerk, and Ms Johnson explained that the purpose of not revealing that she was a journalist was to have a consultation that would reflect the experience of all women wishing to investigate plastic surgery. To have announced herself as a journalist would have defeated that object.
The article was not intended to be critical of Dr Johannes, but to reflect Ms Johnson’s feelings and fears about having plastic surgery.
As regards accuracy, Ms Johnson was an experienced journalist, and had a trained memory. She made further notes immediately after the consultation and started to write the article that same day while it was fresh in her mind.
Judgment
1 I find this complaint about Ms Johnson’s failure to reveal that she was a journalist before or during the consultation is not well founded. The method used, gained a consultation uninhibited by the knowledge that she was a journalist.
Dr Johannes, on his own statement, gave a normal consultation such as he would give any patient, in a completely professional way. It was, as he said, the standard type of consultation he had given many times. His complaint confirmed Ms Johnson’s concern that had she told him she was a journalist he would not have given her that consultation in the same way but would have referred to the plastic surgeons’ association, resulting in a sanitised version quite unsuited to the kind of article she writes.
The method used is legitimate and any other view would stifle personalised journalism such as Ms Johnson practises. The question of publication thereafter is dealt with under 3.
This complaint is accordingly dismissed.
2 The dispute about the accuracy of quotations attributed to Dr Johannes cannot be resolved with absolute certainty. It may be that some were the result of misunderstandings. I must point out that the press code is unequivocal: the press shall be obliged to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.
That obliges a newspaper to actively try to achieve accuracy. It is especially important where a lay person such as Ms Johnson is writing about a technical subject as complex as plastic surgery. The possibility that she would misunderstand and or misrepresent certain facts, however innocently, must surely weigh heavily on a newspaper editor’s mind.
Even if Ms Johnson’s memory and notes were totally accurate, that does not eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding technical matters relating to plastic surgery.
It would have been wise and proper for her to have checked technical facts with Dr Johannes before going into print. That does not mean allowing him to vet the article, which would be unacceptable.
But it is not clear whether or not she intended to check facts, as Dr Johannes did not return her calls and thus give her the opportunity to do so.
Only one of the alleged inaccuracies raised by Dr Johannes seems to be of consequence, and that is the reference in the article to breasts. The paragraph in her article, contains an innuendo that Dr Johannes had moved from discussing a facelift to lifting her bust and that this was somehow improper because, if he mentioned it again, she would punch his nose. It implies unprofessionalism and Dr Johannes strenuously denies it. I accept his version.
This complaint is upheld to that extent.
3 The dispute regarding the use of Dr Johannes’s name in the article is an unfortunate one.
I find it difficult to accept that Dr Johannes was so busy as to make it impossible to telephone Ms Johnson before publication in response to her messages. He stated that the plastic surgeons’ association was almost sensitive about publicity. That, in my view, was a good reason for him to have telephoned Ms Johnson to ask her not to use his name. To have ignored her calls, seems to me to indicate an unco-operative attitude on his part. He was therefore, to some extent, the cause of his own alleged embarrassment.
Nevertheless, it is my view that the M&G, having obtained the information for the article without revealing to Dr Johannes that he was talking to a journalist who might publish what he said, should not have published his name without first gaining his permission. The M&G took on itself the responsibility of deciding whether or not the use of his name would bring Dr Johannes into conflict with professional rules. In my view, that was unjustified interference with Dr Johannes’s right to make his own decisions in this regard.
The lack of response by Dr Johannes could not, in fairness, be taken to mean consent.
In the absence of his consent, the article could have been published without his name because, as the editor stated, the article was not about Dr Johannes but about Ms Johnson’s feelings about plastic surgery. The plastic surgeon’s name was therefore not essential, but more in the category of “nice to have”.
This complaint is upheld.