In addition to the dramatic court battles and public controversies that have put the Mail & Guardian in the news this year, a steady stream of smaller issues keeps my inbox full. They range from short notes pointing out simple matters of fact to long, accusatory polemics. Almost all have given me food for thought.
The complaint that generated the longest-running exchange of the year came from Donovan Williams, who had been quoted on the suspension of Mlungisi Hlongwane as head of the South African National Civics Organisation. Williams was quoted in the report as Hlongwane’s ”spokesperson and fellow NEC member”, and he objected to the first description.
Referring to himself in the third person, a style to which I would become accustomed, he said: ”One takes great exception to being described as somebody’s personal spokesperson, particularly when one had deliberately indicated under which capacity one was speaking. … One believes that the Mail & Guardian is being quite mischievous in this regard.”
In trying to resolve the issue, I found that Williams was listed on the official website of the Sedibeng municipality as the personal assistant of Hlongwane, who is mayor there. I also talked at length to Rapule Tabane, the writer of the report, who insisted that Williams had acted in that capacity several times, and had not indicated he did not want to be described as such. He also argued that readers needed to know the connection between the two men in order to judge Williams’s comments.
Wondering how big a difference there is between a ”personal assistant” and a ”personal spokesperson”, I conveyed these points to Williams, suggesting that perhaps there had been a misunderstanding about which hat he was wearing while talking to Tabane.
But Williams rejected that idea out of hand, said there was a significant difference between the two and accused Tabane of being a ”bald-faced liar”.
Several more emails followed and, in an attempt to put the matter to rest, I suggested that the paper might run a short letter from him indicating in which capacity he had been speaking.
He said he would consider the idea, and is still doing so.
Another complaint came from a group of doctors and others who pointed out a mistake in a report on a Constitutional Court decision to send back to Parliament a law changing some of the provisions around abortion.
The law sent back was the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, but many news reports, including that in the M&G, left out ”amendment” in the name.
Even though other references in the report made it clear what was at stake, the error meant the report could have been read to mean that the main Act had been struck down — which would have affected the availability of terminations. I felt the mistake should be corrected, and the paper published the letter to clarify the issue.
One of the more unusual complaints came from reader Werner Sunkel, who objected to a report on the growing trade in porcupine quills. The article was ”total bullshit”, he said, adding that the figure given for how much quills could be sold for was ”a total lie”. Clearly enraged, he said he would ”kill as many as I want [because they’re] destroying our crops and who are you to tell me I can’t kill the animals on my own farm”.
With a prominent block on page 2 of the paper inviting readers’ comments or complaints, it seems many readers write to me simply because they can’t find another address. Among them are distribution complaints. I had a spate of letters from readers in neighbouring countries complaining that Friday was not always inserted in the paper. Others were very specifically about the paper’s lateness or unavailability in places like Queenstown, Centurion and Kloof.
I also receive offers of contributions. Like the distribution complaints, I forward these to the relevant people.
The M&G’s ombud provides an independent view of the paper’s journalism. You can contact Franz Krüger at [email protected] or call (011) 250 7300 and leave a message