ALBERTON – On February 23, 2014, Carte Blanche broadcast a programme, especially concerning Ekurhuleni businessman and ANC Councillor of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Council, Mr. Neil Diamond and his wife Justine.
The broadcast related to the sale of the wedding venue known as La Montanara to Casino Retail and Mr. Diamond acting as the executor of a deceased friend’s estate. The program did not relate to Mr Diamond in the execution of his official duties as a Public Representative of the ANC.
Mr. Diamond instructed Jurgens Bekker Attorneys to lodge 30 individual complaints and a collective complaint regarding the broadcast as a whole at the BCCSA.
The Diamond’s essentially claimed that Carte Blanche failed to provide the Complainants, Mr Diamond in particular, with a right of reply on some of the crucial matters, thereby allowing the formation of opinion based upon incorrect facts. The Diamonds also complained that Carte Blanche infringed on their dignity and right to privacy.
Ruling:
The Tribunal held unanimously that, judged as a whole, the broadcast succeeded in unjustifiably portraying Mr Diamond as a person whose integrity is questionable. This result was in the main achieved by omitting to broadcast material made available to it and was likely to have cast a different perspective on the entire matter.
The BCCSA found that Carte Blanche should have included more of Mr Diamond’s response to the allegations made by Carte Blanche. The BCCSA also held that it was incorrect to refer to an “eviction order” being served on Mr Diamond, when in fact only an application for eviction had been brought, and this implied the Mr Diamond was in breach of a court order, which was not the case. Carte Blanche was reprimanded for breaching clauses 28.2 and 28.3 and 28.4 of the Code of Conduct.
The BCCSA has ordered that Carte Blanche, without comment, and at the start of the first or second programme after the issue of this order, broadcast what was regarded by the Tribunal to be the essence of the finding.
Summary of main errors:
In summary, the main errors, in terms of the Code made by the Respondent were the following:
(a) Omitting to state that the parties had agreed to identify which items belonged to each of them as part of the court application of Casino Retail – wrongly said to have been an application by Mr Diamond in the broadcast – against the attachment. This would, to a certain extent, have softened the implication that the Diamonds had stolen the content of La Montanara. There is a reference to a pledge in the broadcast, but the overwhelming effect of the attachment and Mrs Fourie’s accusations in the empty La Montanara is that the Diamonds had stolen the furniture etc.
(b) Omitting any reference to the affidavits of Mrs Fourie’s brother as to her knowledge of, at least, some of the defects in La Montanara and that she was not declaring them to a potential purchaser; and also that Ms Fourie, the executrix of the estate of her late father, had given permission that the Diamonds rectify the defects (countering her statement on air that she had not signed the permission to Casino Retail to correct the defects).
(c) Wrongly creating the impression that an eviction order had been granted against Casino Retail and that they were thus, in conflict with a Court order, still occupying La Montanara. This, to our minds, substantial error was admitted by Carte Blanche at the hearing of this matter.
(d) Omitting (a further substantial error) any reference to the opinion of senior counsel that Mr Diamond had acted in accordance with what was legally permitted for an executor. And further, that Carte Blanche was wrong when it stated that Mr Diamond had taken control of Sonex. Once again, senior counsel had pointed out that this was not so. The opinion was in the possession of Carte Blanche. In any case, a close study of Mr Diamond’s own affidavit, in the possession of Carte Blanche, would have explained his actions in protecting the late Mr van der Walt’s family after his suicide.
Comment:
The Diamonds remarked that it was a costly and lengthy fight against Carte Blanche to have their dignity and reputation restored. Diamond said “We are vindicated by the BCCSA, but as keen Carte Blanche viewers we will be a lot more apprehensive about the integrity of their stories in future.”
Attorney Andrew Boerner stated “Carte Blanche omitted to broadcast material that was likely to have cast a different perspective on the entire matter and also made conclusions not based on facts. Despite receiving legal advice from the start of its investigations in August 2013, Carte Blanche failed to broadcast a program which was compliant with the code of conduct.
“It was clear right from the beginning of the investigation that Carte Blanche sought to portray Mr Diamond as a person whose integrity was questionable, even if it meant breaching the BCCSA Code of Conduct on several occasions. It was most disappointing that an award-winning investigative program such as Carte Blanche would produce a program which was in violation of the most fundamental aspects of the BCCSA Code of Conduct.
“Given Carte Blanche’s reputation, it was important for our client to pursue his complaint and successfully so. We trust that they will exercise caution when reporting on public figures in future and that the public will take into consideration that even Carte Blanche gets it wrong…”
The full judgment is available at www.bccsa.co.za.”
