Fin24

Independent bosses sue Noseweek

2012-08-08 10:06

Johannesburg - Independent Newspaper executives are suing the investigative magazine, Noseweek, for publishing an article accusing the company of kickbacks and money laundering, The Star reported on Wednesday.

According to court papers served on Noseweek editor Martin Welz, Independent Newspapers Cape Editor-in-Chief Chris Whitfield, former Gauteng Editor-in-Chief Moegsien Williams, and chief executive Tony Howard were suing for R350 000 in damages.

"We gave Noseweek ample opportunity to correct their distortions, and they have failed to do so," Whitfield said.

The Noseweek article claimed that Independent Newspapers struck a deal with Auction Alliance on the publication of information about auction kickbacks.

The defendants were Welz, Chaucer Publications - the owner and publisher of Noseweek - and magazine marketing and subscription services, the registrant of the magazine's website.

Welz told the newspaper he would defend the article.

"I think I have more than a fair chance. I have faced cases like this before and I have never lost a case," he said.

"I think it's fair and well that members of the media have spats and criticise each other in their columns. It's quite another thing... (when) they take one another to court."


* Follow Fin24 on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

 

Comments
  • steveroodt - 2012-08-08 11:07

    Where there is smoke there is Fire

  • justice.ubuntu - 2012-08-08 11:21

    Gotta love it!! The Cape Argus published absolute twaddle about my business a few years ago. Chris Whitfield was too arrogant to even acknowledge his mistake as editor at the time or the factual inaccuracies, the manner in which they were obtained or the fact that I was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before he sent his paper to print. He even refused to name the anonymous "Staff Reporter" who wrote the piece and did not even have the balls to contact me directly with an apology. Instead he fobbed the job off to a junior editorial assistant whose lame excuse was that 'a junior reporter made a mistake'? A tacit admission that Whitfield and his editorial staff never check anything in their papers? For a page-wide headline they published an apology the size of classified advert. The incident hurt the credibility of my business but we did not have the funds to sue. So the arrogant Mr Whitfield finds the shoe on the other foot is not so comfortable planted firmly up his behind? Is it any wonder that Independent Newspapers is in trouble? This is the reason why we do indeed need the checks and balances in the media as proposed by the government. The media, as proven by Mr Whitfiled, is too arrogant and unsophisticated to regulate themselves and the ordinary citizen needs protection from editors such as Chris Whitfield. Mr Whitfield...? Suck it up! You're keen to hand it out... learn to take it like a man! Mr Welz...? All strength to you!

  • pages:
  • 1