Zuma takes paper to cleaners

Lycanthrope

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,621
Reaction score
592
Location
United Kingdom
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma has accepted a “very significant” seven- figure settlement from Britain’s The Guardian after tackling the newspaper head-on over an article that claimed he is a rapist and corrupt.

Zuma is also involved in a number of lawsuits against South African media houses.

Both the newspaper and Zuma’s team dealing with his defamation lawsuits against the media refused to reveal the settlement figure, but The Times reliably understands it to be a seven-figure amount.

Liesl Gottert, who acts as Zuma’s spokeswoman on the defamation lawsuits , refused to confirm the amount.

She would only say that Zuma is “satisfied” with the settlement.

Gottert added that the settlement should “serve as an example to the media worldwide that even though president Zuma supports press freedom, he will act accordingly if they report malicious untruths”.

The Guardian article, written by author Simon Jenkins, quoted an unnamed friend of Jenkins as having said God is “about to give us a criminal and a rapist as president”.

He further described Zuma as a “polygamous, leopard skin-draped Zulu boss” who was “just another African crony politician for whom power is not about government, but personal enrichment”.

Acting for Zuma in the London High Court yesterday, lawyer Jenny Afia said the allegations were “of the utmost seriousness and totally untrue”.

She pointed out that Zuma had been acquitted on charges of rape in 2006 and that corruption charges against him had been dropped earlier this year.

The newspaper offered its apologies, blaming the matter on an “editing error”.

Zuma said in a statement yesterday: “It is an extremely serious incident when a national newspaper labels an innocent person as being corrupt or being a rapist. It was offensive to me and the ANC.”
Click to expand...

Source: The Times

Firstly, I, personally, believe that there was a fair bit of mockery done to the judicial system in this country when Zuma was acquitted of corruption charges. Whether he did or didn't rape that woman, only he and that woman knows, but I would, seriously, not put it past him since sleeping with that woman would still constitute cheating on his wives.

Secondly, on this basis, for The Guardian to lose a lawsuit due to the potentially interfered-with judgements of a South African court, it's just... insane.

It's like a UK court acquitting Mugabe of crimes against humanity after a Zimbabwean court found him not guilty. I mean, really. What a joke.

I believe, difficult though it might've been, the UK should've done its own independent investigation. At least then if ol' Zuma was found innocent we might think twice.
 
Newspaper cannot go around labelling people based on journalists' friends prejudices.
That sort of thing is reserved for dinner table conversations not inside newspapers. Just ask David Bullard.

Lycanthrope, are you suggesting the rape trial judge let Zuma off because he is Zuma? Btw, cheating on your wife is not a crime here, maybe in the middle east.
 
If you know anything about UK libel law you'll realise that they took the cheap option.
 
larrychang said:
Newspaper cannot go around labelling people based on journalists' friends prejudices.
That sort of thing is reserved for dinner table conversations not inside newspapers. Just ask David Bullard.

Lycanthrope, are you suggesting the rape trial judge let Zuma off because he is Zuma? Btw, cheating on your wife is not a crime here, maybe in the middle east.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that newspapers can't report or comment on the things that other people have done or said?
 
timgaul said:
So what you're saying is that newspapers can't report or comment on the things that other people have done or said?
Click to expand...

Newspaper have a higher burden of substantiation than some guy mouthing off his personal opinions amongst friends that's what I'm saying. Heck even tabloids try to cover their bases when they go against celebrities and other personalities.
 
Journalistic License

timgaul said:
So what you're saying is that newspapers can't report or comment on the things that other people have done or said?
Click to expand...

Of course they can - it is just the way that it is done.:erm:

Gotta know all the little disclaimers and innuendos ;)

( That is why you often see non-fiction dressed up as "fairy stories" :D )

Not really his field , but just ask DOM.


MW
 
larrychang said:
Newspaper have a higher burden of substantiation than some guy mouthing off his personal opinions amongst friends that's what I'm saying. Heck even tabloids try to cover their bases when they go against celebrities and other personalities.
Click to expand...

Well in that case the newspapers wouldn't report on anything Julius Malema says.
 
MidnightWizard said:
Of course they can - it is just the way that it is done.:erm:

Gotta know all the little disclaimers and innuendos ;)

( That is why you often see non-fiction dressed up as "fairy stories" :D )

Not really his field , but just ask DOM.


MW
Click to expand...

I was using irony, MW :)
 
Lycanthrope said:
Source: The Times

Firstly, I, personally, believe that there was a fair bit of mockery done to the judicial system in this country when Zuma was acquitted of corruption charges. Whether he did or didn't rape that woman, only he and that woman knows, but I would, seriously, not put it past him since sleeping with that woman would still constitute cheating on his wives.

Secondly, on this basis, for The Guardian to lose a lawsuit due to the potentially interfered-with judgements of a South African court, it's just... insane.

It's like a UK court acquitting Mugabe of crimes against humanity after a Zimbabwean court found him not guilty. I mean, really. What a joke.

I believe, difficult though it might've been, the UK should've done its own independent investigation. At least then if ol' Zuma was found innocent we might think twice.
Click to expand...

First of all, UK courts have nothing to do woth individual cases that happen in other countries. Secondly, why would the UK be interested in doing rape investigations about a case that took place in South Africa? The guardian "Journalist" mouthed off and paid for it. They should've known better. Simple!!!
 
larrychang said:
are you just playin dumb?
Click to expand...

I attempting to highlight that your comments are to broad and restrictive to actually be meaningful. What you're proposing is nothing short of state-controlled media in which case there is no freedom of media. You statement would insinuate an infringement on basic rights in our constitution (yes, I understand the article was in a British newspaper) and as such could easily be dismissed in light of many of the inflammatory statements made by politicians in this country.

But I think you missed out on that point.
 
timgaul said:
I attempting to highlight that your comments are to broad and restrictive to actually be meaningful. What you're proposing is nothing short of state-controlled media in which case there is no freedom of media. You statement would insinuate an infringement on basic rights in our constitution (yes, I understand the article was in a British newspaper) and as such could easily be dismissed in light of many of the inflammatory statements made by politicians in this country.

But I think you missed out on that point.
Click to expand...

You are the one missing the obvious point.
Newspapers cannot go around printing stories based on what someone said about another person. And your Malema analogy is a fail.

The newspaper would normally investigate any hearsay they get given and try to substantiate it before going off and printing it. How do they know the person giving them the "news" isn't just trying to settle a score? Even if it is to settle a score it has to have a real basis.
 
larrychang said:
You are the one missing the obvious point.
Newspapers cannot go around printing stories based on what someone said about another person. And your Malema analogy is a fail.

The newspaper would normally investigate any hearsay they get given and try to substantiate it before going off and printing it. How do they know the person giving them the "news" isn't just trying to settle a score? Even if it is to settle a score it has to have a real basis.
Click to expand...

So what can they report on? Or are people not entitled to their opinion? I very much doubt, as you seem to think, that newspapers are extremely objective.

Of course my Malema analogy should actually support your argument, as well. So if you can't understand the comparison then I am worried that even you have no idea what you're arguing.
 
timgaul said:
So what you're saying is that newspapers can't report or comment on the things that other people have done or said?
Click to expand...

Of course they can, but they cant slander and defame people on stuff that is not true.
 
timgaul said:
So what can they report on? Or are people not entitled to their opinion? I very much doubt, as you seem to think, that newspapers are extremely objective.

Of course my Malema analogy should actually support your argument, as well. So if you can't understand the comparison then I am worried that even you have no idea what you're arguing.
Click to expand...

Don't quote me selectively read the whole thing.
No your Malema analogy fails because I am not saying people cannot be quoted on what THEY THEMSELVES SAID.
 
timgaul said:
So what you're saying is that newspapers can't report or comment on the things that other people have done or said?
Click to expand...

Of course they can, but they need to be able to back that up.

If they had said:
An unnamed friend said God is “about to give us a criminal and a rapist as president”.

He further described Zuma as a “polygamous, leopard skin-draped Zulu boss” who was “just another African crony politician for whom power is not about government, but personal enrichment”.
Click to expand...

And then added:
Zuma was acquitted of rape after a trial in 2006, and is currently contesting allegations of a corruption in the High Court. His financial adviser, Shabir Shaik, was found guilty etc etc
Click to expand...

[The article was written before the trial was resolved, afaicr]

That way, the opinion of the unnamed friend is balanced against the facts we know. Otherwise we could all print whatever crap we wanted to and claim it is the opinion of our anonymous friends.
 
Yup this is very good i think.

I heard they called him a rapist and a criminal, in terms of the law he is not a criminal or rapist, you need to be convicted of something to be labeled.

So they paid for that mistake in a big way, good stuff.
 
LOL!!!

Seven figure settlement - R1 000 000 = £76 000

Damn!! Zuma is cheap!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X