Read on Twitter
Quick story: A couple of years ago I published an article about an attorney who stole RAF & medical neglicence payout from a disabled client. Lawyer took advantage of the fact that the client's mom was illiterate & hid the payout from them ...
... Then he filed an application to get his mate appointed as curator with the hope that they would have control of the award - some R12-million. Anyway, after we published the article on the front page of a national newspaper, the guy approached the Press Ombudsman ...
... His complaint was that I did not write his side of the story he told me: That he kept the money because of a court order that directed him to pay the money into a trust overseen by a curator. The Omb found in his favour despite the fact that there was no actual court order.
It took some arguing to convince the paper to appeal. We went & appeals Judge Bernard Ngoepe was appalled that his colleague made that finding without seeing the court order the attorney claimed to have been following. Ombud finding was overturned on that point alone ...
... The Ombud was so terrified of the possible public perception that a journalist might be guilty of not giving the other side an ear. The point: Publishing the truth in the public interest is much more important that the perception of publishing the truth ...
... And with that @LukhonaMnguni I wish to welcome you to the world of publish and be damned. We're always aware that everything we publish is bound to make someone unhappy. What matters is WHY & not simply that they're unhappy. The job is not to be liked. Uqine ntoyakuthi 
