Defamation suit settled

A date was set for late November, when the publishers of Grape were due to appear in Wynberg Magistrate’s Court to respond to defamation charges brought against the magazine. Graham Howe, a Cape Town journalist and copy-writer alleged, essentially, that he had been portrayed in Grape’s satirical column ‘The Widow's sour grapes’ as dishonest, corruptible and lacking integrity as a journalist. He demanded R100 000 in damages.

We had made it clear from the start that we rejected the allegations and would defend ourselves in court. Not long, however, before the trial date, there were intimations that an out-of-court settlement was possible. What was not possible, however, was for Grape to apologise for the content of what had been stated in its pages in this case, nor would we withdraw any remarks it had made about Mr Howe – nor, of course, pay any ‘damages’. We were quite happy to give Mr Howe space to say what he wished about the allegations, with us amplifying our own position, but this suggestion was declined.

We also formulated and offered to print the statement given below on this page. This was agreed to. Also agreed was that each side would pay its own costs incurred.

There seems little reason to say much more on the specifics of the matter. Regular Grape readers know our stance on independence in winewriting – it was our concern at the general fragility of it in South African journalism that first prompted us to start the magazine (and now the Grape website too). It was out of this concern that all the remarks about Mr Howe were made.

Many industry figures and, most importantly for us, many of winewriters we respect, expressed their support for Grape’s position, and for that we are grateful. One of the them, Michael Fridjhon – who has been subject to more insults from the Widow than most people, and who has indicated his lack of sympathy for her style from the very start – has written his opinions on some of the ethical questions involved in wine journalism (see page 3). We will leave the matter there.

We must hope, however, that some good has come out of the whole experience; that some writers might have been more alerted to the real ethical questions involved in journalism at a time when advertising seems increasingly to rule what happens in publishing. Whether the Widow has learned to blunt the sharper side of her tongue, we must wait to see.

Howe vs Grape

Agreed statement by the publishers of Grape, with regard to the defamation case brought by Graham Howe against Grape and subsequently withdrawn

 Since its inception, Grape has criticised advertorials as inimical to good journalism, and has correspondingly deplored any wine writer blurring the boundary between editorial and advertising content. We continue to hold this position. The editor and publishers of Grape do recognise, however, that it is the practice of publishing advertorials, rather than their writers, that is the real problem. The statements regarding Graham Howe in issues 16 and 20 of Grape were expressed in intemperate style, and we understand Mr Howe's objection to them. They were intended to be critical primarily of a practice and it was not our intention to aggrieve Mr. Howe or harm his professional name and reputation. We regret any such affect they might have had. They should be seen in the light of the column in which they appeared (The Widow's sour grapes) which is published in a tradition of vigorous, occasionally excessively expressed, but partly tongue-in-cheek satirical journalism.