Site guide
Who are the press council members?
July 17, 2007
Decision on a complaint against The Brandon Sun for an article published on April 27, 2007
The complaint states at the start that it is "for defamation and unprofessional behavior". It then includes a lengthy amount of detail and opinion, much of which the Council cannot adjudicate.
In our description of procedures and concerns, the Council points out that we are "an ethical body, not a court, that does not normally deal with a complaint that in any way involves litigation whether launched, threatened or in prospect".
The Council only deals with what is published and considers every complaint to be against the newspaper involved and not against particular staff.
The complaint also asks that a letter to the editor or a paid advertisement be published. The Manitoba Press Council believes, as other Canadian councils do, that the decision to publish a letter to the editor or a paid advertisement rests solely with the newspaper.
The article reported that a young baseball player in Birtle was treated for an eye injury in Russell, then required further examination by a specialist. The one ophthalmologist in Brandon could not be reached and the patient was sent to Yorkton. The ophthalmologist, who was not named in the article, complains that it was unfair to state he "could not be located" in the article.
The article quotes the concerns expressed by the father of the injured teen and then the CEO of the Regional Health Authority who pointed out, "We have only one ophthalmologist and he can't be here 24-7. He could have been away. I think it's unfair to him for people to expect him to always be available". The article then goes on to describe the difficulties facing the health authority in recruiting and keeping specialists.
In the opinion of the Council, the article followed through in examining the community concerns being raised. The main thrust was the system of treatment by hospitals and medical people in the region and the difficult circumstances being faced. The article included details exonerating the doctor.
The Manitoba Press Council does not uphold the complaint.
Feb 2, 2007
Complaint against The Rivers Banner publication of Oct. 21, 2006
This complaint was filed by Tannis Ali of Rivers, Mb., regarding the publication of a letter to the editor under the heading “Islam - a demonic religion”. The complainant felt it “was clearly hate mail” and “should be considered a very serious matter”. The complainant also said they had written a letter to the editor of the paper indicating they “were outraged, demanding a public apology”.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes a fundamental “freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communications”. Accordingly, press councils believe it is important for newspapers to provide lively, informed comment on a wide variety of issues, that it is appropriate to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, and to give others the same latitude.
The Manitoba Press Council does not normally consider complaints about matters of opinion, which it believes is an extension of the individual rights to freedom of speech.
However, freedom of expression is not absolute and it is not an unfettered license to publish what are obvious factual errors in a letter to the editor.
In examining the letter in question, it is clear that there are many statements about Muslims that are derogatory and inaccurate. In the first paragraph alone, eleven of its fourteen sentences are of this type.
In the letter there are a few attempted qualifiers but they fall short. For example, in the fifth paragraph a sentence states. “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims”. This is not accurate and does not mitigate everything else. It is not true that all terrorists are Muslims. It has been well documented in media that there are many Muslims who believe in a secular state and who denounce terrorists acts. It has also been widely reported that people of other religious denomination have committed terrorist acts in many countries.
The letter jumps from specifics about terrorists, which may be correct, to general conclusions about Muslims, which are not correct. There is some attempt at justifying the statements by giving assessments of what the “left-thinking” and others might think but it does not offset the inaccuracies. The specific inaccuracies are exacerbated by the sweeping nature of the letter.
The heading above the letter shows the paper clearly understood the thrust of the letter – “Islam - a “demonic religion” ”.
In the opinion of the Council, the letter should not have been published as is because of the overwhelming number of inaccurate statements that were unfair to many Muslims. While letters to the editor should be given wide latitude it does not mean that overwhelming factual errors should be ignored. If the paper felt it could not edit the letter or add context it should have scrapped it. It did not contribute to healthy community debate.
The council recognizes that the paper, to its credit, immediately published a letter to the editor from the complainant and from two other readers in opposition. The council believes that in the interest of fairness newspapers should publish a reasonable reply and opposing points of view. This however does not completely mitigate the publishing of a letter which in the Council’s opinion was inappropriate.
Therefore, The Manitoba Press Council upholds the complaint against The Banner.
March 6, 2006
Complaint by Mr. Leo Boivin against
The Brandon Sun
Mr. Boivin complained that The Brandon
Sun, in a column published on August 31, 2005, initiated a hate document
towards the Christian Community at large with words and phrases that were
discriminating in nature and designed and valued only as a means to incite
and promote hatred.
The Publisher of The Brandon Sun replied to the Council that the opinion column fell within the realm of fair comment as measured by any common journalistic yardstick. He also said that while the language used was unvarnished it was aimed at encouraging rich public debate.
The heading to the column in question was, “A Core Dumping Ground”. It dealt with a proposal before city council for a “Christian-run adult group home” in the core area. The column described the opinions of some residents in the area and their opposition to the proposal at a council meeting. The columnist suggested that the core had become a ghetto for unsavory characters and that she and other residents of the area had concluded that another group home was not the answer, that there was a lack of leadership by officials, and offered some ideas.
The examples of words and phrases from the column cited by Mr. Boivin in his complaint did not occur all together or in one context. Some were used to designate a group, some described the form of the city council meeting, and some were opinions of what might take place at a Christian-run and publicly funded facility.
A reservation was voiced by some Press Council members that the latter opinions were perhaps unnecessarily insensitive and might not help the stated objective of The Brandon Sun, “to encourage rich public debate”.
However, because a group of citizens at a civic meeting asked that the process of approving a Christian-run facility be slowed down and that the city council voted to defer the issue, all Press Council members believed that it was legitimate that any aspects could be examined in an opinion column.
As the Manitoba Press Council and other Canadian Press Councils have stated, we regard opinion columns to be an important manifestation of freedom of expression and therefore should be allowed wide latitude no matter how controversial or unpopular they may be.
Therefore, the Manitoba Press Council does not uphold the complaint.