Manitoba Press Council

Newspaper editors are featured in the World Editors Forum on the subject of integrated newsrooms. Here are some excerpts from their comments.
 
Editor-in-Chief, Globe & Mail, Canada.
“Most journalists in our newsroom consider themselves hybrids; they are story tellers who use different media and the inherent strengths of each to convey their stories.”
 
Executive-Editor, Fort Myers News Press, U.S.A.
“Information is our product, the platforms we distribute the information are less important. We must understand the audiences and must get our needed information to them on the platform they want it.”
 
Editor-in-Chief, Verens Gang Multimedia, Norway
“Newspaper and internet are by nature so diverse that they demand completely different working methods and organizations in order to succeed.”
 
Director of Media Strategies, PPF Financial Group, Eastern Europe
“The danger of joining print and online journalists is that you can destroy your original brand. To be able to succeed in different media fields you have to change the way you reach readers. Here I sense a hidden risk. For example, if you write for the internet and your goal is speed, you may quickly lose your sense of accuracy. Step by step, this habit can reach your newspaper.”
 
General Products Director, RBS Group, Brazil
“For our newspapers, the discussion about integration is outdated. By now we are trying to fuse 100%, the digital and print operations inside the newsroom.”
 
Executive Director, Punch, Nigeria
“The question of integration is not optional - it’s functional. Most importantly, as we aggregate platforms hard-nosed journalistic skills, including of course, a stubborn passion for truth, will remain valuable professional qualities.”
 

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has called for Parliament to form a national Press Council. The chief commissioner, Barbara Hall, is quoted as saying it “would help bring about more consistency across all jurisdictions in Canada”. Also, she admitted that, “As we saw in the Maclean’s case, we had different responses from each province, and that’s really confusing for people.”

The problem here is not with Press Councils, it is with the provincial and national Human Rights Commissions. They have the inconsistency and confusion.

Press Councils have been operating in Canada for 36 years and do so with expertise that includes knowledge of the ethics of the press, an understanding of freedom of expression, and an ability to provide the public with a fair-minded forum for hearing complaints.

They have also operated along the lines of what a CHRC commissioned study recommended. The author of the report, constitutional law expert, Richard Moon, suggested “there are many arguments for protecting freedom of expression but all seem to focus on one, or a combination of, three values: truth, democracy, and individual autonomy. He also said, “the proper scope and limits of the freedom should not be debated exclusively in legal or constitutional terms.” He argues that, “Groups within the community should have a real opportunity to expression that is not so extreme that it violates criminal or human rights laws but may nevertheless affect their position in the larger community.”

His report suggests that “To advance this end, all major print publications should belong to a provincial or regional press council that has the authority to receive a complaint that the publication has depicted an identifiable group in an unfair or discriminatory manner.”

It has been suggested recently that some Press Councils have become moribund. If that’s true, perhaps the main reason is that there is little acknowledgement by newspapers that the service exists. A former Supreme Court Judge, and former B.C. Press Council Chair, publicly criticized newspapers for not publicizing the council or telling readers how to lodge complaints. If newspapers would do this and more were members of councils, then the word “moribund” would probably no longer apply.

The President of the CAJ, Mary Agnes Welch, was quoted as saying, “a lot of journalists would take umbrage at essentially being in a federally regulated profession”. It is natural to not like one’s work being closely reviewed by outsiders but it has become normal for lawyers, doctors and police, so why not them. Welch does admit that provincial press councils “represent the only real place that readers can go to complain about stories short of the courts.”

Also quoted was a journalism teacher from Halifax, Dean Jobb. He pointed out that recourse is important for media audiences and suggested, “we should be wary of creating some kind of new complex bureaucracy.”

First posted Jan 22, 2008

The case of Ken Peters, a Hamilton Spectator reporter who refused to reveal a source during a 2004 civil trial, is now before the Ontario Court of Appeal. What follows is a Canadian Press account of the proceedings.

TORONTO — Ontario’s highest court was urged Tuesday to seize upon the case of a journalist found guilty of contempt as an opportunity to set an important precedent by considering a reporter’s constitutional right to protect confidential sources.

The Ontario Court of Appeal reserved its decision in the case of Ken Peters, a Hamilton Spectator reporter who refused to reveal a source during a 2004 civil trial.

While all sides agreed the trial judge failed to follow procedure in finding Peters in contempt four years ago, media lawyers squared off against counsel for the Ontario Attorney General on whether there was a constitutional question at stake.

“Cases like this are exceedingly rare,” lawyer John Norris, who represents the Canadian Association of Journalists and Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, told the court. “It would be a tremendous benefit to all for this court to decide those broad (constitutional) issues.”

Not so, Crown lawyers countered. “The appeal can be disposed of on other grounds,” argued Robin Basu. “It is not necessary and it can be a mistake to embark on a (constitutional) analysis.”

The media lawyers took the position that the courts should do their level best to obtain evidence from other sources before compelling a journalist to reveal a source, in light of freedom-of-speech rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The Attorney General argued it wasn’t necessary to drag the Constitution into the appeal as contempt and common law, when followed properly, directs judges to do as much.

Although lower courts have considered freedom-of-speech rights in cases where journalists are ordered to divulge sources, a ruling from Ontario’s top court would “clarify and strengthen” the approach to be taken, said lawyer Brian Rogers, who represents Peters. The courts must “ensure that harm is minimum and infringement of (constitutional) rights is kept to a minimum,” Rogers told the court. “This is a rare case. It will set a precedent… an important precedent.”

Peters was called to testify in a $15.5-million dollar civil suit launched by the St. Elizabeth Villa retirement home against the former Hamilton-Wentworth Region, the city and the former mayor. He was found in contempt after he refused to disclose the identity of a person who was present when he received documents alleging abuses at the retirement home.

Former city alderman Henry Merling eventually admitted to being the source of the information.

Peters could have been sent to jail, but was instead ordered to pay $31,600 in legal costs.

That decision effectively told news organizations, large and small, that the price of protecting a confidential source is roughly $32,000, lawyer Patricia Jackson told the court. “Many will say, unfortunately, it is too high,” said Jackson, who represents the Canadian Newspaper Association. The result would be a form of “self-censorship” in order to avoid the use of confidential sources. “We would all be much poorer for that,” Jackson said.

First posted on Nov. 6, 2007

On Nov. 1, the Manitoba Press Council sponsored a forum for Red River College journalism students. The topic of the forum was a private MP’s bill to amend the Canada Evidence Act, and thereby create a limited shield law for journalists. What follows are excerpts from what press council chairman John Cochrane told the students.

Why is this private member’s bill so important?

The author of the bill, Mr. Serge Menard, said in parliament in Ottawa last week that he has been working on attaining privilege for journalists for 30 years. He was a media lawyer and is now a sitting member of the Bloc Quebecois. He feels the time is right, and he may be right.

He has gained the support of some important organizations in Quebec: the Legal Bar, the Communications Union, the Confederation of Journalists, and the Quebec Press Council. They represent over 31,000 people with direct knowledge of the process of journalism. These organizations jointly support his bill, and that is impressive.

This idea of shield laws has been simmering for about 50 years, mainly in the U.S., Canada and Europe. Legislation has been adopted in 32 states in the U.S., in most European countries, and this year in Japan. Case law has developed in 18 other states in the U.S., in Britain and Canada. There are no federal laws on this issue in these three countries.

Last Friday, Oct. 23, the bill to create federal law in Canada was given second reading. It is interesting to read some of the comments made by MP’s of each political party as reported by Hansard. Here’s a sampling:

“Freedom of the press is crucial in a democracy.”

“It was a foundation of our democracy.”

“The practice of journalism needs to be protected by legislation as it has been in other countries.”

Situations as what happened to Juliet O’Neill of the Ottawa Citizen should be corrected.’

“The reporting of Watergate, the Enron Scandal, and even the sponsorship scandal in Quebec probably wouldn’t have happened without the protection of whistle blowers by reporters.”

It was all very heady stuff, and a lot of it was true. It would make you proud to be a journalist to hear such glowing support in our parliament. However, the granting of privilege or the passing of this bill cannot be considered a done deal.

One MP last Friday suggested that, “freedom of the press is not actually the issue here and what must be determined is whether the provisions improve existing legislation. A change could have far reaching repercussions on the administration of the justice system as a whole.” Many judges, lawyers, legislators and members of the public have voiced similar concerns over the years.

Some MP’s also suggested that the definition of the word “journalist” in the bill was too broad and that there could be a problem in court getting information from sometimes bloggers. One MP said that, in fact, there was no definition of the word “journalist” in any legislation across Canada

The bill will likely be passed on to a parliamentary committee for further discussion and possible amending and it may not see the light of day.

It is a major consideration to grant privilege which is the right not to have to disclose information to a court. Only the doctor-patient and lawyer-client relationships have been granted it. It also may be allowed in some instances for national security and where there is specific statutory law.

Even some journalists do not agree with privilege and special treatment for journalists. In an article in the Ryerson Review of Journalism in 1995, veteran journalist, George Bain, gave the opinion, “There is a spreading tendency in routine journalism to use one unidentified person as the only source, or among the sources, throughout stories. The reader is left to take on faith such persons actually exist and are not the invention of the reporter. Could any reporter make up an anonymous source? Why not? The courts, in their wisdom, give short shrift to anonymous sources because they concede the possibility of any sort of chicanery occurring anywhere.”

Attribution is very important. Consider a letter to the editor published just two weeks ago in the Winnipeg Free Press. A citizen gave the opinion that, “whenever reference sources are omitted the author loses all credibility. The information becomes useless because the audience cannot weigh the source to decide whether it is willing to trust it. If you cannot decide whether a source is trustworthy, by extension the information presented must be rejected as incredible.” While that is a bit tight and doesn’t consider opinion, it is a very good description of the importance of attribution. And the writer wasn’t commenting on journalism, it was in reference to a story where a teen advised classmates not to eat meat.

Two years ago an op-ed columnist in the New York Times commented about three reporters who had recently been ordered to jail for protecting sources, and the results of a survey of the public’s opinion of journalists. He said that federal shield laws could be helpful in such situations but it is crucial to reflect on why this is happening. He suggested a major reason was “that we in the news media are widely perceived as arrogant, out of touch and untrustworthy and we will have to work harder to win back our credibility with the public.”

So discussions about the issue of protecting sources are important because they hit at the heart of what journalism is all about and why it is important to society. And anyone involved in the process of communicating information to others should consider the responsibility that comes with it.

While it may seem complicated, it really isn’t. It is about the importance of attribution and that facts help in the search for truth. It can be managed, and is done so every day by Canadian media. Even if privilege for the protection of sources never becomes enshrined in law, newsrooms will continue to handle tips and protect sources only after careful consideration and discussion.

Privilege may not even be necessary. New whistle blower legislation being contemplated across Canada and elsewhere will be very helpful to journalists.

Consider what happened in the current case here about the off duty policeman who pleaded guilty of causing the death of a young woman driver. Manitoba’s chief provincial court judge praised reporters for their effort to dig up the truth. It is fair to assume that media received tips from individuals with inside knowledge that led to some of their stories. And it was handled by media without the protection of sources. Just to be fair, the defense lawyers called the coverage “scandalous” and “baseless yellow journalism”.

What are your views on shield laws?

First published Oct. 12, 2006

A Senate Report on Media, released in 2006, gave the opinion that Press Councils are an important element of Canada’s news and information system and that they can make a significant contribution to the quality of journalism in Canada.

They also stated that, since Press Councils are not affiliated with a particular newspaper and where council members include representatives of the public, a citizen is more likely to feel that a complaint was judged impartially.

A previous Senate Committee report on media in 1970 suggested that Canada needed Press Councils and that government should have nothing to do with their organization and powers. It also felt that regional Press Councils could meet Canada’s diverse needs.

Many media observers have pointed out that provincial Press Councils are designed to be more receptive to community standards and to be less cumbersome than a government regulatory body with its slow process and change.

It has also been noted that it is appropriate that an industry that sees itself as the eyes and ears of the public should be examined by a council that includes well-informed and independent members of the public.

Self-regulation works because the newspaper industry, for the most part, is committed to it. Although funded by newspaper members, councils are independent bodies with their own objectives and by-laws. In a way, self-regulation is a moral force and it depends on an industry with the
maturity to sign up to independent and reasonable scrutiny by its peers and members of the public.

It costs nothing to complain to a Press Council. You do not need a lawyer or anyone else to represent you. And it means there is no burden on the taxpayer.

–John Cochrane

 First published Oct. 3, 2007
Journalists’ demands for access to information frequently are in collision with privacy rights, which various levels of bureaucracy cite as a reason for withholdling information.

Where do individual Canadians and media fit into this ongoing tug-of-war between privacy and access?

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has a blog, written by staffers, dealing with an assortment of privacy issues and problems. In its mission statement, the commissioner’s office says “this blog will make a special effort to identify and highlight information and advice that may help Canadians understand their rights under Canada’s privacy legislation. We will be making a special effort to identify and explain material that will help owners, managers and employees of small and medium-sized enterprises to understand their rights and responsibilities under Canada’s privacy legislation.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission should be commended for its recently released report on the subject of hate speech and free speech.

The CHRC hired constitutional law expert Richard Moon to make recommendations concerning, “the appropriate mechanisms to address hate messages, and more particularly those on the internet, with specific emphasis on the role of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the role of the Commission.”

This, obviously, was the result of the tumult caused by the national, and two provincial, CHRC decisions and comments about the Maclean’s magazine article titled “The future belongs to Islam” published in 2006 .

There has been much opinion suggesting that it was not appropriate for CHRC’s to judge complaints involving freedom of expression in media. Recent editorials in the Globe and Mail and The Winnipeg Free Press have lauded the report and in particular the author’s support of the idea of provincial press councils.

The report’s author was asked to consider the mandates of HRC and tribunals, and whether governmental or non-governmental organizations have a role to play. He has presented many thoughtful recommendations and following are some that refer to our area.

Mr. Moon suggests that, “section 13 of the CHRA be repealed so that the CHRT no longer deals with hate speech.” Further to that, “Hate speech should continue to be prohibited under the Criminal Code but this prohibition should be confined to expressions that advocate, justifies or threatens violence.”

Later he states, “Under most accounts of freedom of expression, the state is not justified in restricting expression simply because it causes harm by persuading its audience.” He also points out, “It is often said that we should respond to racists claims not with censorship, but by offering competing views that make the case for equal respect or by creating more avenues for marginalized groups to express themselves.”

We would add that newspapers subscribe to that idea and prove it in on a daily basis.

He suggests that, “There are many arguments for protecting freedom of expression but all seem to focus on one, or a combination of, three values: truth, democracy, and individual autonomy.” Also, “the proper scope and limits of the freedom should not be debated exclusively in legal or constitutional terms and should not simply be left to the courts for resolution.”

The author argues that, groups within the community should have a real opportunity to respond to expression that is not so extreme that it violates criminal or human rights laws but may nevertheless affect their position in the larger community.”

The report concludes that press council’s are an appropriate forum for this sort of problem. “To advance this end, all major print publications should belong to a provincial or regional press council that has the authority to receive a complaint that the publication has depicted an identifiable group in an unfair or discriminatory manner.” The report continues that publications should be required to print the decision of the press council.

The Manitoba Press Council believes that Mr. Moore has made reasonable recommendations regarding press councils. Before this report was contemplated and released we handed down a decision in 2006 that upheld a complaint against a Manitoba newspaper for publishing a letter that was unduly critical of Muslims. We pointed out that the letter contained mostly incorrect statements about Muslims and that opinions should not be based on wrong facts. Our experience has shown that aspects of opinion and hate speech can be handled.
Regarding the point that some provincial press councils appear moribund, we suggest that this could be corrected easily and quickly if newspapers would promote the availability of the councils. If newspapers believe that press councils are a better way than government intervention, they could be more supportive of councils.

–John Cochrane

Chairman

The Manitoba Press Council is sponsoring a debate for journalism students at Red River College on Nov. 1 on the issue of legislative protection for journalists and their sources. Veteran Winnipeg lawyer and newspaper columnist Harold Buchwald and Chair of the Manitoba Press Council, John Cochrane, will present the pros and cons of the issue.

Generally, such legislative protection is known as a shield law. The proposal which prompted the current debate came from Serge Menard, a Quebec MP, who presented to the last Parliament a private member’s resolution, which, if it had passed, would have amended the Canada Evidence Act. His action has the strong support of the Quebec Press Council and journalists in Quebec .

Backers of the proposal argue that it balances two fundamental rights in Canada - the free movement of information and the right to a fair and eqitable trial.

The bill sought to establish the principle that journalists cannot be forced to disclose in court unpublished notes from a story unless they are “of a decisive importance” for the resolution of litigation, and only if there is no other means of providing the evidence. The decision on this would be made by a judge, not the police or Crown prosecutors.

The bill would also have provided protection for confidential sources. Disclosing these sources also would be up to a judge, who would first need to ascertain that such disclosure would be in the public interest by taking into account a variety of factors including the conclusion of litigation and the consequencdes to the source of his or her identity being disclosed.

Finally, the bill would have put additional constraints on police searches of the homes of media members.

Add your views on this matter to our blog.

News executives across North America are divided over the decision by NBC News to air clips it received from 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui, who shot 32 people to death before committing suicide on the Virginia Tech campus this week.

The airing of the video, strictly speaking, isn’t a print media issue with which the press council deals, but it is a pointed example of the sorts of ethical challenges that confront print and broadcast news executives daily. As the print media rapidly expand their online operations, they, too, have the ability to make these sorts of videos available to the public, and face the same ethical challenges as television stations.

CTV News and Global TV aired the video Wednesday night. CBC decided against airing it.

Robert Hurst, president of CTV News told the Canadian Press this week: “At CTV News, we believed that censorship is a last resort. It’s not our job to make a judgment whether it …might be bad or it might be good. Our job is to present Canadians with newsworthy materials.”

Tony Burman, editor in chief of CBC News, told Canadian Press the CBC decided not to air the video and avoid any coverage that could be interpreted as glorifying the act. “As I watched them last night…I imagined what kind of impact this broadcast would have on similarly deranged people,” Burman wrote in a letter posted on the network’s website. “I had this awful and sad feeling that there were parents watching these excerpts on NBC who were unaware they will lose their children in some future copycat killing triggered by these broadcasts.”

Troy Reeb, vice-president of news operations at Global TV, which also posted the video online, told CP: “Looking at the reality…millions of young people are no doubt going to be seeing this monstrous message either online or on television.” The network decided “it’s important that because the message is going to be out there that we need to contextualize and hae coverage that leads viewers tohope and not horror,” Troy said.

CBC’s Burman told CP he saw the issue differently. “There’s a responsibility for us not only as professional journalists, but as parents and adults to create a society that protects our young people.”

Media junkies should check out the Australian Press Council’s State of the News Print Media in Australia Report 2006. The study was assembled by Australian J-school academics and industry members of the press council.

Newspapers in Australia, like Canada, are changing rapidly.

The report noted five major trends in Australia:

1. Newspaper companies are rapidly transforming into multi-media companies.
2. There are major changes in the role and expectation of journalists
3. There is a blurring of fact and opinion
4. Proposed changes in media ownership laws will not establish or preserve diversity of ownership of Australian newspapers
5. The capacity of the press to inform the public is being eroded through administrative and legal curbs

Does any of this sound familiar?

On the issue of press credibility, the report notes “the majority of Australians do not trust newspaper journalists (63 per cent), talk-back radio hosts (57 per cent) and TV reporters (53 per cent) to tell the truth.” To read the report in detail, go to:

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/snpma/snpma_index.html