Manitoba Press Council

The year 2009 was the 25^th anniversary of the Manitoba Press Council. We did not celebrate. The past

year has been difficult for Canadian newspapers and, as we are funded by them, we share the pain. We were well aware of this at the start of the year and made the decision to examine our costs and structure in detail with an eye to future improvements. A three-member committee was established at our first meeting of the year and their initial report was presented to our board at our third meeting. Further considerations and decisions will begin early in 2010.

Other Press Councils in Canada have been experiencing similar discussions. Most have had to make changes to their operations and there have been a few changes in their membership. In our case, we have had one newspaper resignation from the Portage La Prairie Daily Graphic. We believe that Press Councils are still important and needed. Trust in media is of crucial importance. An increasingly sophisticated and media-savvy public expect high standards of performance and Press Councils encourage this. Our expertise includes knowledge of the ethics of the press, an understanding of freedom of expression, and the ability to provide the public with a fair-minded forum for hearing complaints. Most important, like many other industries, we include members of the public on our board along with seasoned local journalists. Press Councils in Canada keep in touch with each other and discuss common ground. Recently, we have discussed the suggestion from some groups that a national Press Council should be formed. The Manitoba Press Council’s view is that provincial councils are better suited to reflect the varied communities of this vast country.

For the third year we gave a presentation to communications students at Red River College. A new format was introduced which involved the examination of the Council’s adjudication of a complaint, the ethics involved and reasons for our decision. A question and answer period also took place which included other ethical situations. The event was well received and another similar event has been planned for the spring of 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

Complaint #09-01 - Winnipeg Free Press -

November 18, 2009: This complaint concerned an a photograph that accompanied an article about a Winnipeg event, “Zombiewalk 2009”. The complainant objected to having his photograph used to illustrate the story described, and believed that its publication resulted in serious damage to his reputation.

MANITOBA PRESS COUNCIL FINDINGS AND

CONCLUSION

The photograph that accompanied the story showed an unidentified man dressed as a zombie crouched on the hood of a car facing the front windshield. In addition, it also displayed parties in the car who are smiling. The complainant suggested that his antics were being performed in private as the car in question was parked on a private lot and that he was just entertaining the occupants of the car, who happened to be his brother and his brother’s girlfriend. The complainant argued that he was therefore not part of what the storyline was about.

In view of the fact that the car was parked on a convenience store parking lot with public access and that it was in clear view of the public and participants in the walk, the Council does not agree the complainant’s actions were private. In arriving at its decision, the Council took into consideration that the article was based on information provided by both the event organizer and the police with respect to what can be described as a fair sized public event. The incident aroused some public concerns and therefore it was perfectly legitimate for the newspaper to address those concerns in the manner in which it did. The photograph capturing the complainant on the hood of the car was an accurate and justifiable reflection of the article’s content.

It was noted that the complaint was initially handled by the reporter, then by the editor and finally by the publisher. The newspaper obviously gave the complaint serious consideration prior to its ultimate repudiation. Nevertheless, as an accommodation, the publisher welcomed the complainant to write a letter to the editor expressing his opinion. After a thorough review of the facts and the arguments presented by both the newspaper and the complainant, the Manitoba Press Council does not uphold the complaint.

At the beginning of the year the Manitoba Press Council was invited to make a submission to the Manitoba Law Reform Commission who was engaged in a “review of defamation law respecting journalism, with particular emphasis on publications concerning matters of public interest.” Generally speaking, this review would consider “whether law reform is required in Manitoba to adequately defend and encourage critical journalism of issues of public concern and interest.”

Our Council filed a submission giving our views on some of the issues they described. One of the main topics concerned the possibility of qualified privilege being granted to communications media. We gave the opinion that such a defence now seemed to be established in higher courts in Canada and it has had an impact on legal and journalistic circles. This case law helped clarify the rules of defamation and therefore, in our opinion, additional legislation was probably not necessary or desirable.

We began a process of updating our methods three years ago and now we increasingly rely on web-based communication with the public and our members. This approach has greatly reduced the time it takes to process complaints. Some of our members who have websites have added a link to ours which is very helpful. We continue to review our procedures and efforts. Some changes have been made to the type of information we include on our website and we are planning more.

A meeting of Canadian Press Councils is held bi-annually to discuss common ground. This year it was held in Montreal in conjunction with the 35^th anniversary of the Quebec Press Council. That council released a study they prepared after visiting every corner of the province asking for public input on media. While there are some unique situations in that province there is, of course, a lot in common. The Quebec Press Council is partially funded by the provincial government while others in Canada are not. Conference calls involving all press councils have also been initiated.

A representative from the United Kingdom Press Council, Mr. William Gore, attended the Montreal meetings. He has visited many Press Councils around the world and indicated that he was very impressed with what was happening in Canada. One of their special events he described involves journalism students and we have arranged to do something similar this coming year at Red River College.

2009 will mark the 25^th year for the Manitoba Press Council. The idea was initiated by Free Press Publisher, Don Nicol, and it was modeled after the Ontario Press Council which started in 1972. The original model began in 1953 in Britain. Councils are now found in 70 countries around the world.

During the past year, three Council meetings were held: in Winnipeg, Brandon, and for the second time, in Steinbach. There were three written complaints deliberated upon by the full Council. Two were not upheld and one was upheld. In addition, one written complaint was successfully resolved through the involvement of the news-paper and another was declined for adjudication and an explanation given to the complainant.

We routinely revue and discuss media issues and our complaint procedures, and in this regard, we fine-tuned our approach to the handling of complaints about opinion pieces.

Also through the year we discussed a new bill introduced in parliament that would amend the Canada Evidence Act to include details when the law would allow protection of journalistic sources and search warrants. Bill C-426 received backing from the Quebec Press Council, the Communi-cations Union of Quebec, the Confederation of Journalists of Quebec, and the Bar of Quebec. The Alberta Press Council also issued a press release supporting the private members bill. The Manitoba Press Council believes the bill describes legitimate points that judges should consider regarding journalism in the public interest, however, as case law in Canada and elsewhere in the world seems to have moved in that direction it may not be necessary to add new legislation.

Early in the year, we provided newspaper members with new “filler” ads indicating the Council’s new website, e-mail addresses, and phone number. The new website now features blogs highlighting the importance of freedom of the press and other media issues.

Once again, we organized a forum for communications students at Red River College. The topics we agreed to discuss was the introduction of Bill C-426 that would amend the Canada Evidence Act, the issue of granting privilege to journalists, and the importance of attribution. Prominent Winnipeg lawyer, Mr. Harold Buchwald and I discussed the pros and cons and answered questions from students. There were about 75 students in attendance this past November.

Complaint #07-01 - Winnipeg Free Press - January, 2007: This complaint concerned an opinion column in the Free Press that the complainant felt was advocating cruelty to cats. The Editor sent a letter of response directly to the complainant that same day the complaint was received in our office, to say that the paper would be happy to publish a letter to the editor, but that the columnist was employed to express her opinions and that what she expressed was well within the bounds of her mandate.

The columnist did respond to the complainant after returning from a trip abroad, and the complainant replied to her and copied the Press Council. He continued to take issue with what she had written, but stated that he did not wish to continue the discussion or carry it any further.

The complaint was not upheld on the grounds that the Press Council believes that columnists should be allowed wide latitude in expressing their opinions as an extension of freedom of expression.

Complaint #07-02 - Winnipeg Free Press, April 2007: The complainant was of the opinion that the newspaper should have published a story about a trial between he and the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. The Editor of the Winnipeg Free Press replied that they are “accountable for what we publish, but not for what we do not publish.” The full response was forwarded to the complainant. The Press Council believes that newspapers must be allowed to choose what to publish or not to publish. The matter was considered closed.

Complaint #07-03 - Brandon Sun, May, 2007: A Brandon specialist complained that a news article in the Brandon Sun did not properly explain his situation when a person involved in an accident was sent to a neighboring province for treatment. The article dealt with the system of treatment by hospital and medical people in the region and the difficult circumstances being faced in recruiting and keeping specialists. The newspaper quoted regional health authorities describing the problems, including their defense of doctors not being able to be available every minute of every day. The council believes the article followed through on concerns voiced in the community and how the regional health authorities dealt with these situations. The main thrust of the article was about the health system and not an individual doctor. The complainant was not named in the article.

Complaint #07-04 - Russell Banner, September, 2007: This complaint was about a cartoon that appeared in the Russell Banner. The cartoon was a drawing of Hwy. 401 headed with “Highway of Heroes” and lined with rows of coffins. The caption read “Traffic is picking up”. The complainant was of the view that the cartoon was “distasteful and inappropriate”.

The Press Council responded to the complainant in a letter dated October 9, 2007, and stated “Like other Press Councils in Canada and elsewhere in the world, The Manitoba Press Council believes that in a truly democratic society, open debate, discussion, criticism and dissent is central to the process of generating informed and considered choices”, and that “The Council regards newspaper editorials, columns, critiques, commentaries and editorial cartoons as journalism of opinion and a manifestation of freedom of the press.” Therefore, the complaint was not upheld.

In May, 2006, the Manitoba Press Council office re-located to 101 - 2033 Portage Avenue.

In this past year we undertook to improve our external communications. A new website, designed by Winnipeg Free Press Council member, Gordon Arnold, was introduced and will be updated as appropriate. Also, new notice-style ads for use by member newspapers showing the Council’s website address and new telephone number were almost ready by year end.

We were very pleased with the Canadian Senate Report on media released through the year. It supports Provincial Press Councils and gave the opinion that government regulation should be avoided. These were major points made by the Manitoba Press Council in our written presentation to the Senate committee. The report and our presentation are available through links on our new website.

A new citizen representative for Brandon, Mr. Bob Janz, was approved at our fall meeting. His experience with management committees, arbitration and community activity will be helpful to our Council.

As Chair of the MPC I attended a meeting of Canadian Press Councils in Lethbridge in September. This has taken place every second year with the purpose of comparing common ground. I was nominated to write to Saskatchewan newspaper publishers, on behalf of the councils present, to outline the benefits of self-regulation and offer help in starting a Press Council in Saskatchewan. This was due to a suggestion made in the Senate Report.

Three written complaints were considered by the Council during the year. One went in favour of the newspaper with a slight reservation, the second was settled between the newspaper and the complainent and the third was completed at year’s end.

(received in 2005, resolved in 2006):The complaint was about several editorial pieces that had appeared in the Brandon Sun, alleging that the Sun had “initiated a hate document towards the Christian Community at large”. The examples of words and phrases from the column cited by the complainant 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.

The complainant was of the opinion that an article printed in the Winnipeg Free Press, December 29, 2005, treated the Liberal Party unfairly. Mr. Bob Cox of the Free Press, answered the complainant directly, and the complainant was satisfied with the response. Therefore, the Press Council, which was copied on all communications, considered the matter closed.

This complaint was 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”.

Although 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, 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 was clear that there were many statements about Muslims that were derogatory and inaccurate. In the first paragraph alone, eleven of its fourteen sentences were of this type.

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 recognized 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 believed 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.

A complete review of the council’s procedures, with an eye to the realities of the internet, which began in 2004 was completed and ratified at our June meeting in 2005. An examination of procedures by all Canadian press councils and a few in other countries was included. Our new procedures description used much of the format used by the Alberta Press Council in 2004, along with our own methods.

In February we sent a written presentation to the Senate Committee study on media. We made a case for self-regulation and against government interference.

The submission to the senate committee is available on our new web site which was introduced in July. The site gives background information on the Council, procedures for complaints and recent decisions. It also provides addresses for other Press Councils in Canada and will include other information of interest.

Two new citizen representatives joined the Council this year. Rob MacNeil, a Winnipeg lawyer, and Miriam Browne, Executive Director of the Manitoba Association of Social Workers, will add valuable experience to our deliberations.

Long-standing Council member, Mrs. Karen Elves of Brandon, resigned after seventeen years of excellent service on the board. A new member from Brandon will be introduced in the coming year.

The full Council deliberated on two major complaints this year. A complaint against the Brandon Sun was not upheld, with one small reservation. Another against the Winnipeg Free Press was dismissed. A third was still in progress at year end.

In November we presented a forum at Red River College on the topic, “Protection of Sources and the Legal Implications”. Seventy-five were in attendance, a good many of them journalism students, to hear our speakers, Harold Buchwald, Cecil Rosner, and Bob Cox.

A Brandon City Councillor filed a complaint that the Brandon Sun had launched a smear campaign to discredit him, and that the campaign centered on personal attacks rather than issue-focused debate on matters of public interest. After due consideration, the Manitoba Press Council, on April 14, 2005, issued an adjudication dismissing the complaint, on the grounds that newspapers should be given a wide latitude in expressing their opinions in editorials, no matter how controversial or unpopular their opinions may be.

The council pointed out that the 11 newspaper items sent as evidence by the complainant did, in fact, contain substantial amounts of issue-related debate and did centre on issues of public interest. In addition, the newspaper had published a strong critique of the paper by the complainant. The Manitoba Press Council believes that newspapers have a responsibility to provide a forum for expression of counter opinion and that was provided by the Brandon Sun.

The Council voiced a concern that at times the paper and the complainant used what could be considered extreme suggestions in their opinion and suggested that any further debate would be better if it took on a more reasoned tone.

The complainant alleged that a columnist at the Winnipeg Free Press had defamed Donald Trump and his fiancée and that he intended to pursue the means to get the matter into court. The Council decided not to adjudicate the complaint and dismissed the matter because, as is indicated in its procedures, complaints involving civil or criminal proceedings, either in progress, pending or in prospect, would not be handled.

This complaint alleged that the Brandon Sun “overstepped journalistic ethics, by instructing the police to investigate our private function, and then wrote an article insinuating possible criminal activities, thus causing undo suspicions upon the social organizers and patrons”. The Publisher of the Brandon Sun responded, rejecting the premise of the complaint, and enclosing copies of three articles that clearly showed they had no malice towards the group in question. This letter was sent to the complainant in April 2005 and no further correspondence was received.

The complaint was received in an email, as a “cc” to the Press Council sent to the Brandon Sun and alleged that an article in the Brandon Sun contained errors and caused her trauma as a victim. In July, 2005, we inquired whether or not the complainant had heard from the Brandon Sun, and if she wished to pursue a formal complaint. We heard nothing further.

The complaint was about several editorial pieces that had appeared in the Brandon Sun, alleging that the Sun had “initiated a hate document towards the Christian Community at large”. The complaint has not yet been resolved.

Chair’s Report for 2009

Complaint #09-01 - Winnipeg Free Press -

MANITOBA PRESS COUNCIL FINDINGS AND

CONCLUSION