Complaints by Year - BC Press Council

Complaints Report: 1983

The Press Council received twenty written complaints from the public against newspapers in its first seven months of operation, from June 1 to December 31. Two reached the hearing and adjudication stage before the end of the year. Of the remaining complaints submitted in 1983: two were put forward for hearing in 1984; two were withdrawn after the complainants expressed satisfaction with responses from the publishers; seven were not followed up by the complainants for various reasons; two were rejected as being too old; three were rejected as not being appropriate for council consideration; one was rejected because legal action was involved; and one did not proceed because the paper concerned is not a member and declined Council consideration.

Details of adjudications in 1983 follow.

R. H. McCLELLAND vs THE (VANCOUVER) PROVINCE

British Columbia Labor Minister R. H. McClelland complained about a July 12 front-page column written by Allen Garr and headed "Socred hitmen swoop on rights workers," in which it was stated that "an RCMP officer was reported tracking a man in the bush outside Terrace," that "He was hunting human rights worker Ross Fedy" and "The RCMP officer was armed with a dismissal notice and nailed Fedy Friday afternoon."

The minister called these statements "outright lies, entirely fabricated by the author." He said further that legislative press gallery members had written stories based on the erroneous information in what he called a "pack journalism" syndrome.

Mr. McClelland told the Council that the extent of RCMP aid in the case was being asked about Mr. Fedy's whereabouts.

The Province, in response to the complaint, admitted the error and pointed out that a correction in Allen Garr's next regular column on July 14 had received widespread dissemination. The paper categorically denied the charges of "lies" and "fabrication" and said Mr. Garr had written the column in good faith, having no reason to doubt the information he had received from his sources.

Text of the Press Council's adjudication:

The Province did make an error of fact in a July 12 front-page column written by Allen Garr. While the newspaper openly admits to this error, the Council finds that it did not make an adequate correction of the type that would have been given to an error of fact in a news story of similar significance and prominent placement. The Council believes that, when a personal opinion column is given front-page treatment, it can be reasonably construed as a news story by the average reader. The Province policy, that errors of fact appearing in such columns be corrected only in subsequent columns, is inadequate.

The Council finds that the RCMP had been contacted by a Provincial Government official regarding Ross Fedy's whereabouts. They were not involved in tracking down Mr. Fedy in the bush to hand him his dismissal notice as stated by columnist Garr. This is the error in fact. Mr. Fedy received his dismissal notice from a provincial government official.

The Council finds that The Province did report fairly Mr. McClelland's reaction to the column. Further, columnist Garr notified his publisher as soon as he realized his error, which he acknowledged in his next regular column on July 14. It is the Council's opinion that a correction of the admitted error should have appeared in The Province's editions of July 13,

We find that Mr. McClelland's accusations that Mr. Garr wrote "outright lies" and that Mr. Garr's statements that were in error were "entirely fabricated" are unfair and unfounded. The Council believes Mr. Garr did follow normal journalistic practice in attempting to confirm his information. However, Mr. Garr should have tempered his use of information that was not positively verified.

Lastly, the Council finds that Mr. McClelland's accusations of "pack journalism" have no foundation in this instance.

MRS. BEVERLY UNGER vs GULF ISLANDS DRIFTWOOD

Mrs. Beverly Unger, a Saltspring Island member of the Islands Trust, complained that the weekly Gulf Islands Driftwood, published in Ganges, by use of certain words in reports of meetings, had engaged in "subliminal character assassination" of her and was campaigning to destroy her effectiveness as a trustee. (The Islands Trust is responsible for land-use regulation in the Gulf Islands.)

The complainant accused the paper of inaccuracies and omissions and of printing an "untruth" in reporting a statement by her at one meeting.

She said the Driftwood had published a letter to the editor about her containing material that was false and inaccurate, even after the writer of the letter had asked that it be withdrawn.

Driftwood publisher-editor, Tony Richards, told the Council it was "nonsense" that the paper was trying to ridicule the complainant.

He and his reporter, who read his notes to the Council, stood by the Driftwood story which Mrs. Unger claimed contained an untruth.

On the question of the letter to the editor, Richards said he did not receive the request to withdraw it until the paper had gone to press. "I regret the letter went in," he said.

The text of the Press Council's adjudication follows:

While the components of this issue seem to be more a matter of continuing community politics than a question of journalistic practices, the B. C. Press Council has addressed allegations made by Mrs. Unger.

1. Mrs. Unger accused the Driftwood of reporting "untruths." The Council finds this charge was not substantiated.

2. The Council upholds the complainant's contention that the Driftwood's choice of words on occasion puts her in an unfavorable light.

3. Mrs. Unger claimed the Driftwood is campaigning to destroy her effectiveness as a director of the Islands Trust. The Council feels that this claim cannot be substantiated on the basis of the evidence presented to it.

4. Mrs. Unger claimed the Driftwood printed a letter-to-the-editor containing material that it knew to be false and inaccurate. The Council finds that the Driftwood was alerted to the inaccuracies of the letter and should not have published it. Having published it, the paper, in its next issue, should have printed an apology for doing so.