Complaints Report: 1984

The Press Council received 34 written complaints in 1984. Six reached the hearing and adjudication stage before the end of the year, and two were put forward for hearing in 1985.

Of the remainder: 10 were not followed up by the complainants; six were rejected as not being valid complaints or not being within the Council's terms of reference; two were referred to the Advertising Standards Council; two were complaints against a non-member newspaper which declined Council consideration; one was a duplicated complaint; one was too old for consideration; one was referred to the Manitoba Press Council because the complaint was against a Winnipeg paper; one was dropped because the newspaper involved ceased publication, and, in two cases, word is awaited from the complainants as to whether they wish to proceed.

Two hearings held in 1984 were of complaints lodged in 1983.

Details of adjudications made after hearings in 1984 follow.

DR. ROGER BOSHIER vs THE (VANCOUVER) SUN

Dr. Roger Boshier of the University of B.C.'s adult education department complained about The Sun's coverage of an Operation Solidarity rally and march in downtown Vancouver in protest against the provincial government's restraint legislation.

Dr. Boshier said The Sun had shown "extraordinary bias" and had given the rally a "red smear" in using a picture that showed a group of people carrying signs bearing the words "Communist Party of Canada."

He said the story and picture of the event, in which 50,000 to 65,000 people took part, had been relegated to page 16 of the front section of the paper. (The event was on a Saturday; the story appeared in the next issue of The Sun on the following Monday.)

Bruce Larsen, managing editor of The Sun, told the Council the story had been placed on the inside page because the event was three days old and in the meantime had been given wide coverage elsewhere. The picture had been chosen to fit space available on the particular page, and there had been no intention of giving a ''red smear."

Subsequently, The Sun published several more pictures of the rally to illustrate letters-to-the-editor criticizing the picture used originally.

The Press Council's adjudication:

"The Council dismisses the complaint of Dr. Boshier that The Sun attempted to apply a red smear to the entire march. Council also rejects his allegation of-extraordinary bias."

"However, the council points out that The Sun's subsequent display of other pictures available (along with numerous letters of criticism regarding the selection of the picture) shows that something more broadly representative of the Solidarity march could have been used."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

PETER POLLEN vs THE (VANCOUVER) SUN

Mayor Peter Pollen of Victoria accused The Sun of grossly biased reporting compounded by a refusal to accept any criticism of their reporting through their correspondence columns."

His complaint concerned a special report from Ottawa by Glenn Bohn entitled "Japanese-Canadians and the War." The article was based on documents made available from the public archives that revealed wide-ranging information on the internment of Japanese-Canadians and the selling of their properties during the Second World War.

Mayor Pollen claimed The Sun had failed to give its readers "another side of the story," as the Toronto Globe and Mail had done in an article that offered reasons for the federal government's actions against Japanese-Canadians at the time.

The mayor described the Globe and Mail article as an attempt to put the issue in historical perspective, which The Sun had not. He said The Sun had not published a letter he wrote to the editor in an effort to give readers some balance, but had published another letter complimenting the paper on the story.

Frank Rutter, The Sun's Editorial page editor, told the Council he did not know why Mayor Pollen's letter was not published, but it may have been because of the volume of letters at the time and the emergence of other issues. He said the one letter that was used contained only one reference to the article and went on to publicize an event at the University of B.C.

Rutter said The Sun had, through the years, published stories and editorials covering other aspects of the Japanese--Canadian wartime issue.

The Press Council's comments:

"Council had difficulty determining the specific nature of Mr. Pollen's complaint. He made use of the phrase 'grossly biased reporting' in the opening paragraph of his letter of complaint but subsequently dwelt on a broader view of The Sun's coverage of this issue.

"Council had to decide whether the complaint was limited to an allegation of bias in the news story by Glenn Bohn, or whether The Sun had failed to provide, in general, the historical perspective of this Japanese- Canadian issue over a period of time.

"The Council concluded the complaint was not that the specific article by Mr. Bohn was by itself biased, but that The Sun over a period of time has not made space available for fuller coverage and other points of view on the matter.

"The Council determined that the article by Mr. Bohn was not biased. It dealt with a specific aspect of a much wider story of how Japanese-Canadians were treated during the war and the subsequent issue of redress that now is topical.

"However, as this is not considered by Council to be the essence of the complaint, the Council then considered whether The Sun had provided the broader historical perspective that Mr. Pollen feels was lacking.

"Based on the evidence presented to Council by Mr. Pollen and The Sun, the Council finds it impossible to determine whether The Sun's overall coverage on this matter has been biased.

"Given the enormous breadth and depth of this issue, the Council feels it is beyond its scope.

"One of the factors that led Mr. Pollen to lodge his complaint was that his letter expressing another viewpoint was not published. Had the Sun printed Mr. Pollen's letter in whole or in part, the Council feels this complaint likely would not have come before it."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

NELSON WOMEN'S CENTRE vs NELSON DAILY NEWS

This complaint involved an editorial sequel to a controversy about an advertisement for workboots that depicted a scantily-dressed young woman.

The advertisement prompted a debate in the letter-to-the- editor section of the paper and a complaint to the Advertising Advisory Board in Toronto. The board declared it to be in contravention of its guideline that "advertising should not exploit women or men solely for attention-getting purposes."

The News subsequently reproduced the advertisement on its opinion page, accompanied by a publisher's message that cut off further letters debate. It said the advertisement had appeared in many other publications and at trade shows and had drawn no complaints except from the Nelson area.

"We find it curious that in Nelson, which in many respects claims to be the artistic centre of southeast B.C., there are members of that community who are the first to present the fig leaf to the unveiled statue," the message read. "To those people who wrote us and the advertiser claiming to see sexual connotations in such other parts of the ad as the apple, the axe and the trees: we suggest that you seek psychiatric help."

The Women's Centre, represented at the hearing by Mary Murray and Carol Beauchamp, complained about the publisher's comments and closure of the debate.

The Centre called the reference to psychiatric help "an abuse of ethical media standards" and added: "To suggest that those who oppose offensive advertising are in some way mentally unbalanced demonstrates a totally subjective bias."

The Centre said the cutting off of letters was "an abuse of a newspaper's power and position as a vehicle for informed and open debate." It said there had been no opportunity to respond to the publisher's comments.

Daily News publisher Steen Jorgensen told the Press Council he was unable to attend the hearing. In a letter, he said his comment about psychiatric help was "not aimed at the people who merely found the ad disturbing." He said there had been more than reasonable time for debate, considering that letters on the subject had been run on six separate days. "We have other community groups who wish to express their views on other subjects that also require space in the paper," he said.

The Press Council's adjudication:

"The Council acknowledges that every editor or publisher has the right to cut off debate on its opinion pages on any single issue when it is felt that the issue has been sufficiently aired. However, the Council feels that the manner in which debate was cut off in this instance was less than admirable. The publisher left the community with no opportunity to respond to his editorial comment. We find this unfair. By reprinting the advertisement, the publisher aggravated the situation. This was unnecessary. The publisher's comment --specifically the sentence 'To those people. . . you seek psychiatric help' -- showed poor taste and was a demeaning dismissal of legitimate concerns about an advertisement subsequently found to be in contravention of the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board's standards.

"The Council emphasizes that no position is being taken on the advertisement itself, nor any women's issue. Its comments are confined to the scornful manner in which the publisher dealt with the Nelson Women's Centre and its handling of this issue.

"The Council believes the Nelson Daily News should have permitted time and space for a response to its publisher's message and that the message itself contained distasteful comments.

"The Council was disappointed that no representative of the newspaper attended the hearing.

"The complaint is upheld."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

LOUISE HORNBY vs (VICTORIA) TIMES-COLONIST

Louise Hornby of Victoria complained that a column written by Gorde Hunter referred to homosexuals "in a most derogatory fashion."

She specifically objected to the use of the word "queer, which, she said, "reinforces negative images of homosexuals in the minds of the public."

"I ask that homosexuals be treated with the same respect as other minorities," Ms. Hornby told the Council. She asked that the paper print an apology.

Times-Colonist Managing Editor Gordon Bell told the Council that "people use expressions like 'queer' all the time."

He said this was a case of one person expressing an opinion and others disagreeing with him. The paper had published four letters-to-the-editor criticizing the column, and did not intend an apology.

The Press Council's adjudication:

"Virtually all newspaper columnists will offend some individuals or groups at some time. Restraints exist, however, and are to be found in the laws of libel. Beyond that, it becomes a matter of personal taste and responsibility.

"Although in this instance the Council recognizes that the column has offended some people, it nevertheless agrees that the paper has no reason to apologize. The Council feels that the paper has dealt with the matter adequately by publishing all letters received that were critical of the column.

"The complaint is dismissed."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

NORTH SHORE PRO LIFE SOCIETY vs. THE (VANCOUVER) PROVINCE

The complaint arose from a column in the paper's Sunday magazine, "The Last Word." by Anthony Ward, which dealt with the use of words by the Pro Life movement.

The North Shore Pro Life Society, represented at the hearing by its president, Ross Labrie, complained that the column insulted and misrepresented the movement, and asked for a retraction and an apology.

Mr. Labrie told the Council the column contained errors in fact. One statement read, "The only life they are pro is the life of the human fetus"; Mr. Labrie said the movement had far wider concerns, including euthanasia, care of the handicapped and the elderly and counselling for expectant mothers.

The column cited as "an example of Pro Life deceit" an anti-abortion advertisement in a weekly newspaper. Mr. Labrie said the advertisement, as stated beneath it, was not paid for by Pro Life but by a citizen who was not a member. "Pro Life had nothing to do with it," he said.

The Province's Sunday editor, Geoffrey Molyneux, told the Council the purpose of the Anthony Ward column was to explore the use of words. "The idea is to be provocative, not present a balanced expression of views," he said.

Mr. Molyneux pointed out that a subsequent Last Word column was devoted to letters expressing opposing views. The Province had gone further than most newspapers in running the letters in the column instead of on the letters-to-the-editor page.

Mr. Labrie countered that this presentation was inadequate. He said a paragraph at the head of the letters said the column "questioned the intellectual honesty" of Pro Life, and this indicated the column was "essentially an attack on Pro Life."

In reference to the claimed errors in fact, Mr. Molyneux said that in the public mind, Pro Life was mainly associated with the abortion issue. He called the question of the advertisement "a misreading by Mr. Ward."

The Press Council's adjudication:

"The Council found that the Feb. 12 column by Anthony Ward -- a pseudonym for an unnamed freelance writer -- strayed from its stated purpose. Rather than exploring use of words, this particular column was in fact an attack on the Pro Life Society. The Council expressed some concern about the inflammatory language used to present this viewpoint.

"While the Council recognizes that a columnist is free to condemn strongly, it cannot condone opinions that are at least partially based on errors in fact. Mr. Ward says, 'One example of Pro Life deceit was an advertisement in a local paper showing three pictures.' He implies that this ad was a Pro Life-designed and sponsored ad. In fact it was not. More seriously, the Council found that Mr. Ward misrepresented the goals of the Pro Life Society as a result of another error in fact. He says, 'The only life they are pro is the life of the human fetus,' and uses this statement to claim that the society is 'engaged in a bit of deception, or more precisely, a lie.'

"The Council is aware that, in the minds of many, the Pro Life Society is primarily concerned with the abortion question, but in fact has broader concerns, including euthanasia.

"In these respects, the complaint is upheld.

"The Council noted that newspapers should aspire to replacing misconceptions with facts, not to perpetuate the misconceptions.

"The Council addressed Mr. Labrie's request that The Province make a statement of regret in relation to this column. It was noted that newspapers generally bring corrections of errors in fact as soon as practical after they become known. In this case, because The Province spokesman said he became aware of one of these errors only at the Sept. 6 hearing, the Council hopes these errors will now be corrected."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

DR. DALE LOEWEN vs. WILLIAMS LAKE TRIBUNE

Dr. Loewen claimed that an editorial had been intended to injure his reputation.

The editorial said Dr. Loewen, who was then medical health officer for the Cariboo, had gone "beyond traditional health-related bounds to expound on the morals of modern society" in his annual report to the Cariboo Health Unit.

The report included denouncements of abortion and reference to spirituality, and the editorial said Dr. Loewen was setting himself up as judge and jury of the morals of mankind."

The editorial continued: "What does that mean, we wonder, to a pregnant and unwed teenager seeking help from the health unit? Will the first action be providing clinical aid, or will it be asking God to cast her soul into Hell?"

Dr. Loewen objected to this and said the health unit does not deal in this area.

Tribune Publisher R.J. Grainger told the Council the question was rhetorical. He said the paper was not trying to judge Dr. Loewen's beliefs and bore no animosity toward him, but felt his beliefs did not belong in a health ministry report. The paper had given Dr. Loewen and supporters ample space to state their views in letters to the editor.

Neither Dr. Loewen nor a representative of the paper appeared at the hearing.

The Press Council's adjudication, based on written submissions only:

"The Council found that the Tribune's editorial was fair comment on the remarks made by a public figure in a public report.

"Based on Dr. Loewen's statements of personal belief in the public report, the newspaper posed a rhetorical question. This was not inappropriate.

"The complaint is dismissed.

"It is unfortunate that neither party attended the hearing."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

DR. ROBIN RIDINGTON vs. NORTH SHORE NEWS

Dr. Robin Ridington, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of B.C., cited a series of columns by Doug Collins which, he said, fostered prejudice against women and ethnic groups including native Indians and East Indians.

He said the columns had, in effect, told readers it was acceptable to deprecate certain members of the community because of the groups to which they belong.

The columns contained factual errors, said Dr. Ridington, and showed a pattern of intentional misrepresentation to create prejudice.

Noel Wright, editor-in-chief of the News, said the issue was really freedom of the press; there had been no evidence of the columns harming anyone, and no factual errors had been proved. He said the paper had run many letters for and against Collins, and that the complaint amounted to a difference of opinion between Dr. Ridington and Collins.

The editor told the hearing that Collins' views invariably related to a specific issue of public interest and not merely to the general racial, ethnic or other characteristics of a particular group for their own sake.

He said associates of Dr. Ridington had tried to cause financial damage to the News by asking businesses to stop advertising in the paper unless Collins was fired.

Collins told the hearing: "In the history of newspapers in B.C., there has never been a program of vilification against a reporter or columnist like this one."

He said some people might not like what he writes, "but I should be entitled to write what I want. A newspaper column is not a popularity contest-- it's to express opinion. The question is whether you have freedom of expression or not."

The Press Council's adjudication:

"Dr. Ridington complained that the overall impact of Collins' 'pattern of misinformation' and pejorative statements concerning minority groups in Canada 'deprecates the reality and validity of our multicultural Canadian society.'

"The Council feels that Collins, as he readily conceded, does indeed deprecate the multicultural aspect of the Canadian makeup, and that his commentary on occasion is offensive to many people.

"However, the Council feels that Collins' right to do these things, in the tradition of freedom of expression, must be accepted.

"The Council was guided by the principle that one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society is freedom of expression. The Press Council's own first stated objective is 'to preserve the established freedom of the press.

"That Collins' commentary frequently is distasteful to some members of the community is beyond argument. But those persons and groups, the Council feels, have access to appropriate avenues to express their dissatisfaction with Collins ' views and his manner of expressing them. The newspaper's letters-to-the-editor columns particularly afford that opportunity and, in the case of the North Shore News and the Collins controversy, have done so.

"The claims that Collins indulged in errors of fact and that his writing contained misinformation were found to be unsubstantiated by the evidence presented to the Council...

"For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

TERRILL PATTERSON vs SQUAMISH TIMES

Terrill Patterson of Garibaldi Highlands complained that a letter to the editor and its heading disparaged him and was attributed only to " a contributing contractor -- name withheld upon request.

He objected that a letter attacking a person should have been published anonymously and that he had been held up to ridicule. The letter's heading read, "Poo poo you Mr. Patterson."

No representative of the Squamish Times appeared at the hearing. However, assistant publisher Rose Tatlow wrot.e the Council that the paper had followed its policy that it must know the name of a letter writer but did not have to disclose it.

The Press Councils' adjudication:

"The Council finds that it is an established practice in the newspaper industry for publishers and editors to decide on some occasions to run unsigned letters, while knowing who the writers are, and that this is their prerogative.

"The Council finds that the letter was demeaning to Mr. Patterson and had the effect of lowering his reputation in the community. This part of the complaint is upheld.

"The Council finds that the headline is not a significant issue, and rules against this part of the complaint.

"The Council was disappointed that the newspaper did not make available all the information in this case, and that no representative of the newspaper appeared at the Council hearing."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top