Complaints Report: 1985

The Press Council received 36 written complaints in 1985. Two of these reached the hearing and adjudication stage; two other hearings were held, and adjudications made, on complaints lodged in 1984.

Of the remaining 1985 complaints: eleven were not followed up by the complainants; thirteen were rejected as not being valid complaints or not falling within the Council's terms of reference (for example, some were concerned with advertising or circulation and some with the electronic media); one was against a non-member newspaper which declined to have the complaint considered by the Council; in nine cases, results are still pending.

In addition to the above, many written and telephone inquiries and comments short of complaints have been received and handled. Details of adjudications made after hearings in 1985 follow.

DR. PHILIP PINKUS vs NORTH SHORE NEWS

In a column in the News, on August 29, 1984, Doug Collins opposed the banning of the book, "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century," written by an American professor, A. R. Butz, which claimed the Holocaust was a hoax and that the Nazis did not kill six million Jews in the Second World War.

The column prompted an exchange between Collins and Dr. Philip Pinkus of West Vancouver, a professor of English at the University of B.C., who protested Collins' treatment of the issue. One of Dr. Pinkus' letters was reproduced in a subsequent Collins column and another was published as a letter to the editor.

Dr. Pinkus complained at the hearing that Collins lent credence to the Butz book by indicating it presented material about the Holocaust that should be considered seriously. He said people didn't see it as simply a column on book banning. He pointed out that the headline on the column, "How big was the Holocaust?", was not about book banning.

Dr. Pinkus said that in one of his columns, Collins had accused him of being a book banner, comparing him with Hitler, and that he had no opportunity to refute the accusation because the paper cut off debate on the issue. He declared he did not believe in banning books.

Noel Wright, editor-in-chief of the North Shore News, told the Council it was a matter of "apples and oranges" - Collins was talking about book banning and Dr. Pinkus about the validity of the book itself. He said Collins had cited some of the facts of the book but did not say it was credible.

Wright said he had closed debate on the issue because the paper had a backlog of letters on other subjects waiting to be printed. Collins told the hearing it was "rubbish" to suggest he was challenging the Holocaust; he was challenging censorship.

The Press Council partially upheld the complaint, in the following adjudication:

"The Council recognizes everyone's right to freedom of expression. However, it finds that Collins showed a reckless indifference to facts and evidence in lending some credibility to the book.

"Although Collins said in the columns that he recognized the Holocaust, he showed no inclination to research the facts on the issue, nor did he attempt to dispute any of the book's claims.

"The Council feels the headline on the initial August 29 column tended to lead readers to think the column questioned the facts of the Holocaust, rather than denouncing book banning.

"The paper acted unfairly in not reopening, however briefly, a debate on the issue in its letters-to-the- editor column. Editor Noel Wright said debate had been closed by way of notice in the letters section on September 19, but that a letter from Pinkus dated September 17 had arrived the day after the notice was published.

"In this letter, which has not been published, Pinkus denied the allegation made by Collins in his September 16 column that the professor was a book banner, as was Hitler.

"The Council feels the North Shore News should have allowed Pinkus space in order to refute the charge.

"An aspect of the Pinkus complaint was that Collins' 'real interest is to incite race hatred.' The Council found that supposition as to Collins' real intent could not be substantiated.

"In considering the series of columns and replies that were published in the North Shore News, the Council concluded that Collins' initial column was provocative, drawing an emotional and angry response from Pinkus. The debate deteriorated from there, with exchanges between the men that went from dddressing substantive points of disagreement into an exchange of vitriol and abuse."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

GARY SHORT vs THE (VANCOUVER) PROVINCE

This complaint concerned a letter-to-the-editor and an accompanying cartoon that expressed an opposing view. It was lodged by Gary Short, business manager and financial secretary-treasurer of Local Union 97, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers. In a letter published September 27, 1984, Short explained his union's position in opposing a proposal by an American company to build a plant at Duke Point near Nanaimo under an arrangement to pay wages lower than the industry standard in B.C. In the same ruled box as the letter, The Province ran a cartoon depicting a bulldog marked "unions" keeping a man marked "new industries" away from a house marked "British Columbia."

Short told the hearing that important parts of the letter had been eliminated by editing and that the whole point of his letter was destroyed by the cartoon.

Dan Illingworth, editor of The Province's editorial pages, told the Council that editing had been necessary to eliminate "obviously extraneous material" and to simplify the letter for the reader, and he felt nothing of importance had been left out.

He said the cartoon had been chosen because it illustrated the subject; The Province frequently ran cartoons opposing views expressed in letters and its own editorials. Getting conflicting views of a subject is what the letters page is all about, he said.

The Press Council's adjudication:

"The Council finds that the basic meaning of the letter was not significantly altered in its published, edited form.

"The insertion of a cartoon in such a fashion, while expressing an opposing view of the topic, is an accepted practice of newspapers.

"The complaint is dismissed."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

FIONA MCQUARRIE vs NORTH SHORE NEWS

This was a reader's complaint of bias in a story in the North Shore News about the Council hearing of Dr. Philip Pinkus vs. The News (described earlier), which had been held in private by Council directors' decision.

The story was a report by Editor-in-Chief Noel Wright.

The complainant, Fiona McQuarrie of North Vancouver, said it was biased in its presentation, rather than factually. By use of certain words describing each side's arguments, she said, "an unnecessary sarcastic attitude" was displayed toward the evidence of Dr. Pinkus. Because the article was presented as a news story, she contended it should have been subject to the same standard of objectivity as other news stories.

Roger McAfee, News general manager, denied the accusation of bias. He told the Council the complainant was unable to say whether the words used were inaccurate because the hearing had been closed to press and public and there was no other report with which the News story could be compared.

McAfee said the story was clearly labelled as different. Wright had explained: "Writing the story of your own trial isn't the type of reporting encouraged by the best schools of journalism. However, since I wound up as the only reporter present as well as being chief spokesman for the News, that's the best we can do for you this time."

The adjudication:

"Fiona McQuarrie's concern about the manner in which the B.C. Press Council hearing of March 21 was reported in the North Shore News on March 24 is shared by the Council. The report by Editor-in-Chief Noel Wright, who was a participant in the closed hearing, included considerable expression of personal opinion.

"While the Council is adamant that everyone should have freedom of expression, and works to preserve freedom of the press, it also encourages the highest ethical, professional and commercial standards in journalism. The Council determined that Mr. Wright's story failed to meet accepted standards of good journalism.

"At issue was a front page article that readers of the News were told was a news report, but which was really a personal account containing much opinion.

"The Council disagrees with the newspaper's contention that readers were sufficiently warned that the article contained 'a certain bias.' The first paragraph of the article referred to what followed as a ' news report.' It wasn't, and that was misleading.

"Had the article been displayed with Mr. Wright's regular column logo, or had been labelled 'analysis' (as is common practice in newspapers) there would be no grounds for the complaint.

"But because the editor wrote only his view of what happened in what purported to be a news story, the Council upholds the complaint."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

HOMI M. ENGINEER vs THE VANCOUVER SUN

Homi M. Engineer of Vancouver wrote a letter to the editor about investment in gold and silver, in which he disputed opinions expressed in a column by Der Hoi-Yin. This letter was published. Subsequently Der Hoi-Yin wrote a further column that disagreed with Engineer's views.

Engineer wrote another letter to counter the second column, but it was not published. He told the Council at a hearing that, because of this, he had been denied the opportunity to defend himself against being named "in an unflattering context." He also was concerned about the effect of the column on the public and on B.C. business.

He asked the Press Council to judge "whether the editorial privilege of rejecting publication has been overstepped."

The Sun, represented at the hearing by Editorial Page Editor Frank Rutter and Letters Editor Jack Ransay, held that Engineer had been given adequate space, in his first letter, to express his views. Rutter told the Council he felt that Engineer, a frequent correspondent, "was not so much complaining or correcting as riding a hobby horse on which we had already given him a good run."

The adjudication:

"The Council finds that publication of Mr. Engineer's first letter provided a fair amount of space for presentation of an opposing view to Der Hoi-Yin's. In passing over Mr. Engineer's second letter for publication, The Sun did not act contrary to accepted ethical practice regarding letters to the editor.

"The complaint is dismissed."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top