Complaints Report: 1987

The Press Council received 40 written complaints against the press in 1987, 10 more than in the previous year. Three hearings were held, one on a 1987 complaint and two on complaints held over from 1986. In addition, two 1987 complaints were put ahead for hearing and adjudication in 1988.

Of the remaining 1987 complaints:

• Eleven were not followed up by the complainants. Some of these may have been settled between complainants and newspapers, with or without the help of the Council (in addition to one that definitely fitted this category).
• Four dealt with advertising, which is not a Council concern; the complainants were referred to the Advertising Standards Council.
• One involved an Alberta publication and was referred to the Alberta Press Council.
• One involved legal action and therefore could not be considered by the Council.
• Fourteen were not suitable for Council consideration. Most of these consisted of mere differences of opinion with editorials or columnists or with the choice of articles for publication. Complainants in these cases are reminded that letters-to-the-editor sections of newspapers are available to readers to express contrary views, and that selection of what to publish is a newspaper's prerogative. Other complaints in this category were of a general nature, lacking the specificity required for handling by the Council.
• Five remained uncleared at year's end.

Details of hearings and adjudications in 1987 follow:

H.W. WALTON vs ALBERNI VALLEY TIMES

The complaint involved coverage of the October, 1986, provincial election.

The Council agreed with reader H.W. Walton that the headline on a front-page story about the election results, "Skelly sinks into oblivion," was biased and not borne out by the story's content.

Publisher N.E. Hannaford told the Council at a hearing that he would have preferred a different headline but had no quarrel with its accuracy. (After the New Democratic Party's defeat in the election, Bob Skelly resigned as leader although he personally won a legislature seat in Alberni riding.)

A second headline criticized by the complainant, "NDP vote holding despite Skelly here," was on a bylined article by editor Rob Diotte, labelled "Times backgrounder." Hannaford said this pre-election story was clearly designated as an analysis piece and a degree of subjectivity was to be expected. The Council, however, felt it was not sufficiently identified as opinion.

Walton also objected to a caption under a photograph of the defeated Social Credit candidate in Alberni, Gillian Trumper. The caption read, "Down but not beaten," and the complainant said it should have been "Beaten but not down." The Times publisher had agreed, and had so told Walton in a letter responding to the complaint.

Text of the Council's adjudication:

"The Council agreed with the complainant that the headline 'Skelly sinks into oblivion' was biased and had no bearing on the content of the story that followed. In this respect only, the complaint is upheld.

"However, the Council criticized the paper for running an analysis piece in the Oct. 15 issue without adequately identifying it as opinion. The newspaper contended that the byline of editor Rob Diotte and the designation 'Times backgrounder' were sufficient to alert readers to its editorializing. But the Council found that the article's headline and placement made it appear like a news story and the term 'backgrounder' was a poor choice for an opinion piece.

"The photo caption 'Down but not beaten' was inaccurate and inappropriate. The Council noted that although publisher Hannaford had admitted in his letter to the complainant that the caption was inappropriate, nothing had been done by the paper to correct the impression it gave. However, in the Council's opinion, Mr. Hannaford's explanation in his letter to Mr. Walton should have satisfied him."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

JIM McDOWELL vs SUNSHINE COAST NEWS

The complaint concerned two stories written by John Burnside, publisher of the News, about meetings of local advisory bodies. Burnside had taken part in the proceedings as well as acting as reporter, and the complainant called this "irresponsible journalism" that had resulted in reports that were unfair and biased.

The complainant, Jim McDowell of Gibsons, accused the publisher of "using the news sections of his weekly newspaper to flog his personal opinions and bias."

At a hearing before the Press Council, Burnside denied the accusation and said he wrote the stories largely from the minutes of the meetings. He said there had been no attempt to deceive anybody.

Text of the adjudication:

"The Council ruled that the complainant failed to substantiate his claim that the stories in question were self-serving or biased. Nor was evidence presented substantiating the claim that Mr. Burnside's reporting of meetings in which he participated was long-standing practice.

"The Council said, however, that Mr. Burnside should have identified himself as the writer of the stories, either through a byline, referring to himself in the first person in the bodies of the stories, or by editor's note following the stories.

"On this one point only, the complaint is upheld."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top