Complaints Report: 1988

The Press Council received 39 complaints against the press in 1988, one less than in the previous year. Three hearings were held, one on a 1988 complaint and two on complaints held over from 1987.

Of the remaining 1988 complaints:

• Sixteen were not followed up by complainants, with no reason given. Some of these may have been settled between complainants and newspapers, with or without the Council's help.
• Two dealt with advertising, which is not a Council concern; the complainants were referred to the Advertising Standards Council.
• Fourteen were not suitable for Council consideration. Many of these consisted of mere differences of opinion with editorials or columnists, with the choice of articles for publication or with the way in which the news was presented. Complainants in these cases are reminded that the choice of what to publish and how to display it is a newspaper's prerogative, and that letters-to-the-editor sections of newspapers are normally available to readers to express contrary views, although papers are not obligated to publish all letters they receive (there were some complaints of non-publication of letters). Other complaints in this category were of a general nature, lacking the specificity required for Council consideration. Some complaints were not clearly defined. One was a complaint against the size of type in newspapers, somewhat outside the Council's field.
• Six complaints remained uncleared at year's end. Most if not all of these appear to have been abandoned by the complainants.

Details of hearings and adjudications in 1988 follow:

EWALD REMPEL vs THE (VANCOUVER) PROVINCE

The complaint involved construction of the Skytrain bridge over the Fraser River at New Westminster.

Rempel, of Rempel Bros. Concrete Ltd. of Abbotsford, told the Council that the paper ran a headline on Page 1 on a story reporting concerns that the bridge might have structural problems because of the way concrete had been poured, but did not give equal prominence to a later story in which the concerns were dispelled.

Divers had been sent down to check the bridge's footings, and Rempel said the paper should apologize to the taxpayers because of the expense involved.

Province Managing Editor Don MacLachlan pointed out that the story complained about had been preceded by one reporting that Municipal Affairs Minister Rita Johnston had ordered an investigation into the bridge's safety. Subsequent stories, including one reporting that the bridge had been given a clean bill of health, had appeared in prominent positions in news pages in the front part of the paper.

Text of the adjudication:

"The Council found that The Province had been diligent in covering the story of the Skytrain bridge as it developed, reporting on actions already taken by the minister of municipal affairs and following that with reports that dispelled doubts about the procedure used in bridge construction. The Council noted that the Rempel company was not named in any of the stories complained of

. "Mr. Rempel called for an apology from The Province to the taxpayers of B.C. for the 'unnecessary expense' involved in correcting impressions about the safety of the bridge. The Council found that the newspaper did not create those impressions but was merely reporting on actions taken by the responsible government officials.

"The complaint is dismissed."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

JOHN YOUNG vs (VICTORIA) TIMES-COLONIST

The complaint was about a report of the Victoria school board's passage of a bylaw governing school trustees' access to information in the board's files. The bylaw allows a trustee to have access but, if the reasons for access are not satisfactory to the superintendent of schools, the request for it is referred to the full board to rule on.

Young, a school trustee who had sought unimpeded access to files, complained to the Press Council that the story had damaged his image and his integrity as a trustee.

The first paragraph of the story read: "There will be no fishing expeditions or witch-hunts through the personnel files of staff and students in Greater Victoria School District..."

Young told the Council this indicated he wanted to win the right to indulge in witch-hunts and fishing expeditions, but he had never suggested he would do so.

A reference to possible witch-hunts and fishing expeditions had been made at the meeting by another trustee who supported the new bylaw.

Text of the adjudication:

"The Council heard no evidence to support Mr. Young's contention that the story was very misleading. In the lead paragraph, however, poor judgment was used in connecting another trustee's comments with Mr. Young's motives. Overall, the story was a fair and balanced report.

"Mr. Young was given reasonable redress by the Times-Colonist when his letter to the editor was printed on October 6. Subsequently a second letter, from former trustee Lavinia Greenwood, was printed, again clarifying Mr. Young's reasons for seeking access to personnel files.

"For these reasons the complaint is dismissed."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

BC FEDERATION OF LABOUR vs. (VICTORIA) TIMES-COLONIST

The federation complained about the report of a press conference held by its president, Ken Georgetti.

The report was headed: "Georgetti sees general strike if Bill 19 hinders. negotiations." The first paragraph read: "A general strike is possible this year if the government uses Bill 19 to interfere in contract negotiations, B.C. Federation of Labor president Ken Georgetti said Wednesday." A later paragraph read: "He said a general strike would be an option if the government interferes in the collective bargaining process."

The federation called the statements attributed to Georgetti "complete fabrications." Tom Fawkes, assistant to the federation officers, and Cliff Andstein, secretary, told the Press Council that at no time did Georgetti use the words "general strike."

Georgetti had been asked by a reporter at the press conference whether there would be a general strike if the government intervened in bargaining by the B.C. Government Employees' Union, and Georgetti had replied: "We are not ruling out any options."

The federation said it believed the Times-Colonist had altered the conference story that was turned in by its reporter in order to give it more prominence and "to meet the needs and goals of the newspaper."

Times-Colonist Managing Editor Gordon Bell told the council the story had been changed, at the suggestion of a city desk editor in consultation with the reporter, to stress the element of greatest interest to readers- -a common routine in newspaper newsrooms.

Bell said the fact that Georgetti did not use the words "general strike" was inconsequential; that his remarks were such that it was quite proper for the paper to paraphrase them. He said that from Georgetti's answer to the question about a general strike, the reade; was left in no doubt as to what the federation's ultimate response could be if the government were to interfere in the collective bargaining process.

Text of the adjudication:

"While the report was essentially a fair representation of what occurred at Mr. Georgetti's press conference, the Council found that aspects of his remarks had been marginally distorted, in the emphasis placed on the possibility of a general strike in the first paragraph and in the causal connection between certain government action and a possible strike that was the subject of the headline. The headline simply went further than the facts in the story substantiated.

"The Council found no evidence of deliberate distortion or fabrication on the newspaper's part.

"The Council did not agree with the federation's submission that because Mr. Georgetti had not spoken the words 'general strike' he had therefore not alluded to the possibility. The federation agreed that the possibility of a general strike had been raised in a reporter's question and that Mr. Georgetti had not ruled Out that possibility. However, the Council did find that this aspect of the press conference had been given exaggerated emphasis in the first paragraph and that this emphasis was compounded by a headline that went even further. In the Council's opinion, Mr. Georgetti, in not ruling out the option of a general strike when asked, was keeping that possibility alive. The Times-Colonist report reflected that, although the headline in particular magnified the possibility beyond what the situation called for.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top