Complaints Report: 1989

Thirty-one written complaints were received in 1989, compared with 39 in 1988 and 40 in 1987. At year's end, 230 written complaints had been received and 23 hearings held since the Press Council was formed in June, 1983.

In 1989 only one hearing was held. A report on the Council's adjudication appears below.

Of the remaining 1989 complaints:

• Nine were not followed up by the complainants. In most cases no reasons were given, but in at least one, the complainant reported obtaining satisfaction from the newspaper involved. Some others also may have been settled between complainants and newspapers, with or without the Council's help.
• Three related to advertising, which is outside the Council's terms of reference. Where appropriate, advertising complaints are referred to the Advertising Standards Council, B.C. Region.
• Two were criticisms of the press generally, lacking the specificity required for the Council's consideration.
• Two "borderline" complaints were referred to directors' committees, which decided there were insufficient grounds to warrant hearings.
• One complaint was against a newspaper that is not a member of the Press Council; the publisher declined to have the matter considered by the Council.
• Seven more complaints were not suitable for the Council's consideration. They included disagreements with opinions expressed in columns and letters to the editor, objection to details given in a murder story; complaints that papers would not publish press releases or letters to the editor, and a complaint that a paper did not cover a demonstration that involved the complainant. Complainants in such cases as these are reminded that selection of what to publish and what not to publish is a newspaper's prerogative, and that letters-to-the-editor sections are normally available to readers to express their views, although papers are not obliged to publish all letters they receive.
• Six complaints remained uncleared on December 31. Most if not all of these appear to have been abandoned by the complainants.

Following are details of the one hearing held in 1989:

DOUG COLLINS vs. THE VANCOUVER SUN

A complaint against the Vancouver Sun by columnist Doug Collins of the North Shore News concerned a Nicole Parton column on January 24 titled "Despite Denials Racism Abounds," in which quotations from a "North Shore newspaper columnist" were cited as an example of 'the language of hate." The Parton column was based on an interview with Aziz KhakL president of the Council for Racial Justice, who had been the subject of the Collins column from which the quotations were taken.

Neither Collins nor his newspaper was named, but Collins said it was clear that the reference was to his column, as only one newspaper is published on the North Shore and he was the only columnist who had written about Khaki.

The Collins column, published January 11, told of an effort by Khaki to organize an advertisers' boycott of the North Shore News because of the views expressed by Collins. Collins charged that Parton had ignored this background in quoting from his column and therefore was guilty of bad reporting.

In a second part to his complaint, Collins told the Press Council that the Sun had failed to publish a letter to the editor he wrote January 30 in response to the Parton column. He saw this as a denial of the right to reply. He said he received only vague answers when he phoned on two occasions to ask whether his letter was to be published.

Frank Rutter, editor of the Sun's editorial page, pointed out that Collins had responded to the Parton column in a column in the North Shore News of January 29.

Rutter said the Collins letter was not published because it dealt with an issue that was not raised in the Parton column and continued Collins' comments about Khaki. The letter could have presented legal problems, Rutter told the Council. and he did not feel that the Sun needed to get involved in the conflict between Collins and Khaki.

Text of the adjudication:

"Nicole Parton. like any other columnist, Mr. Collins included, has the right to selectively use information -- in this case, quotations from Mr. Collins' column -- to support her views. For this reason. the Council dismisses Mr. Collins' complaint of 'bad reporting.'

"While the Council agrees that Mr. Collins probably would have been recognized as the author of the quotations used by Mrs. Parton, it disagrees with his contention that he had an absolute right to have his letter to the editor of the Sun published.

"No newspaper is obliged to run every letter to the editor it receives. However, in this case the Sun could have considered explaining to Mr. Collins more promptly why his letter was not published, and extending to him the opportunity of submitting a different letter dealing specifically with what he saw as a personal attack.

"In spite of these considerations, the Council regretfully dismisses this part of the complaint on the technical grounds that newspapers are not obliged to grant automatic right of response."

(Mr. Collins, in subsequent letters to the Press Council and the editor of the North Shore News, wrote that he did not contend he had an absolute right to have his letter to the Sun published, but held that the Sun had a moral obligation to run the letter.)

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top