Complaints Report: 1990

Forty-two written complaints were received in 1990, more than in any previous year since the Press Council was formed in June, 1983 (the previous high was 40 in 1987). Up to December 31, 1990, the Council had received 272 written complaints and held 25 hearings since formation.

Two hearings were held in 1990. Reports on the Council's adjudications appear below.

Of the remaining 1990 complaints:

• One was held over for hearing in 1991.
• Four were withdrawn, the complainants apparently being satisfied with responses received from the newspapers involved.
• Fourteen were not followed up by the complainants, with no reasons being given. Some of these may have been settled between complainants and newspapers, with or without the Council's help.
• Five were general criticisms, lacking the specificity required for the Council's consideration.
• Two were duplications of other complaints.
• One was against a non-member newspaper, which declined to have the Council consider it.
• Nine were unsuitable for Council consideration. They included expressions of disagreement with opinions given in editorials, columns and editorial cartoons; objections to the way the news is presented, and complaints that letters to the editor were not published. Complainants in these cases are reminded that editorial writers, columnists and cartoonists are entitled to express their opinions, and letters-to-the-editor sections are normally available to readers to express theirs, although newspapers are not obliged to publish all letters they receive. It is pointed out that selection of what to publish and what not to publish is a newspaper's prerogative.
• Three 1990 complaints remained uncleared.

Following are details of the two hearings held in 1990:

BC FRUIT GROWERS' ASSOCIATION vs. OLIVER CHRONICLE

A contention that a newspaper should have respected the confidentiality of a "leaked" document was dismissed by the Council.

The B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, headquartered in Kelowna, complained about a story in the weekly Oliver Chronicle on January 17, 1990, that gave details of a proposal for a national apple marketing board.

The details had been contained in a document marked "confidential" that had been circulated in advance to 49 delegates to the association's annual convention. The proposal was to be discussed January 23 at a public meeting during the convention.

Gerald Geen, association president, said the proposal, prepared by a task force of which he was a member, was not in completed form. Before it was made public, he had wanted to tell association members that it was not "written in stone." He said publication of the Chronicle story had denied hni the opportunity of doing that.

It appeared that one of the 49 delegates had given the document to the Chronicle, but Geen maintained the paper should have respected its confidentiality.

Michael Newman, publisher of the Chronicle, said a press kit about the convention, issued in advance by the association, indicated that the apple marketing proposal was to be discussed, but gave no background. The paper's news editor got on the phone to to to get a copy of the task force report, and eventually reached a delegate who gave a copy to the paper.

Newman said it was obvious the proposal would have "tremendous impace' on the Okanagan area, and the report's news value was too great to ignore. He said the Chronicle had a responsibility to its readers to give them details of what was to be discussed at the convention.

Text of the Press Council's adjudication:

"The Council cannot support the contention of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association that the Oliver Chronicle should have respected the 'confidential' stamp on the document, and refrained from publishing a story about its contents.

"The salient point is that the Chronicle not only had the right, but the obligation and responsibility, to inform its readers of a major issue scheduled to be discussed at the association's public meeting.

"It is not reasonable to have expected the Chronicle to withhold information it deemed was in the public interest.

"Therefore the complaint is dismissed."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

GERMAN-CANADIAN CONGRESS vs. THE PROVINCE

The Council dismissed a complaint by the German-Canadian Congress, B.C. Region, about a column by Eric Nicol in the (Vancouver) Province. However, it criticized the paper's handling of the column, which expressed concern about the reunification of Germany.

The Congress contended that the column, published February 18, "was designed to spread hatred and prejudice against persons of German ethnic origin." The organization asked for an apology in which the newspaper would dissociate itself from the views expressed.

Klaus Fuerniss, president of the B.C. Region of the Congress, told the Council that the organization was particularly concerned about two paragraphs that he described as "pure racism."

Ian Haysom, editor-in-chief of the Province, said it was the paper's policy to run as wide a range of opinion as possible on an issue. It had been decided to publish the Nicol column because it added to the debate about reunification.

The paper had run pieces supporting reunification and, after the Nicol column appeared, had devoted much space to letters to the editor objecting to it.

Haysom also referred to a column he wrote himself, in which he stated his disagreement with Nicol' s viewpoint but defended publication of the column. He said that if he had personally edited the column before it was published, he would have eliminated one paragraph he felt "went too far."

Nicol told the Council he was sincerely sorry the column had offended, but no hatred had been intended. He said the purpose of the column was to express apprehension about unifying the two Germanys. He apologized for the writing style, but said he solidly defended the subject matter.

Text of the adjudication:

"Columnist Eric Nicol's choice of phrase in arguing the perils of a reunited Germany was unfortunate, insensitive and obviously perceived as an insult by members of the German-Canadian Congress, but the Press Council cannot support their contention that the column 'was designed to spread hatred and prejudice against persons of German ethnic origin.'

"The Province had the right to publish the column, which was in most part a legitimate expression of a point of view held by a number of people, and part of a broad spectrum of opinion on the issue of German reunification.

"It is the opinion of the Press Council that the Province, by publishing a variety of letters to the editor that were critical of the Nicol column, and through the column written by Editor-in-chief Ian Haysom, has done much to alleviate any perception on the part of the public that the newspaper supports Nicol's point of view.

"In summary, the Press Council cannot support the German-Canadian Congress call for a retraction and apology by the Province, because it cannot support the argument that the intention of the column was to incite hatred.

"Therefore the complaint is dismissed.

"However, it is the council's view that more careful scrutiny of the column could have averted the phrasing that led to the complaint."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top