Complaints Report: 1992

Fifty one complaints were received in 1992 compared with 39 in 1991. Up to the end of 1992, the Council had received 352 complaints and held 28 hearings.

One hearing was held in 1992. Reports of the Council's adjudications and mediations appear below.

COMPLAINT STATISTICS:

ABOUT:

AGAINST:

DISPOSED OF:

Following are the details of the hearing held in 1992:

REFORM PARTY OF CANADA (SAANICH AND GULF ISLANDS CONSTITUENCY ASSOCIATION) vs. VICTORIA TIMES-COLONIST

A contention that a newspaper should give preferential treatment editorially to a paid advertiser has been dismissed by the B.C. Press Council.

The Reform Party of Canada (Saanich and the Gulf Islands Constituency Association) complained to the council about a front page story in the August 15 issue of the Victoria Times-Colonist that it claimed held the party up to public "ridicule." The offending article was based on an advertisement the Reform Party had placed in the business personals section of classified the same week.

The Reform Party constituency association was advertising for candidates interested in contesting the next federal election. The association objected to the placement of its ad - between one for 'Exotic Aerobic Video' and another for 'Giggles 'N Grins Singing Telegrams.'

When the ad formed the nucleus of a Page One story on the party's search for a candidate, the constituency president, Mr. L. E. Kirk, complained to the Times-Colonist that "it was unethical to use our advertisement, for which we were paying, as the basis of a joke."

At a public hearing into the matter, Mr. John Wells, managing editor of the Times-Colonist, said that it was the policy of the newspaper to report and comment on what it liked, with no regard to whether or not the person or party under discussion was a paying advertiser. Mr. Rean Meyer, speaking for the constituency association, said the Times-Colonist had committed a breach of trust between client and agent and should not have held the party up to ridicule over the strange placement of its classified ad.

For clarification of the issue it should be noted that the first line of the Reform Party ad, in all caps, read: 'ARE YOU A BUDDING JOHN', followed on the second line with, 'A. MacDonald or a Winston Churchill?' The headline on the Times-Colonist story of August 15 read: 'Another John, eh? Reform offer there amid exotic videos.'

Text of the Press Council Adjudication, April 22, 1992:

"The Reform Party of Canada argued that a classified advertisement seeking candidates had been insensitively placed in the 'business personals' category of the Times-Colonist Aug. 15, 1991.

"A spokesman for the Saanich and Gulf Islands Constituency Association of the party said he was 'chagrined' at the ad placement, and felt that the Page One story that followed - which he said ridiculed his party - was a breach of trust between agent and client.

"The Reform Party representative also said he believed the fact that his party had spent money on the advertisement, and previous other advertisements, should have resulted in more sensitive treatment of his party in the newspaper.

"In a unanimous adjudication, the Press Council ruled:

"1. The placement of the advertisement resulted after consultation with the representative of the Reform Party of Canada who placed it.

"2. The Page One story that followed was not malicious, but rather constituted fair comment on a situation and a political party in the public eye.

"3. That the Reform Party of Canada spokesman unrealistically expected the newspaper to give preferred treatment to the Reform Party because it was an advertiser.

"Although the B.C. Press Council does not normally adjudicate in advertising matters, it endorses the principle of clear separation between advertising interests and unbiased reporting and placement of news items.

"The Reform Party of Canada's complaint against the Victoria Times-Colonist is therefore dismissed."

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top