Complaints Report: 1995

Thirty seven complaints were received in 1995, the same as 1993. Up to the end of 1995, the Council had received 426 complaints and held 34 hearings.

Three hearings were held in 1995. Reports of the mediations appear below.

COMPLAINT STATISTICS:

ABOUT:

AGAINST:

DISPOSED OF:

THREE FORMAL HEARINGS:

DR. C PARFITT vs. THE VANCOUVER SUN

The B.C. Press Council has upheld, with one reservation, a complaint from a Cranbrook physician that an opinion article in the Vancouver Sun by a staff writer gave a misleading impression about the doctor's motivation and commitment to his work.

Dr. Christopher Parfitt, one of two orthopedic surgeons in the East Kootenays, complained that an article by columnist Barbara Yaffe painted an unfair picture of him as a greedy doctor who deliberately worked long hours to make more money. The article in question (A Doctor Who Pleads Poverty, Feb. 7, 1995) looked at the recent drive by the Teamsters to unionize B.C.'s 6,000 mostly-female medical office assistants, and some doctors' reactions to it, including Dr. Parfitt's.

Dr. Parfitt complained that Ms. Yaffe's article was misleading because it did not explain the reasons why his income had risen sharply in the last few years, although he had explained them to her in a telephone interview. Ms. Yaffe wrote that while Dr. Parfitt claimed his salary had risen only three per cent since 1982, his income from the Medical Services Commission had actually risen by more than 18 per cent, or more than $50,000, between 1992-93 and 1993-94.

Dr. Parfitt took particular exception to Ms. Yaffe's subsequent comment that "he (Dr. Parfitt) pointed out, given that doctors have received such paltry pay increases of late, he has had to work long hours-up to 80 hours a week! Not bad, to have such absolute control over one's income!'

At the Press Council hearing, Dr. Parfitt said the reason his income had risen sharply was two-fold. Firstly, as there were only two orthopedic surgeons in his region, both he and his colleague had agreed that one of them would always be on call, and that in the last year his colleague had taken more time off, leaving him with a heavier workload. Secondly, Dr. Parfitt said he had done more operations and saw more patients in the second half of the year because he had to-there was nobody else available. He said these facts were not included in Ms. Yaffe's story and should have been.

Patricia Graham, editorial page editor of the Vancouver Sun, said Ms. Yaffe's article was "fair comment'; and that Ms. Yaffe's comments about Dr. Parfitt's position on the Teamsters union drive and on his financial plight were well founded. In particular, Ms. Graham noted that despite what doctors might say about their financial situation, "doctors do have control over their incomes.. .and since they are paid from the public purse, this is clearly a matter for public comment.'

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION:

"The B.C. Press Council upholds the complaint, with one reservation.

"The Council finds that the column by Barbara Yaffe is flawed in two critical areas.

"'First: the headline 'Doctor Who Pleads Poverty,' is not supported either by evidence in the column, or by that which emerged during the hearing. At no point did Dr. Parfitt plead poverty. It should be noted that Ms. Yaffe did not write the headline.

"Second: In regard to the sentence 'But he (Dr. Parfitt) pointed out, given that doctors have received such paltry increases of late, in order to earn more money, he has had to work longer hours-up to 80 hours per week!' The Council finds that sentence to be misleading. It had the effect of transmitting to the reader that an increase in Dr. Parfitt's working hours was designed by him solely to generate greater revenue, to compensate for a low increase in doctors' fees.

"In fact, for reasons of professional commitment rather than monetary benefit, Dr. Parfitt assumed a heavier workload over extended periods, during which he was the only available orthopedic surgeon in the region.

"This circumstance did not find reflection in the wording of Ms. Yaffe's column.

"The Press Council has the following reservation: "The Press Council notes the Vancouver Sun's offer to publish a letter to the editor from Dr. Parfitt, and the courteous gesture by Patricia Graham to let him read and comment on the edited version before it ran.

"Dr. Parfitt did write such a letter; however, subsequent to editing, he declined this course of action, a course of action that could have reasonably voided the need for a hearing.

"At the hearing of this complaint The Sun repeated its offer to publish Dr. Parfitt's response.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

SVEND ROBINSON, MP vs. THE VANCOUVER PROVINCE

The B.C. Press Council has dismissed, with reservations, a complaint by MP Svend Robinson against the Province.

The complaint stems from the Feb. 4, 1994 front page headline in the Province which read "RCMP urge attorney-general: CHARGE SVEND.' Charge him for his participation in the Clayoquot Sound road blockade. Mr. Robinson claimed the RCMP never made such a recommendation, while Province reporter Barbara McLintock said it had.

The story, based on a tip from an unnamed source, said the RCMP had handed a report to Crown counsel which recommended charges of contempt of court be laid against Mr. Robinson and several others for their action at the Kennedy River bridge on July 5, 1 993. The report had been prepared by Staff Sergeant Bemie Johnstone, the RCMP site commander in charge.

What the Province did not know, however, was that Sgt. Johnstone had verbally advised Crown counsel when handing in his report that he personally felt that charges should not be proceeded with. He did this in keeping with RCMP policy that the investigating officer may offer his or her opinion about the wisdom of proceeding with charges when filing a report to Crown counsel.

At the reconvened Press Council hearing on July 24, Mr. Robinson said this proved the Province story was wrong because the routine report to Crown 'merely' suggested one course of action while the officer in charge had verbally recommended another-that charges not be proceeded with, In March, Sgt. Johnstone reiterated his views in writing to Special Crown Counsel.

Sgt. Johnstone's personal views finally became public knowledge on July 6, 1994, when Mr. Robinson appeared in court to answer a charge of criminal contempt of court as proposed in the February report. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Mr. Robinson was brought to trial because Crown counsel, as was his prerogative, had decided to proceed with the charge.

The Press Council finds that the Province newspaper acted in good faith in publishing the story on Feb. 4, 1994, but, as events proved, its information was incomplete because Sgt. Johnstone's personal views were unknown to the newspaper. Moreover, the headline overstated the matter somewhat since the report to Crown counsel did not inso many words "urge" anything but was merely a routine report for "proposed charges." The paper chose to rely on an undisclosed source and must be presumed to have accepted any risk from publishing it.

In dismissing the complaint, the Press Council has reservations about the conduct of the paper subsequent to Mr. Robinson's trial.

They are:

• When Sgt. Johnstone's views did become public in court on July 6, 1994, the Province had the opportunity of writing a follow-up story to clarify its Feb. 4 account. Indeed, the Province reporter attending the trial did report on Sgt. Johnstone's views but the reference was deleted "for space reasons," we were told, in the newspaper's account on July 7 of Mr. Robinson's trial.
  
  
• Instead, the newspaper printed a retraction in "For The Record' on July 8, in a format much less obvious than the large page one headline of Feb. 4th. What is more, the retraction may be erroneous because in it the paper said 'in fact, statements read into court this week as part of Robinson's sentencing hearing show that the RCMP actually recommended against the charges.' If by 'RCMP' one means the original report to Crown Counsel, the statement might be thought erroneous, but if one includes Sgt. Johnstone's written addendum to Special Crown Counsel in March, the statement is correct. This confusion would not have occurred had the newspaper spent more time in researching the course of events.
  
  
• The Press Council was concerned about the lack of preparation by the Province for the May hearing so that it became necessary to adjourn the proceedings to obtain all relevant material and make it available to the Council and to Mr. Robinson. Finally, we were asked by Mr. Robinson to find that the Province had acted deceptively by preparing an "erroneous' chronology of events for us, but while we believe the chronology was hastily and sloppily done, we do not believe there was any deliberate deception.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

LIONEL KENNER vs. NORTH SHORE NEWS

The B.C. Press Council has upheld, in part, a complaint against the North Shore News over the accuracy of some of freelance writer Doug Collins' columns.

The complaint by Lionel Kenner of North Vancouver detailed his contention that the paper showed flagrant disregard for the truth when it published several Collins columns in 1993 and 1994 in which the columnist took issue with widely held published views respecting the Holocaust.

Mr. Kenner complained that Mr. Collins had repeatedly used people's comments out of context, which gave a false impression of what the speaker had really meant, and that it was unconscionable for both Mr. Collins and the News to "publish those distortions." He said the columns had violated the first article (accuracy) of the Press Council's Code of Practice, namely that "Newspapers must guard against deliberate or careless publication of statements designed to mislead." And he asked the Council to rule that the columns breached this article, to instruct Mr. Collins and the News to issue corrections and apologies where appropriate, and to condemn both writer and paper for conspiring to publish "lies on a matter of the highest public importance."

Timothy Renshaw, editor of the North Shore News, disputed the allegations, saying the paper published Mr. Collins because he did what a good opinion columnist should do-provoke "disagreement and discussion' on numerous issues.

Doug Collins, at the Press Council hearing on July 24, defended his right to question assumptions about the Holocaust or anything else. "The road to the democratic state was long, hard and bloody and if democracy is to survive we must have the right to challenge orthodoxy."

Lionel Kenner wrote later that he had 'no vested interest in the Holocaust (were that it never happened!) but I do have an interest in an honest press.' What is in question, he said, "is not freedom of speech, but veracity.'

PARTS UPHELD

Among the numerous points with which Mr. Kenner takes issue, the Press Council finds the following to be particularly salient to the complaint. Specifically, they are from the Collins column of Aug. 18, 1993, 'The Story Keeps Changing.' and from a letter written by Mr. Collins and published by the News headlined 'Taking Tabloid Trash to Task' on Oct. 9, 1994. In the latter case, the Council regards the letter as another freelance opinion piece because it touches on material relevant to this complaint.

* In the column, which challenges the commonly accepted number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, Mr. Collins quotes Israeli scholar Yehudah Bauer as saying, 'The larger figures have been dismissed for years, except that it hasn't reached the public yet.' Examination of the original text in which that quote appeared, namely the New York Times of Nov. 12, 1989, shows clearly that Mr. Bauer was referring specifically to the number of Jews killed only at the German concentration camp Auschwitz in Poland.

However, Mr. Collins used that quote to support his challenge of the total number of Jews killed in all concentration camps.

* In the column, Mr. Collins refers to the Red Cross as a source of information that challenges the number of persons who died in the Holocaust. He said, 'So what difference does it make whether the figure was six million, or 300,000, as was stated by the Red Cross after the war?"

In this case, the Council finds that while Mr. Collins apparently accepted in good faith two reports ostensibly written by the International Red Cross about the number of concentration camp victims, Mr. Kenner has provided information from the International Red Cross headquarters in Geneva that unequivocably refutes the authenticity of those reports as being genuine Red Cross documents. And further, the IRC states emphatically that "the figures in these two documents cannot be interpreted to be representative of the total number of deaths in the Nazi concentration camps.

* Most glaring was a quote used by Mr. Collins, in his Oct. 9 letter, to support his statement: "I do not believe in the gas chamber stuff." Mr. Collins quotes Jewish academic Arno Mayer as writing that sources on the gas chambers are 'at once rare and unreliable.'

In fact, the full quote goes on to state... "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.. .there is no denying the many contradictions, and ambiguities in the existing sources. These cannot be ignored, although it must be emphasized strongly that such defects are altogether insufficient to put in question the use of gas chambers in the mass murder of Jews at Auschwitz."

The Press Council upholds the complaint on these points and finds that they breach the Code of Practice, Article One, in that they mislead the reader and misrepresent the original authors.

PARTS NOT UPHELD

The Press Council does not uphold Mr. Kenner's contention that several other points contained in the Aug. 18 column breached the Code of Practice, nor will it instruct the News to publish corrections and apologies; and it is unable to endorse the complainant's contention that Mr. Collins and the News conspired to mislead or to "lie.'

The Council respects Mr. Kenner's painstaking efforts to show that several other references in the Aug. 18 column were deliberate distortions. However, Council believes the Code's accuracy provisions must not be narrowly applied here because Mr. Collins was engaging in the expression of opinion, not writing a news story, and enjoyed the widest possible latitude. Therein lies the most rigorous expression of this Council's deep commitment to freedom of speech. Notwithstanding, the Council reminds Mr. Collins that such freedom is not licence to alter or misquote the expression of others.

Accordingly, the Council does not believe corrections to be appropriate because publication of this adludication by the News will effectively correct the three points of the complaint already upheld.

The Council feels compelled to offer some cogent words about what it believes to be at the heart of this complaint-the freedom to disagree. It must be noted that Mr. Kenner has been engaged in a war of words with Mr. Collins and the News for years, and now that war has spilled over into the Press Council's lap. And it is a dispute the Council cannot settle to anyone's satisfaction because the crux of the conflict is insoluble-different versions of "historical truth" held by two strong, articulate men.

That said, the Council believes it is inappropriate for Mr. Collins and the News to apologize for publishing opinion columns the complainant does not like or approve of, and because, in a real sense, this complaint is yet another chapter in a long, simmering disagreement over an interpretation of history.

In addition, the Council will not condemn Mr. Collins or the News for exercising their constitutional right of free expression any more than it would Mr. Kenner for exercising his. The Council believes that unpopular or controversial voices must be challenged but never silenced. The Council notes that the News did, and does, offer access to the airing of opposing views on its letters page. And Mr. Kenner's 40,000-word complaint shows that he is capable of sharing his views with the public, something which could only enrich his community should he choose to do so.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top